On Friday 26 August 2005 17:11, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 26 August 2005 16:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
> > | not being complete.
On Friday 26 August 2005 16:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
> | not being complete. For better working it should probably support if
> | statements p
On Friday 26 August 2005 16:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
> | not being complete. For better working it should probably support if
> | statements p
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
| not being complete. For better working it should probably support if
| statements properly, and at least do variable substitution. It would
| mean th
On Friday 26 August 2005 09:35, Brian Harring wrote:
> Any parser that doesn't support full bash syntax isn't acceptable from
> where I sit; re: slow down, 2.1 is around 33% faster sourcing the
> whole tree (some cases 60% faster, some 5%, etc). The speed up's are
> also what allow template's to b
> Don't forget the fact that bash must be execed for normal parses, and
> that python has extremely slow string handling when not using one of
> the standard parsing modules (that work in C). To put my money where my
> mouth is, I've tarred up my code and put it on my dev space:
> http://dev.gentoo
Pardon the delay, been putting this one off since it's going to be a
fun one to address, and will be a bit long :)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:34:00PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> What I mean is compatibility with current portage versions. Current
> versions do not understand EAPI. There would
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 18:00, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:20:16PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > To allow for this to work with current portage versions, perhaps it
> > would be an option to introduce a new extension for .ebuild scripts
> > that use it's functionality. Th
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:20:16PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> To allow for this to work with current portage versions, perhaps it would
> be an option to introduce a new extension for .ebuild scripts that use
> it's functionality. That would allow all non-EAPI aware portage versions
> to aut
On Thursday 07 July 2005 22:42, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:52:06AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
> > > strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
> > > strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
> > >
> > > Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
> >
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 20:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:52:06AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz intended to write:
> > size for the options above 0.05%, 0.02% and 0.01% respectively. In
> > any case, nearly irrelevant to its present size.
Mixed up my decimal points and pe
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:52:06AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
> > strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
> > strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
> >
> > Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
> So, the size of the tree is 500216K. This makes the percent increase
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:52:06AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz intended to write:
> size for the options above 0.05%, 0.02% and 0.01% respectively. In
> any case, nearly irrelevant to its present size.
--
Maurice van der Pot
Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org
Creator
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 08:19 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
>
> strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
> strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
> strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
>
> Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
So, the size of the tree
twofourtysix wrote:
On 07/07/05, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
I
On 07/07/05, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
>
> strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
> strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
> strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
>
> Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
If you're that interested i
On Thursday 07 July 2005 14:19, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
EAPI is probably the best name, EV makes it possible to confuse it with
PV-like variables, referring to the versions of the package, not portage
itself.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 00:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 07 July 2005 12:36 am, Kito wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Sven Wegener wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400,
On Thursday 07 July 2005 12:36 am, Kito wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Sven Wegener wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven W
On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable n
Sven Wegener wrote:
And EVER automatically was E-VER for me, never had the idea to read it
as ever. Does that count as being addicted to Gentoo?
Sven
Under the influence at the very least...
--
Joshua Baergen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 03:09 +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> And EVER automatically was E-VER for me, never had the idea to read it
> as ever. Does that count as being addicted to Gentoo?
Yes it does
--
Olivier Crête
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
x86 Security Liaison
signature.asc
Description: This is a digit
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:01:47PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> EVER looks like the english word 'ever'; what does it stand for? EBUILD
> VERSION? If so, how about EVERSION? Since when was variable name length
> a problem? Go with whatever best describes the variable and is easy to
> figure out.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
>>
>>>We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
>>
>>seems like the name is m
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
> > We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
>
> seems like the name is much longer than it needs to be ... what's wrong with
> say 'EVER' ?
It's
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
> We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
seems like the name is much longer than it needs to be ... what's wrong with
say 'EVER' ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hi all!
We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
that tags the ebuild with a specific ebuild API version it provides or
uses. ebuilds will get an automatic dependency on a version of portage
that is required for the used API to work correctly. The mapping between
API a
27 matches
Mail list logo
