Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 13:07 -0400, Josh Sled wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > 'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a > > dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's > > I'm having a hard time trying to figure

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Sled wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> 'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a >> dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's > > I'm having a hard time trying

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread Josh Sled
On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a > dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you justify calling Java a dead language. -- ...jsl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:48:11 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=155 > > > > Not for the versions in the tree they don't. > > You mean 0.5.3 released 2003-12-28. IMHO that borderlines a stale > package or one that should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:09 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we > > > have categories. > > > > Sure, and along those lines upstream seems

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:09 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we > > have categories. > > Sure, and along those lines upstream seems to call it ant_menu or > ant_menu.vim :) > > http://www.vim.org/scrip

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 08:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23:58 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. > > app-vim/ant > > Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23:58 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. > app-vim/ant Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we have categories. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: P

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-16 Thread Georgi Georgiev
Quoting Mike Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200 Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other > than just ant. or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a number of ebui

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-16 Thread Mike Kelly
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200 Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages > > > with the same name, you have the same problem. > > > > On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. > > app-vim/ant > > and app-vi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
While I always was for uniq package names, tree-wide, renaming doesn't solve anything. Gentoo's binary packages are fundamentally broken. You can't have two binary packages of the same ebuild differing e.g. in use flags, architecture, toolchain, etc. pp. either. Carsten signature.asc Descrip

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-16 Thread Jakub Moc
Thilo Bangert napsal(a): >>> It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages >>> with the same name, you have the same problem. >> On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. >> app-vim/ant > > and app-vim/sudo and app-xemacs/emerge, g -- jakub signature.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-16 Thread Thilo Bangert
> > It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages > > with the same name, you have the same problem. > > On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. > app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo > IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other > than just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was -> Conversion of Emacs virtual packages

2007-05-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely > > wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the > > same name, but in different