[gentoo-dev] Re: News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

Andreas K. Huettel posted on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:04:53 +0200 as excerpted: > 1) If a package only ever had one slot, it cannot ever have two versions > installed at the same time. That guarantee (of only ever one slot) can > be given for the portage tree (sic). Obviously it doesn't work for >

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:30:39 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Oh, nice: strictly follow PMS no matter what, right? Then let me > remind you that not so long time ago I advocated for strictly > following PMS [1,2], which _allows_ || ( A:= B:= ) construct [3]. > > But I was

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:04:53 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > 1) If a package only ever had one slot, it cannot ever have two > versions installed at the same time. That guarantee (of only ever one > slot) can be given for the portage tree (sic). Obviously it doesn't >

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:38:26 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 17:23:48 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:57:36 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:41:56 +0300 > > > Andrew Savchenko wrote:

[gentoo-dev] Re: News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

Andrew Savchenko posted on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:30:39 +0300 as excerpted: > Do we ever had such case like multiple versions of the same > single-slotted package installed or recorded as installed in the real > world? I'm not sure even in this, but I may assume that it may happen > one day. > > Do

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] versionator.eclass: Add tests for parameter counts

Michał Górny schrieb: Ensure that proper number of parameters is passed to each versionator function; die otherwise. This prevents the functions from proceeding with undefined behavior when mis-called. You are making what versionator.eclass accepts stricter. That it used to work when passed

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Freitag, 22. Juli 2016, 15:57:36 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: > > > Wrong. PMS specifically requests you to account for such a > > > possibility. > > > > Common sence must prevail over formal approaches. While PMS is > > great, it is not perfect in

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:49:55 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:41:56 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:14:23 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > > Dnia 22 lipca 2016 13:00:42 CEST, Andrew Savchenko > > > napisał(a):

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 17:23:48 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:57:36 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:41:56 +0300 > > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > [...] > > > I see no point in trashing ebuilds with dead code that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] lua.eclass

Dnia 20 lipca 2016 15:36:20 CEST, "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" napisał(a): >Hi there! > >I've done (actualy, long time ago) lua.eclass to ease maintenance of >dev-lua >packages in a way of dev-ruby and dev-python packages (including >TARGETS and >so). > >All ebuilds in lua

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] versionator.eclass: Add tests for parameter counts

Ensure that proper number of parameters is passed to each versionator function; die otherwise. This prevents the functions from proceeding with undefined behavior when mis-called. However, it does not cover the most common mistake of passing an empty version that implicitly gets replaced by ${PV}.

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: OpenAFS no longer needs kernel option DEBUG_RODATA

Hi, On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:57:36 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:41:56 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: [...] > > I see no point in trashing ebuilds with dead code that will never > > be used. Though if there will be a PMS or eclass function with > >