On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> 12) EAPI 3 supports .xz, .tar.xz
>
> easy so should be in
Easy, so can we also have .xpi unpack support?
--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> * what the plan is for Portage implementation of that feature, and the
> likelihood of it making it
>
We should have someone dedicated to seeing each item implemented. For
example someone from the council.
Follows a quick list with hopefully no brain farts. In gener
Am Donnerstag, den 26.03.2009, 19:12 +0100 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On 12:25 Mon 23 Mar , Robert Buchholz wrote:
> > On Monday 23 March 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > Spec needed. DOCS or no DOCS?
> >
> > DOCS, and non-empty default value, please [1].
> > Some eclasses already do this (no
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:09:17 +0100
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I like dosed because I've used it many times for the $D-removing
> feature. If there was (is?) an automatic filter at install-time that
> scanned files to remove $D references, that would work for me instead.
The fix is to write code t
On 12:25 Mon 23 Mar , Robert Buchholz wrote:
> On Monday 23 March 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Spec needed. DOCS or no DOCS?
>
> DOCS, and non-empty default value, please [1].
> Some eclasses already do this (not base, but others), and if that
> default doesn't cover it for you, the functi
On 23:23 Wed 25 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:06:37 +0100
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > 10) dohard and dosed banned in EAPI 3
> >
> > I think I missed the reasoning for removing these, particularly
> > dosed. pybugz didn't see any open bugs.
>
> Portage doesn't merge
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> The behaviour of || ( use? ( ... ) ) is a fluke of an early
> implementation of Portage that someone picked up on and documented (with
> incorrect examples). It's *already* special, weird behaviour, and it's
> special, weird behaviour that
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:25:18 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> The replacement is to write the deps out correctly. Every single
> >> use of || ( use? ( ... ) ) in the tree is wrong.
>
> That its use in the tree is often wrong is a non-argument. After all,
> it's not the package manager's business
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 25.03.2009, 23:23 + schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
>> > > 9) EAPI 3 bans || ( use? ( ... ) )
>> >
>> > What is the suggested replacement? If there's a decent one, sure.
>>
>> The replacement is to write the deps out correctly. Ever
Am Mittwoch, den 25.03.2009, 23:23 + schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:06:37 +0100
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > 9) EAPI 3 bans || ( use? ( ... ) )
> >
> > What is the suggested replacement? If there's a decent one, sure.
>
> The replacement is to write the deps out correctl
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:18:52 +0100
[snip]
> 12) EAPI 3 supports .xz, .tar.xz
[snip]
Could we have EAPI 3 also support extracting .xpi files? Right now
ebuilds use xpi_unpack() from mozextension.eclass which is ugly as
hell. It seems it sho
Am Mittwoch, den 25.03.2009, 23:26 + schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:08:37 +0100
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > 8) EAPI 3 requires doins support for symlinks
> >
> > Current behaviour is to copy the file the symlink points to, right?
>
> No, current behaviour is undefined for
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:08:37 +0100
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > 8) EAPI 3 requires doins support for symlinks
>
> Current behaviour is to copy the file the symlink points to, right?
No, current behaviour is undefined for not a file.
> > 14) EAPI 3 supports pkg_info on installed packages
> you proba
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:06:37 +0100
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > 9) EAPI 3 bans || ( use? ( ... ) )
>
> What is the suggested replacement? If there's a decent one, sure.
The replacement is to write the deps out correctly. Every single use of
|| ( use? ( ... ) ) in the tree is wrong.
> > 2) EAPI 3
On 20:38 Sun 22 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 1) EAPI 3 has pkg_pretend.
> 3) EAPI 3 has use dependency defaults
> 5) EAPI 3 has a default src_install
> 15) USE is stricter in EAPI 3
> 19) RDEPEND=DEPEND gone in EAPI 3
> 22) EAPI 3 has nonfatal, utilities die
Very Yes. I would really like to
On 21:18 Sun 22 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev
> list to see.
Here's a very simple agenda. I'm at a conference this week, so I'm glad
there weren't a
On Monday 23 March 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Spec needed. DOCS or no DOCS?
DOCS, and non-empty default value, please [1].
Some eclasses already do this (not base, but others), and if that
default doesn't cover it for you, the function can be overridden.
Concerning the argument of declarative
Am Sonntag, den 22.03.2009, 20:38 + schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:18:52 +0100
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
> > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev
> > list to see.
>
>
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:18:52 +0100
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev
> list to see.
Continuing the whole EAPI 3 thing...
http://github.com/ciaranm/pms/tree/eapi-3
Sorry about the delay on this -- I wrote it on a computer that somehow
fails at sending email and forgot it was in drafts.
This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you hav
20 matches
Mail list logo
