-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring
ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
The second is that it starts the conceptual shift from cat/pkg
is a build dep, and cat/pkg is a run dep to cat/pkg is a dep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring
ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
The second is that it starts the conceptual shift
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/10/12 01:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring
ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:08:02 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
A := only makes sense for a dependency that is present both at
build time and at runtime. Currently, the only place you should be
seeing a := is on a spec that is listed
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:08:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/10/12 01:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:40:45 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Same difference applies; he's making the claim that the resolver
can't tell that the python atom should be the same between build/run:
dep:build,run? ( dev-lang/python:2.7= )
build: dev-python/snakeoil
# vs labels
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:56:56 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:53:40PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
But here's the thing: when you sell something as pragmatic, what
you're really saying is it's wrong, I know it's wrong, and I'm
going to pretend that
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested conflicting.
You're still failing to understand the point of labels parsing rules,
though: the point is to make uses like the above well defined and
consistent.
I understand them just fine;
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:01:32 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested conflicting.
You're still failing to understand the point of labels parsing
rules, though: the point is to make
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 05:05:09PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:46:14 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Fun fact; peoples usage of labels in exherbo is thus:
build+run:
set of deps
run:
set of deps/conditionals/etc
That's largely because
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:14:53 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
That's largely because there are a lot of former Gentoo developers
there who all said oh, yeah, I forgot we could do it the other way
when this was pointed out...
I analyzed *all* exheres on git.exherbo.
To be
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 09:30:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:14:53 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
That's largely because there are a lot of former Gentoo developers
there who all said oh, yeah, I forgot we could do it the other way
when this was
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Reality is, our current form can handle deps generally fine- what you
label as trivial is the vast majority- I argue effectively all.
We could do away with half of the current feature set if we were only
interested in
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:53:40PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
But here's the thing: when you sell something as pragmatic, what
you're really saying is it's wrong, I know it's wrong, and I'm going
to pretend that wrong is a good thing. Getting it wrong should be
something you do only after
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:46:14 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Fun fact; peoples usage of labels in exherbo is thus:
build+run:
set of deps
run:
set of deps/conditionals/etc
That's largely because there are a lot of former Gentoo developers
there who all said oh, yeah, I
Pardon the delay; got busy with work, plus to actually address your
claims re: labels (or refute, as I intend to do)... data was
necessary.
So I went and got the data. :)
Analysis was done roughly 09/17 or so; just looping back and
commenting now however.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 05:59:21PM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/09/12 12:05 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:39:49PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
There's also the issue of what negations do at the top level...
Yeah, I did skimp on that one; technically speaking, negations
aren't
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
The live version of the doc is available at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html
I think you're being a bit glib with your dismissal of the labels
parsing scheme. You've
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:39:49PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
The live version of the doc is available at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html
I think you're
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:05:28 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Labels doesn't have this problem: it doesn't try to reuse an
existing syntax precisely because the existing syntax is extremely
awkward for this kind of thing.
Labels have a human comprehension problem, and require
20 matches
Mail list logo
