Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:32:20 +0300:
> Setting test USE flag is never appropriate as far as I know.
> FEATURES=test enables the USE flag on its own, and it should never be
> enabled or disabled in a users USE settings in
Hi,
"Marcus D. Hanwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We would have the option of using a kde prefix in order to slot it
> with KDE 4, other distros have worked hard to actually slot KDE 3 and
> 4 installed in /usr/ this time around. Ideally we would work with
> them to achieve a similar outcome. We woul
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> > > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Thomas Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>DEFAULT_SRC_CONFIGURE_USE_{WITHS,ENABLES}
> > > >>DEFAULT
В Вск, 07/09/2008 в 15:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:24:55 +0400
> Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case as FHS and /usr/kde/ installations should set
> > differently SLOT seems that new portage feature is required... May be
> > portage should allow set
Hi,
everyone working on bugs, please add all people from metadata.xml to
the assignee or cc field, I regularly have to search for bugs where a
team and I maintain a package because only the team has been added.
Second, please use full atoms (cat-egory/package) in the Summary
field, so searching i
On Monday 08 September 2008 08:48:23 Vaeth wrote:
> But it doesn't do this well
Those of us who have actually been using it say it does.
> Yes. And here another point should be brought up. This proposal should
> be wider and consider similar changes for the most common used
> operations on all phases.
And in fact, the most common used operations on all phases are
already covered: Namely, this is the default implementation of the p
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But it doesn't do this well, because it is incompatible with any other
> case. Assume, for example, that you have an ebuild in this manner and
> that for the new release or for a bugfix you need a small non-included
> thing - then
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes. And here another point should be brought up. This proposal should
>> be wider and consider similar changes for the most common used
>> operations on all phases.
>
> And in fact, the most common used operations on all phases
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Most obvious failure cases these days have build logs and the build
> logs will specify what the configure command
> was, so the only problematic area is looking at the ebuild to
> determine what will happen during executio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> If you're just dealing with the default phases, it's not too hard to
> say in advance the exact command that will be executed.
If that's the case, why go so far as to define three new variables and
potentially put them out in
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Santiago M. Mola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Most obvious failure cases these days have build logs and the build
>> logs will specify what the configure command
>> was, so the only problem
Alec Warner wrote:
> Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (Moreover, in most cases,
> > this would not even save some characters, because the variable
> > names would have to be much longer...)
>
> I don't think the variable names are really in scope (we can chose
> them arbitrarily).
But you c
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Santiago M. Mola wrote:
>> Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > [...] The suggestion violates in an extreme way the golden design
>> > rule that small changes in effect should require small changes in source.
> [...]
>
>> Yes,
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [...] The suggestion violates in an extreme way the golden design
> > rule that small changes in effect should require small changes in source.
[...]
> Yes, you're right. That would be really tedious and stupid... but
> we're luck
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:48:03 +0400
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And should you be able to have the same KDE version with both
> > USE=multislot and USE=-multislot installed at the same time?
>
> There are different SLOTs for different USE flags combination and
> package manager shou
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
>
> everyone working on bugs, please add all people from metadata.xml to
> the assignee or cc field, I regularly have to search for bugs where a
> team and I maintain a package because only the team has been added.
> Second, please use full ato
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> a) PROPERTIES can't be used to implement any mandatory feature
This is true in the absence of an EAPI bump. However, for
completeness, I'd like to mention that it is possible to specify
that a given PROPERTIES value have manda
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:32:20 +0300
Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Setting test USE flag is never appropriate as far as I know.
> FEATURES=test enables the USE flag on its own, and it should never be
> enabled or disabled in a users USE settings in /etc/make.conf or any
> other place. F
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:46:45 -0400
"Marcus D. Hanwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The proposal is not designed to replace all cases. It's designed to
replace the common 50%.
I personally agree with several others who have replied to this
thread. The reduction in lines
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> everyone working on bugs, please add all people from metadata.xml to
> the assignee or cc field, I regularly have to search for bugs where a
> team and I maintain a package because only the team has been added.
> Second, please use full atoms (cat-egory/package) in th
On Monday 08 of September 2008 22:22:12 Joe Peterson wrote:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > everyone working on bugs, please add all people from metadata.xml to
> > the assignee or cc field, I regularly have to search for bugs where a
> > team and I maintain a package because only the team has be
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:22:12 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, but if one has a proxy
> maintainer (i.e. not a Gentoo dev) for a package, can/should this
> person be added to metadata.xml? Is there a special tag for this? I
> can certain
Joe Peterson wrote:
Sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, but if one has a proxy maintainer
(i.e. not a Gentoo dev) for a package, can/should this person be added to
metadata.xml? Is there a special tag for this? I can certainly see this
being helpful (so that person automatically gets o
Joe Peterson schrieb am 08.09.2008 22:22:
Sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, but if one has a proxy maintainer
(i.e. not a Gentoo dev) for a package, can/should this person be added to
metadata.xml? Is there a special tag for this? I can certainly see this
being helpful (so that pers
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Dawid Węgliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 08 of September 2008 22:22:12 Joe Peterson wrote:
>> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> > everyone working on bugs, please add all people from metadata.xml to
>> > the assignee or cc field, I regularly have to searc
On 00:39 Fri 05 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
> David Leverton wrote:
> > 2008/9/5 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
> >> for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
> >
> > But is it so much simpler
On 12:46 Sun 07 Sep , Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> I personally agree with several others who have replied to this thread.
> The reduction in lines of code/characters seems to introduce an uglier
> syntax which is harder to read with questionable benefits.
One of the great things about ebuil
Joe Peterson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Except it doesn't. A virtual ebuild:
>>
>> * installs nothing
>> * does nothing
>
> I'd say that virtual does indeed do something: it pulls in other packages.
>
>> * should be treated as being very quickly installable
>> * should be treated as hav
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>>
>>> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the ou
Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 12:43:12PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>>
>> > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
>> >> for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output
Ben de Groot wrote:
> It may be 2 lines less, but it is 42 characters more.
> Plus, I dislike caps. :-p
Well the original patch used DEFAULT_CONFIG_ENABLE and DEFAULT_CONFIG_WITH
and didn't invoke any subshells. I'm not sure what the thinking behind
changing it was, unless it was a straight lift
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> Sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, but if one has a proxy
>> maintainer (i.e. not a Gentoo dev) for a package, can/should this
>> person be added to metadata.xml? Is there a special tag for this? I
>> can certainly see this being helpful (so that person automati
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:40:37 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * should be treated as being very quickly installable
> >> * should be treated as having zero cost for installs
> >>
> Both of which follow from "installs nothing." Or would you disagree?
No, they're separate properties,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:33:50 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12:46 Sun 07 Sep , Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> > I personally agree with several others who have replied to this
> > thread. The reduction in lines of code/characters seems to
> > introduce an uglier syntax which i
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> The next step was to use a kdeprefix use flag[2]. This flag no longer
> touches the SLOT that is set to "4" for all kde-4.X versions. It only
> determines if the package will be installed under the FHS compliant
> location (/usr) or under the old location (/usr/
Vaeth wrote:
> The point is that in contrast to shell code you need additional
> pre-knowledge to read or write it.
>
True.
>> the syntax looks fine and the syntax is in fact still bash.
>
> I do not want to start a discussion now whether this is
> implicit semantic or sort of an extended synta
On 23:13 Mon 08 Sep , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:33:50 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12:46 Sun 07 Sep , Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> > > I personally agree with several others who have replied to this
> > > thread. The reduction in lines of code
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 08 Sep 2008
23:13:25 +0100:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:33:50 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> One of the great things about ebuilds is that they're very natural to
>> write in most cases,
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23:13 Mon 08 Sep , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:33:50 -0700
>> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 12:46 Sun 07 Sep , Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
>> > > I personally agree with sev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi again.
Quoting Zac earlier in #gentoo-portage:
21:46 < zmedico> jmbsvicetto: I think we essentially have a spec already
that people can agree on. just take my draft and subtract the eapi*
functions and the gitweb unpack extension.
So we're talki
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:20:15 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What proportion of people do you think know whether or not you need
> > a die with econf or emake?
>
> This is a valid point as well. However, for a user simply concerned
> with getting a functional ebuild so the packag
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>>>
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:30:01AM +, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for u
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 09 Sep 2008
00:38:48 +0100:
> People shouldn't be writing ebuilds to do that at all. They should be
> using a package manager provided tool that lets them keep track of
> ebuild-less packages in a way that inte
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:58:52 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 09 Sep
> 2008 00:38:48 +0100:
> > People shouldn't be writing ebuilds to do that at all. They should
> > be using a package manager p
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 09 Sep 2008
02:06:45 +0100:
> If you consider package.provided to be your package manager provided
> tool, you need a much better package manager. Paludis has 'importare'
> for tracking (with full uninstall, up
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi again.
Quoting Zac earlier in #gentoo-portage:
21:46 < zmedico> jmbsvicetto: I think we essentially have a spec already
that people can agree on. just take my draft and subtract the eapi*
functions and the gitwe
48 matches
Mail list logo
