On 28 June 2012 13:03, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
>>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
>> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 21:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
> Marien Zwart wrote:
> > On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> > > dependency
> > > > explicitly requests an
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:12:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for
> > > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's
> > > a slot of something installed
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:21:01 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
> > >
> > > So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to
> > > fi
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
> >
> > So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to
> > find a proper solution for it.
>
> That isn't the problem. That's an exa
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
>
> So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to find
> a proper solution for it.
That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the problem.
The problem is that -r and slots are being
Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 16:48 +0800, Ben de Groot a écrit :
> On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> >>
> >> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3
> >> version" or "the jruby vers
On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
>>
>> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3
>> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2
>> version" or "the ruby 1.8 ve
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:37:11 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
> Marien Zwart wrote:
> > On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> > > dependency
> > > > explicitly requests anothe
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
>
> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3
> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2
> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a
> newer GCC and so
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
Marien Zwart wrote:
> On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> > dependency
> > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
> >
> > No, it's that if a user reque
On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> dependency
> > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
>
> No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis
> installs the newest versio
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:27:03 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
> > Alex Alexander wrote:
> >> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the
> >> most recent slot and/or version should
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
> Alex Alexander wrote:
>> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
>> recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
>> slot defined in the world file
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
> recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
> slot defined in the world file.
That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
> Alex Alexander wrote:
>> > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better"
>> > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version
>> > than 1.1-r300. Indicating package
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better"
> > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version
> > than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness
> > happens allows manglers to
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
>> > Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer h
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:22:37 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > That's just it, though -- this no
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now
> > > > being used for something that is exactl
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being
> > > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200.
> >
> > Did you look at SONAME?
>
>
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being
> > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200.
>
> Did you look at SONAME?
Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly explain
how t
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:56:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> > > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat
> > > > "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the r
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
> > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
> > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to
> > bring in a newer GCC and so on.
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it
> > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
>
> Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with d
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:35:36 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> I don't think portage has the behavior that paludis does, so most
> users are not likely to experience this particular problem. You know
> as well as I that the marking isn't necessarily trivial.
But this time it is trivial. That's the point
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700
> Alec Warner wrote:
>> I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are
>> doing.
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1
>
> "This means that count
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it
> with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have
been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and
On 24 June 2012 05:16, Alec Warner wrote:
>>
>> That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so
>> there's no need to repeat it here.
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html#slot-d
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are
> doing.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1
"This means that counting goes as follows: 1.0 (initial version),
1.0-r1, 1.0-r2, etc."
It'
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 17:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
> Justin wrote:
> > On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> > > Justin wrote:
> > >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request f
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> Justin wrote:
>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
>> others? Probably you better should.
>
> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
> knowin
On 23.06.2012 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
> Justin wrote:
>> On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
>>> Justin wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
others? Probably y
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
Justin wrote:
> On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> > Justin wrote:
> >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
> >> others? Probably you better should.
> >
> > Uh huh, and I think we
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> Justin wrote:
>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
>> others? Probably you better should.
>
> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
> knowing what versi
On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
>
> Aside from being abusive,
No, it solves a real problem.
> th
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin wrote:
> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
> others? Probably you better should.
Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" is.
> A
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for
> > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's
> > a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest
> > version of that package, even
On 23.06.2012 15:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
>
> Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludi
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:51:01 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could
> understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution.
It's simple: abusing versions and slots invalidates what is otherwise
sensible logic. Thus in the long term
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
> > >
> > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with
> > > the same PV but different PVR have
On L, 2012-06-23 at 15:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
> > >
> > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with
> > > the same PV but different PVR have diff
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
> >
> > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with
> > the same PV but different PVR have different slots?
> >
> > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
>> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
>> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
>> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gem
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
>
> Aside from being abusive, this screws things u
There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis users.
Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when
50 matches
Mail list logo
