On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:39:03 -0800
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regex you've got there allows for pulling the wrong text- recall, ebd
originally was doing grep based filtering (regex). Had to rewrite
that in a major hurry since bash syntax (specifically here ops)
forces you to
On 06/01/22 17:47, Mikey wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:56, Marius Mauch wrote:
That's not really what you want.
-s updates might (will) be overlaid with version or revision bumps
from time to time, for this to be of any use it has to happen at the
resolver level (visiblity
Brian,
did you have a chance to look at this yet?
- Johannes.
Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
if [[ -n $PORTAGE_NICENESS ]] ! [[ -z $WE_ARE_NICED ]]; then
Haven't looked at the patch yet, but a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:39:03 -0800
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regex you've got there allows for pulling the wrong text- recall, ebd
originally was doing grep based filtering (regex). Had to rewrite
that in a
Great! Thank you :) I'll be watching the GWN closely :)
- Johannes.
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:39:06PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian,
did you have a chance to look at this yet?
Will be integrating the changes sometime this week (spaced it tbh) :)
On Monday 23 January 2006 04:56, Patrick Börjesson spammed:
The problem with your reasoning is that portage only reports the
highest upgrade (from it's point of view). So if you have package
A-1.0 installed and two possible upgrades, say A-1.0-s1 and A-1.1, then
portage will chose the highest
On Monday 23 January 2006 12:46, Marius Mauch spammed:
That is _exactly_ how it is intended to work. Normal users will
get A-1.1 when they run emerge -u. Users with a need for stability
will only see A-1.0-s1, and only if it is available for A-1.0.
And for that you have to hack the
Many ebuilds fail due to failed QA. How difficult would it be to have
the package create the tarball before the QA tests. If this were
possible, QA could be slightly quicker, as there would be no need to
rebuild the entire package, with features disabled, upon failure.
--
Lares Moreau [EMAIL
On Monday 23 January 2006 15:55, Simon Stelling wrote:
Lares Moreau wrote:
Many ebuilds fail due to failed QA. How difficult would it be to have
the package create the tarball before the QA tests. If this were
possible, QA could be slightly quicker, as there would be no need to
rebuild
On Thursday 19 January 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
here's what i was talking about when i mentioned the mutate() idea
tested and it works for me ... binary is built properly and environment.bz2
contains the correct values
to speed this along ... how do people care about the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
here's what i was talking about when i mentioned the mutate() idea
tested and it works for me ... binary is built properly and environment.bz2
contains the correct
On Monday 23 January 2006 19:31, Alec Warner wrote:
I'm stuck on this. Part of me wants to see more new features in portage
and part of me screams horrible hack :P
the idea or the implementation ?
there is no getting around the idea and forcing the users to do this stuff for
every package is
12 matches
Mail list logo
