El vie, 21-09-2012 a las 21:01 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 14:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 14:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead of
reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of this
change, vala.eclass now defaults to assuming that vala support is
optional (which is the case in an overwhelming majority of ebuilds that
would want to use this
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead of
reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of this
change, vala.eclass now defaults to assuming that vala support is
optional (which is
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead
of reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of
this change,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead
of reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of
this change,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev
escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it accurately
reflects the situation we're dealing with.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it accurately
reflects the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:14:32 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And, for support to be official for ebuilds or eclasses to query IUSE
(or other globals) within phase functions, then the 'spec' (PMS) is
probably all that needs to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 10:26 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:14:32 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And, for support to be official for ebuilds or eclasses to query
IUSE (or other globals) within phase functions, then the
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 03:33 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 08:43 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead of
reading IUSE, as suggested
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 09:13 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 14:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:52:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
The problem is that I suspect that, maybe, this behavior was present
and supported even in eapi0
It wasn't.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as current behavior is already being assumed in
eclasses/ebuilds, portage couldn't change it without, before, porting
ebuilds/eclasses to use that
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 09:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead
of reading IUSE,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as current behavior is already being assumed in
eclasses/ebuilds, portage
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:02:47 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
We had this discussion when the function was introduced. It's
supposed to be used for cosmetic things only.
What are cosmetics things? Also, what do you mean by It's
supposed? Who should decide what is supposed and what
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:13:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be good
enough. :D
You also need to audit what Portage did since EAPI 0 was introduced.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as current
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:24 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be
good enough. :D
You also need to audit what Portage did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:24 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/09/12 02:24
PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I don't expect we would be modifying older EAPIs , any usage of IUSE
etc within phase functions for those EAPIs would remain undefined imo;
the audit is just to determine what portage (optionally other
Pacho Ramos has suggested making vala_src_prepare() into a no-op in the
common situation where vala is in IUSE and USE=-vala.
--- a/vala.eclass
+++ b/vala.eclass
@@ -77,20 +77,36 @@
}
# @FUNCTION: vala_src_prepare
-# @USAGE: [--vala-api-version api_version]
+# @USAGE: [--ignore-use]
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:26:44 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Pacho Ramos has suggested making vala_src_prepare() into a no-op in
the common situation where vala is in IUSE and USE=-vala.
There's no way to obtain the effective value of IUSE from within an
ebuild or eclass.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:26:44 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
+ if [[ -z ${ignore_use} ]]; then
+ has vala ${IUSE//+/} ! use vala return 0
+ fi
eutils.eclass: in_iuse().
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/09/12 03:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:26:44 -0400 Alexandre Rostovtsev
tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Pacho Ramos has suggested making vala_src_prepare() into a no-op
in the common situation where vala is in IUSE and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:33:13 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 19/09/12 03:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:26:44 -0400 Alexandre Rostovtsev
tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Pacho Ramos has suggested making
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:42:35 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:33:13 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 19/09/12 03:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:26:44
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:03:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, you're not guaranteed to get the ebuild's value of IUSE, or any
particular eclass's value of IUSE, or the merged value of IUSE. In
particular for this case, it's possible to get false negatives.
Then fix the
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:14:18 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:03:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, you're not guaranteed to get the ebuild's value of IUSE, or
any particular eclass's value of IUSE, or the merged value of
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:24:29 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:14:18 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:03:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, you're not guaranteed to get the ebuild's value
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:31:34 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:24:29 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:14:18 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:03:05 +0200
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:39:43 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
The historical mess is not relevant anymore. Is there a single
real case when IUSE does not contain *at least* the ebuild-set
IUSE?
The historical mess applies to things under EAPI control. If you
want
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:51:25 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:39:43 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
The historical mess is not relevant anymore. Is there a single
real case when IUSE does not contain *at least* the ebuild-set
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes, it did. And you are consistently wasting your and ours time
complaining that we're doing illegal stuff without trying to bring
even a single solution to it.
Uh, there are plenty of solutions, and they've been
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:18:31 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200
If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution which
will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' and 'we can
fix it in an awful way in
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:30:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:18:31 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200
If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution
which will fix the code now,
44 matches
Mail list logo
