On 00:39 Fri 05 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
But is it so much simpler as to justify
2008/9/4 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* The 'unpack' helper function recognizes ;sf=tbz2 and ;sf=tgz
extensions, for interoperability with gitweb.
* SRC_URI supports a syntax extension which allows customization
of output file names by using a - operator.
Is it useful to have both of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/4 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* The 'unpack' helper function recognizes ;sf=tbz2 and ;sf=tgz
extensions, for interoperability with gitweb.
* SRC_URI supports a syntax extension which allows customization
of
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
But is it so much simpler as to justify adding a special
gitweb-specific hack to the package managers?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
But is it so much simpler as to justify
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:39:16AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
But is it so much
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to
On Friday 05 September 2008, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:39:16AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little
simpler for ebuild writer if they don't have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Buchholz wrote:
How is using the eclass better for bandwidth usage? It won't allow for
mirroring, and all users would have to checkout the repository from one
place. Furthermore, you cannot have (signed) Manifests that allow
integrity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Buchholz wrote:
How is using the eclass better for bandwidth usage? It won't allow for
mirroring, and all users would have to checkout the repository from one
place. Furthermore, you cannot have (signed) Manifests that allow
integrity
On Friday 05 September 2008, Mike Auty wrote:
From what I understand of the idea, the eclass will just change the
SRC_URI field from the first case (sf=tgz) to the second case (-).
Eclasses have to be sourced before the SRC_URI is determined because
they can already add (and presumably alter)
Alec Warner kirjoitti:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
On Friday 05 September 2008 00:58:05 Zac Medico wrote:
* Default phase function implementations for older EAPIs are
accessible via functions having names that start with 'eapi',
followed by the EAPI value.
Based on the lack of use cases or further responses to [1] I would suggest
13 matches
Mail list logo
