On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23:58 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
app-vim/ant
Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we
have categories.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 08:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23:58 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
app-vim/ant
Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we
have
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:09 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we
have categories.
Sure, and along those lines upstream seems to call it ant_menu or
ant_menu.vim :)
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:09 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we
have categories.
Sure, and along those lines upstream seems to call it
On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:48:11 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=155
Not for the versions in the tree they don't.
You mean 0.5.3 released 2003-12-28. IMHO that borderlines a stale
package or one that should be punted. Or
On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a
dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you justify calling Java a
dead language.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Sled wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a
dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's
I'm having a hard time trying to
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 13:07 -0400, Josh Sled wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a
dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely
wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the
same name, but in different
It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages
with the same name, you have the same problem.
On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
app-vim/ant
and app-vim/sudo
IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other
than just ant.
or
Thilo Bangert napsal(a):
It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages
with the same name, you have the same problem.
On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
app-vim/ant
and app-vim/sudo
and app-xemacs/emerge, g
--
jakub
signature.asc
While I always was for uniq package names, tree-wide, renaming doesn't solve
anything. Gentoo's binary packages are fundamentally broken. You can't have
two binary packages of the same ebuild differing e.g. in use flags,
architecture, toolchain, etc. pp. either.
Carsten
signature.asc
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200
Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages
with the same name, you have the same problem.
On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
app-vim/ant
and app-vim/sudo
That's
Quoting Mike Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200
Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other
than just ant.
or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a
number of ebuilds
14 matches
Mail list logo
