s/with/on/
--
Fabio Erculiani
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:38:26 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:46:19 +0200
> > Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> >> wrote:
> >> > and we have worked out all the difficultie
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:10:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:07:30 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 19:08:33 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:23:40 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > An effective SDEPEND implementation is d
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:46:19 +0200
> Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
>> wrote:
>> > and we have worked out all the difficulties.
>>
>> Please elaborate. What difficulties? What did you implement oth
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:07:30 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 19:08:33 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:23:40 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > An effective SDEPEND implementation is definitely nowhere close
> > > to simple. Nor is presenting those dependen
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 19:08:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:23:40 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > An effective SDEPEND implementation is definitely nowhere close
> > to simple. Nor is presenting those dependencies to users.
>
> Indeed it's not, but we *do* have a reference
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:46:19 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > and we have worked out all the difficulties.
>
> Please elaborate. What difficulties? What did you implement other than
> plain SDEPEND? With what features? Lots of detail miss
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> and we have worked out all the difficulties.
Please elaborate. What difficulties? What did you implement other than
plain SDEPEND? With what features? Lots of detail missing.
>
> Having said that, if we're going with suggested dependencies
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:23:40 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> An effective SDEPEND implementation is definitely nowhere close
> to simple. Nor is presenting those dependencies to users.
Indeed it's not, but we *do* have a reference implementation and lots
of practical experience with it, and we have wo
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:51:00 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:09:22 +0200
> > Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, hasufell
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why not introduce a global usefla
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:09:22 +0200
> Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Why not introduce a global useflag such as "suggested-deps" which
>> > complies with GLEP 62 meaning it will be in
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:09:22 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, hasufell wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why not introduce a global useflag such as "suggested-deps" which
> > complies with GLEP 62 meaning it will be in IUSE_RUNTIME.
> >
>
> How do you manage to fix the PDEPEND "id
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 16:45:12 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Hi,
> this is actually a fork of the HDEPEND thread (sorry for having
> diverged that much there).
> As I wrote in the other thread, the problem with PDEPEND is that there
> are two (or more) semantics:
>
> - PDEPENDs used as "suggestion
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
>
> Why not introduce a global useflag such as "suggested-deps" which
> complies with GLEP 62 meaning it will be in IUSE_RUNTIME.
>
How do you manage to fix the PDEPEND "identity disorder" problem then?
Teaching devs to move to GLEP 62 is much har
On 09/02/2012 04:45 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Hi,
> this is actually a fork of the HDEPEND thread (sorry for having
> diverged that much there).
> As I wrote in the other thread, the problem with PDEPEND is that there
> are two (or more) semantics:
>
> - PDEPENDs used as "suggestions" but yet b
Hi,
this is actually a fork of the HDEPEND thread (sorry for having
diverged that much there).
As I wrote in the other thread, the problem with PDEPEND is that there
are two (or more) semantics:
- PDEPENDs used as "suggestions" but yet being considered in the
depgraph and actually installed. Usual
16 matches
Mail list logo
