On Sunday 23 August 2009 03:39:52 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
/etc/make.profile is by default a symlink to appropriate profile directory
in ${PORTDIR}/profiles.
Again, a detail of how Portage is configured. PMS only covers profiles that
are in repositories - it's up to the
On Saturday 22 August 2009, Chip Parker wrote:
2009/8/21 Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org:
On Saturday 22 August 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
It's true, but being able to modularize profile may outweights the
need to be strict-with-the-book here - it's a matter of usefulness. I
think it
Am Samstag, den 22.08.2009, 01:54 +0100 schrieb AllenJB:
From what I've seen here, at least part of the problem here stems from
the fact that this feature won't be considered until EAPI-4, and that
means it might be a long way off yet. This, in my mind, raises the
question of whether the
Tiziano Müller wrote:
As you can see currently, most time is needed to implemente the features
in portage. It therefore doesn't make sense to make the EAPI process
even faster. On the other hand, I think it would make sense to have a
separate group developing new EAPIs instead of the council.
On 8/22/09, Andrew D Kirch trel...@trelane.net wrote:
Right, this is called punishing innovation. It's a hobby of
bureaucrats everywhere.
It could also be said to be punishing excellence.
If it wasn't a sort of a bug (some omission in the original PMS?),
then I suppose this could also be
Am Samstag, den 22.08.2009, 02:23 -0400 schrieb Andrew D Kirch:
Tiziano Müller wrote:
As you can see currently, most time is needed to implemente the features
in portage. It therefore doesn't make sense to make the EAPI process
even faster. On the other hand, I think it would make sense to
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:54:22 +0100
AllenJB gentoo-li...@allenjb.me.uk wrote:
Could there be room for fast track EAPI's to be considered on some
occasions - eg. in this case an EAPI-2.1 which is simply EAPI-2 with
the package.* as directory in profiles feature included?
It's a possibility,
2009-08-22 21:39:47 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:54:22 +0100
AllenJB gentoo-li...@allenjb.me.uk wrote:
Could there be room for fast track EAPI's to be considered on some
occasions - eg. in this case an EAPI-2.1 which is simply EAPI-2 with
the package.* as directory in
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:22:54 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Another possibly nicer option would be to add the feature into EAPI
3. However, if we're considering this, we'd have to be absolutely
totally clear that this isn't a call to open up EAPI 3 for
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:47:44 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
* When loading profiles '/etc/make.profile' for repository 'gentoo':
/etc/make.profile is user configuration, and beyond the scope of PMS.
Additionally, I plan to show very soon that PMS is incorrect in its
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Ciaran
McCreeshciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:29:12 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
If this feature, which HAD been documented (in bugzilla and
commitlogs) prior to the first RFC for PMS
As I've already explained to
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran
McCreeshciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:47:44 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
* When loading profiles '/etc/make.profile' for repository 'gentoo':
/etc/make.profile is user configuration, and beyond the scope
On Sunday 23 August 2009 01:26:24 Chip Parker wrote:
So, Ciaran, if your personal reference implementation of PMS fails
miserably when using this methodology, your argument that I won't be
or am not affected by your attempt at changing portage is invalid.
If you'd like to test for yourself,
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:26:24 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
Since you have a habit of ignoring relevant bits of technical
opposition to some of your more insane schemes, I'll cite *again* the
relevant portion.
I showed you the relevant portion. /etc/make.profile means it is user
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM, David Levertonlevert...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sunday 23 August 2009 01:26:24 Chip Parker wrote:
So, Ciaran, if your personal reference implementation of PMS fails
miserably when using this methodology, your argument that I won't be
or am not affected by your
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:10:36 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
What you proposed in the bug you filed would specifically break how I
do things, without replacing it with an equal or better solution.
No it wouldn't. It would have no effect whatsoever on how you do things.
--
Ciaran
On Sunday 23 August 2009 02:10:36 Chip Parker wrote:
They're the same thing. It doesn't matter if the profiles directory is
in located in /tmp or in /usr/local/portage, the behavior of paludis
*still* doesn't support the feature that these profiles depend on and
portage still *HAS* since
2009-08-23 02:34:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:26:24 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
Since you have a habit of ignoring relevant bits of technical
opposition to some of your more insane schemes, I'll cite *again* the
relevant portion.
I showed you
2009/8/21 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org:
Portage documentation has been properly fixed (and the fix will be released
in next version) and this feature can now be used in 10.0 profiles.
No. Changing the documentation does not retroactively change existing EAPIs.
2009-08-21 23:17:56 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:25:35 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org wrote:
2009-08-13 07:55:22 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed,
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:42:11 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org wrote:
How does changing the portage documentation magically add this to
the PMS?
PMS developers are unwilling to fix many bugs in PMS.
This is not a bug in PMS.
PMS accurately reflected the Portage
On Friday 21 of August 2009 23:46:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:42:11 +0200
PMS accurately reflected the Portage documentation at the time it was
written and at the time it was approved.
Agreed, but I think it was supposed to reflect Portage 'behaviour' at the
time. Of
On Saturday 22 August 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
It's true, but being able to modularize profile may outweights the
need to be strict-with-the-book here - it's a matter of usefulness. I
think it should be decided by those who actually do the work in
profile, whether it's worthy to push this
2009/8/21 Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org:
On Saturday 22 August 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
It's true, but being able to modularize profile may outweights the
need to be strict-with-the-book here - it's a matter of usefulness. I
think it should be decided by those who actually do the work
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:29:12 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
If this feature, which HAD been documented (in bugzilla and
commitlogs) prior to the first RFC for PMS
As I've already explained to you on bugzilla, this is untrue. You're
confusing user configuration with the tree. PMS
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:29:12 -0700
Chip Parker infowo...@gmail.com wrote:
If you were building a house, and the blueprints had been signed off
on calling for 1 meter high doors, but the builder had built in 2
meter high doors, would you then go back to the builder and
Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2009, 23:55 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:55:22 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to
propose it for EAPI 4 if you want that.
Why is that (seriously curious, not disagreeing)? Portage has
supported this for quite a while now. Does the
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:50:26 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman coul...@soon.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarabeus at gentoo.org wrote:
Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage
already handles it right).
That's a seperate thing that needs
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Tiziano Müllerdev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
To avoid collision with the current package.mask I'd prefer
package.mask.d/ for the directory. Also makes the transition easy since
we can generate package.mask out of the files in package.mask.d/.
I completely agree
On Thursday 13 of August 2009 12:35:43 Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2009, 23:55 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:32:56 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman coul...@soon.com wrote:
It is not the business of PMS to enforce undocumented features that
Portage supports only by accident and that aren't used in the tree.
PMS doesn't depict just what portage should do, just what ebuild's in
the
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:06:04 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman coul...@soon.com wrote:
And it shouldn't be until it's gone through the proper process to
become a documented, controlled feature rather than an accident
people are exploiting.
Seriously, this isn't difficult to do. I get the
33 matches
Mail list logo
