On 11/09/2013 06:02 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 02:19:32 schrieb Ben de Groot:
On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis
Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 02:19:32 schrieb Ben de Groot:
On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit :
in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should require
version X; it can be
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 02:19:32 schrieb Ben de Groot:
On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit :
in short: if a package
Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 18:02:50 schrieb Matt Turner:
(I also learnt as a recruit that versionless dependency is fine if all
versions in the portage tree fulfill it. As a consequence I have been
regularly dropping version dependencies from ebuilds for simplification
if the excluded
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:28:13PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with this sentiment. It's always been my view that the needs of
a package are driven by the package itself, not by the tree.
Rationale: A
On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit :
in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should require
version X; it can be forgotten but it's a bug.
That _is_ our policy.
Since this thread was
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:04 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
However, it's been a long-standing general practise that
Alexis Ballier wrote:
its kind of common sense IMHO
Unfortunately what makes sense to people is never common. :\
there shouldn't be any time limit
..
in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should
require version X; it can be forgotten but it's a bug.
+1
//Peter
Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit :
in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should require
version X; it can be forgotten but it's a bug.
That _is_ our policy. Ebuilds should - at the very least - mirror what
upstream's build script requires.
So,
On 7 November 2013 04:15, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The bug that was filed, is that a user didn't do a full emerge -uDN
@world prior to emerging (upgrading?) firefox, and they had icu-49
already installed. Because the firefox dep didn't have a minimum
version, portage didn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/11/13 10:26 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 7 November 2013 04:15, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
mailto:a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The bug that was filed, is that a user didn't do a full emerge
-uDN @world prior to emerging (upgrading?)
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if there are
no deps in the tree older than what is necessary for a package, that
package doesn't need to have a minimum version on the dependency atom.
As such, issues similar
On 11/6/13 7:15 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
The synopsis of the situation is that the latest firefox ebuild now
depends on icu, specifically icu-50.1 or above. When this version of
firefox was added to the tree, the lowest version of icu in the tree
was icu-51.0 -- in fact, icu-48 through
On 06/11/2013 17:26, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 7 November 2013 04:15, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
mailto:a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The bug that was filed, is that a user didn't do a full emerge -uDN
@world prior to emerging (upgrading?) firefox, and they had icu-49
already
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if there
are no deps in the tree older than what is necessary for a package,
that package doesn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if
there are no
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
However, it's been a long-standing general practise
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this sentiment. It's always been my view that the needs of
a package are driven by the package itself, not by the tree.
Rationale: A package will build and run as long as it's own requirements
are met
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:22:13 -0500
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15
19 matches
Mail list logo
