Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plugin framework

2005-11-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 14 November 2005 23:17, Marius Mauch wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:38:28 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cache and elog plugin selection(s) come from user settings but emaint (and repoman whenever that happens (and possibly even emerge itself one day?)) needs to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote: *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :)

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-14 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 00:32, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: Replace 2.1.0 with 2.2.0 and I'll agree. Skipping 2.1 accomplishes what? People asking, whoah there, it's a later version then 2.1, where's the 2.1 functionality? will still

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plugin framework

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:38:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:57, Brian Harring wrote: ?? filenames. OT, but return of the funky 'A's... Curious if others are seeing it, or if my nano/mutt setup just plain sucks. * portage.py edits to the config class to make

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] cache subsystem replacement

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:13:58AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Was talking with a guy yesterday who mentioned he had 10 line patch that sped up current portage a lot with regard to updating metadata. I asked him to send it to me and here it is: --- -??2005-10-29 18:49:15.156173000 +0900

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plugin framework

2005-11-14 Thread Patrick Börjesson
On 05/11/14 09:53, Brian Harring wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:38:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:57, Brian Harring wrote:   filenames. OT, but return of the funky 'A's... Curious if others are seeing it, or if my nano/mutt setup just plain sucks. I

[gentoo-portage-dev] confcache

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
Hola all. Wrote another confcache implementation (this time not bound to ebd thank god), and stuck an ebuild and portage patch for it in http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/confcache/ . Should be a bit stricter then the 2.1 implementation; for those not aware of what it is, it's a global autoconf