On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > That would make it
> > impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
> > duplication.
>
> It isn't duplicated, description is per ebuild and could change,
> metadata is for the package as whole.
can y
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
> > atoms?
>
> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
> various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
eh
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> And there aren't specification-compliant Yaml libraries for Ruby,
> Python or Perl. That's important. If you're using the thing that Syck
> generates, you're not using Yaml.
Sorry for starting this off-topic discussion. I'd suggest that we first
concentrate on what we wa
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:11:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's
> > still a pain in the ass to handle...
> >
>
> Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different
> than r
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's still a
> pain in the ass to handle...
>
Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different
than ruby python and perl... =/
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:46:05 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
> > only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
> > bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically y
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
> only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
> bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically yaml except
> with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly", in which
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> Petteri Rýty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying tha
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:18:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
> >> make it impossible to us
Petteri Räty schrieb:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186454
In regard to this it makes sense to add a check (but only a warning) to
repoman and document it in the devmanual.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
>> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
>> duplication.
>
> Got to be careful he
Petteri Räty schrieb:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
>> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
>>> atoms?
>> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
>> various
On Tuesday, 24. July 2007 14:26, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> >
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
> >> make it impossible to use ${PV} and more i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
>> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
>
>
>
>
> sounds like something for EAP
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
>> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
>> duplication.
>
> Got to be careful
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
>> atoms?
>
> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
> various extensions, and say so in D
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
> duplication.
Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated tha
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
> atoms?
Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
sig
Tiziano Müller wrote:
As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself
(rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change
between versions, whether "automatically" by using a version-dependent
variable or "manually".
Well, from what I understand, DESCRIPTION
Tiziano Müller kirjoitti:
> Petteri Räty schrieb:
>> Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
>> description which leads to results like:
>> Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
>> Java SDK version 1.6.0
>>
>> I did see anything in devmanual tak
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> Petteri Rýty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying
Petteri Räty schrieb:
> Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
> description which leads to results like:
> Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
> Java SDK version 1.6.0
>
> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
> htt
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
I think that this is a great idea, for the reasons which you stated. I
certainly hope this will not be yet another
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Petteri R�ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even b
25 matches
Mail list logo
