On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:08:45 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Alexis Ballier schrieb:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The other thing is:
We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution
(multilib-portage) and I propose
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:12:25 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió:
[...]
The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong
argument yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:58 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is just my own view on this and NOT complete, Tommy[D] will
probably have a more complete list what the eclasses currently lack
and where they will fail.
Mgorny will have a more complete list why multilib-portage is a
On 03/02/2013 12:08 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
eclass level:
pro:
- easier to maintain (eclasses are generally easy understandable)
- quicker to fix and to extend
- solution is NOW available
con:
- more likely to break stuff as all eclass based solutions, because
there are no
I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly
understand the issue with ABI specific headers.
The problem is:
a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel
somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and
fixing on your fellow devs
b) just
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly
understand the issue with ABI specific headers.
The problem is:
a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel
somehow responsible for
On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
The other thing is:
We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution
(multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until
that conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what
I actually think makes
On 27/02/2013 18:10, hasufell wrote:
a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel
somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and
fixing on your fellow devs
I'd say the only real mistake has been not keeping it masked to begin with.
Just so we're clear with
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
The other thing is:
We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution
(multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until
that conflict is
On 02/27/2013 07:27 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
The other thing is:
We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution
(multilib-portage) and I propose not to
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:58 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Afaiu this seems to be mainly a PMS thing. And changing PMS is slow
and painful, so no wonder people rather want to go for eclass based
solutions.
Eh, the only reason it's slow and painful for multilib is that no-one
seems
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:10 +0100, hasufell escribió:
I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly
understand the issue with ABI specific headers.
The problem is:
a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel
somehow responsible for the consumers
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió:
[...]
The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument
yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear.
What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :)
I also read that
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:20:46 +0100
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
About PM-solution... I can't remember how many years we are waiting it
for being approved, and neither remember what was blocking it for
inclusion in eapi5 (as that threads usually end up being fairly long
and ending with
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly
understand the issue with ABI specific headers.
The problem is:
a) if you break
Alexis Ballier schrieb:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The other thing is:
We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution
(multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until
that conflict is solved, even if it means a
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió:
[...]
The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument
yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear.
What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :)
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:08:45 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Alexis Ballier schrieb:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The other thing is:
We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution
(multilib-portage) and I propose
18 matches
Mail list logo