On Saturday 02 July 2005 22:54, Caleb Tennis wrote:
While your proposal works okay for the qt4 scenario, I'm more concerned
with the existing qt3 at the moment. As is, I stil l don't see a way
around what has been proposed for those ebuilds. Until portage has the
ability to handle deps, I
On Thursday 30 June 2005 19:54, Caleb Tennis wrote:
(I'd like to hear your thoughts and comments on the matter below before I
start the process of changing ebuilds to comply.)
With Qt4 entering portage, we are going to start running into a dependency
problem with ebuilds that do:
On Saturday 02 July 2005 22:09, Dan Armak wrote:
On Saturday 02 July 2005 22:41, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
[...]
An application based on Qt4 should look just like this:
inherit qt4
HOMEPAGE=...
SRC_URI=...
...
[...]
This proposal is meant for Qt, but it should be
On Saturday 02 July 2005 14:41, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
I'm back from a trip and I'm slowly catching up with all the mails on this
topic, but a couple of things come to my mind ... please bear with me.
First, a new eclass for Qt4 ebuilds should really be called qt4.eclass,
with another one,
On Friday 01 July 2005 11:55, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 30/06/05, Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-30-06 at 15:09 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
I'm sorry, yes, that's what I do in this case.
Also, the eclass is in portage if anyone is so inclined to see how
harmless
Caleb Tennis wrote:
snip
2. You'll force a user to upgrade to qt 3.3 if they attempt to install any
package that depends on Qt. Speaking from personal experience, I still have
some servers using Qt 3.1 because I have programs running 24/7 that rely on
Qt and simply cannot be upgraded right
On Friday 01 July 2005 10:35 am, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
You don't force anyone to do anything. If they don't want to upgrade
because they can't then they can p.mask the programs they can't upgrade.
But this isn't about upgrading Qt, it's about the packages that depend on it.
If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Caleb Tennis wrote:
DEPEND=$(qt_min_version 3.0)
or
DEPEND=qt? ( $(qt_min_version 3.1.2-r2) )
And the eclass will expand out all Qt3 ebuilds which satisfy the statement.
I'm no expert on portage, but running random functions in DEPEND sounds
On Thursday 30 June 2005 02:58 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Caleb Tennis wrote:
DEPEND=$(qt_min_version 3.0)
or
DEPEND=qt? ( $(qt_min_version 3.1.2-r2) )
And the eclass will expand out all Qt3 ebuilds which satisfy the
statement.
I'm no expert on portage, but running random functions
On Thursday 30 June 2005 02:15 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
it depends on the information that the function acts upon ...
if the results depend on stuff that is installed (i.e. things in
/var/db/pkg) or env vars the user manipulates (like $SOME_FOO), then that's
bad ... if the results depend on
On Thursday 30 June 2005 03:01 pm, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
It seems that portage evaluates disjonction left to right and
stops on the first match it founds. Thus, if you want want it to
choose the best matching version, you should rather sort them in
decreasing order. (At least,
On Thu, 2005-30-06 at 15:09 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
On Thursday 30 June 2005 03:01 pm, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
It seems that portage evaluates disjonction left to right and
stops on the first match it founds. Thus, if you want want it to
choose the best matching version, you
12 matches
Mail list logo
