On Sunday 17 May 2009 06:43:50 Richard Freeman wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > So I believe the cost to be quite reasonably managed, after all.
> > Benchmarks would of course be needed to demonstrate that, but I believe
> > it worth pursuing.
I thought we had agreed that (1) with GLEP55 you have to sour
Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 01:50 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:45 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > As for ciaranm's argument that you're restricting changes to the
> > version string, say allowing -rc where _rc is now required, one-time
> > restri
On Sunday 17 May 2009 09:40:14 Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 01:50 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:45 + (UTC)
> >
> > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > As for ciaranm's argument that you're restricting changes to the
> > > version stri
Ben de Groot wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the
>> mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55.
>> [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html]
>>
>> The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined,
>
> This, in my
Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2009, 20:48 +0200 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
> This is already done. darkside/idl0r did/do suggest sunrise to all
> maintainer-wanted bugs, that meet
> some specific criteria.
noticed that, and i'd like to give a "thanks guys" for doing so :)
> But have to say, while hundred
Hi,
According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max but
according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max.
I'm confused, who should I believe ? :)
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
Thanks,
Mounir
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
Hi,
According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max but
according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max.
I'm confused, who should I believe ? :)
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
Though I'm not a Gento
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max
It says "less than 80" so 79 is the maximum. ;-)
> but according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max.
> I'm confused, who should I believe ? :)
> [1] http:/
On Sunday 17 May 2009 08:29:31 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> I thought we had agreed that (1) with GLEP55 you have to source the ebuild
> anyway (whereas the other proposal allows to just parse it to get at the
> EAPI value) and (2) you can cache it sanely so that performance isn't the
> issue?
You don't
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> The devmanual also says "Where possible, try to keep lines no wider
> than 80 positions." which would limit DESCRIPTION to 66 characters.
>
> These are guidelines, not strict rules. Keep it shorter if it's
> reasonably possible.
>
Even guidelines should be consistent. If
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:35:43AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Ravi Pinjala wrote:
>> Nick Fortino wrote:
>>> Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as
>>> well as ebuild format.
>> Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the
>> extension is to
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 07:40 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
[...]
> The difference is that putting the EAPI in the filename has backwards
> compatibility because package managers not knowing about this change
> won't even look at the those ebuilds. Putting EAPI as the fifth line
> completely loses th
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> The devmanual also says "Where possible, try to keep lines no wider
>> than 80 positions." which would limit DESCRIPTION to 66 characters.
>>
>> These are guidelines, not strict rules. Keep it shorter if it's
>> reasonably possible.
>>
> Even guid
Sven wrote:
> Gilles Dartiguelongue gentoo.org> writes:
so this wrapper could be installed in a separate eselect sort of
package ?
>>> How exactly can this be done? If a gem creates five executables, would
>>> this mean that this gem comes in six ebuilds?
>> well given the next answer,
Alistair Bush wrote:
Is it really necessary to convince the entire community for every GLEP?
I thought that the reason we have the council is so they can make
decisions. You know specialization of decision making. If the council
is going to expect anyone else, besides themselves, to understand
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 02:31:45 +0300
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>>> On the other hand you also have to make sure you have a stable
>>> portage for a time long enough so mostly everyone has it installed.
>>> Otherwise you could break users systems pretty badly depending on
>>> the
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change
I can
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new and
> innovative stuff that makes working on Gentoo fun.
YES !
/loki_val
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement
(adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS).
--
Arfrever
2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyński :
> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Thanks a lot Piotr.
> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
>
> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
> 3. Easily fetchable EAPI
On Sun, 17 May 2009 04:07:18 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:58:10 + (UTC)
> > Mark Bateman soon.com> wrote:
> > > "The current way of specifying the EAPI in ebuilds is flawed"
> > > That is not defining the problem, that is an opening statement.
> >
> > That is th
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
>
> I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to
> implemen
2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis :
> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
This is glep 55 material. I will update it to reflect that.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
On Sunday 17 May 2009 18:35:29 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Please stop wasting everyone's time.
Yes, please do. Your replies are full of emotional arguments and ad hominem
attacks. If you are unable to keep to the technical aspects of a discussion
you should reconsider answering to every email (whi
2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
> > bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI="3" ebuilds.
> >
> > I know that it
2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis :
> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> > I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
>> > bash-4.0 (and older versions) in lo
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:58:58 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > No good, for two reasons.
> >
> > First, this is a global scope change
>
> Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
Package managers still need to be able to get the EAPI, even if they
don't support newe
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Wrong. For example:
> - stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending
> on the package manager
> - --disable-static (maybe in a later EAPI) changes content
> - slot-dep-operators change the rdepend of installed pa
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> 2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski :
>> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
>> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
>> 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change
I'm strongly against 1 and 2 (no need to
Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 18:17 +0200, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I think the code can be considered GPL-2 (i will check if there is no
>> header specifying something else) and for the fonts, I will have to add
>> 2 licenses not in the tree at the moment.
>> But what t
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>
>> I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new and
>> innovative stuff that makes working on Gentoo fun.
>
> YES !
>
I sincerely hope that was sarcasm.
--
~Nirb
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
>> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
>> 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change
>
> My preference goes to 3 with a .eb extension and EAPI on the first line.
I second this. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>
>> 2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski :
>
>>> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
>>> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
>>> 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the e
On Sunday 17 May 2009 20:39:26 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> >>
> >> 2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski :
> >>> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
> >>> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
> >>> 3. Easil
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> As others have commented, we should probably make this the last comment
> line in the header. Any suggestions for a specific identification string
> or do we simply use '# EAPI="X"' or use a she-bang '#!/<..> EAPI="X"' ?
Well, if a she-bang, should be the first
On Thu, 14 May 2009 03:32:12 +0300
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Project maintainer-wanted
> =
>
> Abstract:
> There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000) languishing
> on bugzilla waiting for a developer or team to get interested and
> package it in the official
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
>
> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
>
> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
>
2009/5/17 Ryan Hill :
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
>>
>> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
>>
>> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
>> 2. EAPI in the filename
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of
> different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me.
We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets highly
crazy -- EAPIs aren't orderable, so it's not obvious which one th
Hi,
On 2009/05/17, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
In the GLEP, you raises the following argument against the "Easily
fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild" class of solutions:
> Performance decrease comes from the fact that with versio
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:37 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> This argument is wrong imho. Future EAPIs can't be allowed to
> introduce backward-incompatible changes to the versions ordering
> rules, or they would make the PM behavior ill defined. Or, more
> precisely, if a PM adopt
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:54:38 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Peter Alfredsen
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
> > Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> >
> >> I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new and
> >> innovative stuff that makes working
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
>
> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
>
> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
> 3. Easily fetcha
William Hubbs said:
> I was told by the brltty developers that localstatedir should be /var.
> I noticed, however, that econf passes --localstatedir=/var/lib to the
> configure script. The way around this was to pass the --localstatedir
> option to econf.
According to FHS we are doing it right:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:18:14 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of
> > different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me.
>
> We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets
Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 11:11 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>
> > Wrong. For example:
> > - stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending
> > on the package manager
> > - --disable-static (maybe in a later EAPI)
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
>>> bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local sco
Thomas Anderson wrote:
>- Vote on GLEP 54
>This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on whether to
>approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. The reason
>for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the problems
>mentioned in GLE
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:22:57 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> > Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
>
> Because he wants to push GLEP 55.
Ben, please stop that and apologise for your behaviour. It's already
been explained why changing bash versions is a global scope change, so
you've g
Just a heads up that I wrote a more detailed description of the
peformance hit that EAPI in the ebuild introduces.
Might come up with some numbers later too.
[1] -
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#easily-fetchable-eapi-inside-the-ebuild
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot :
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
>>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (
2009-05-17 20:57:25 Robert Buchholz napisał(a):
> On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
> >
> > Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
> >
> > 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
> > 2. EAPI
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:24:27 -0600
Joe Peterson wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> >- Vote on GLEP 54
> >This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on
> > whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is
> > passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplemen
2009/5/17 Robert Buchholz :
> On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
>>
>> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
>>
>> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
>> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-ti
Ravi Pinjala wrote:
> Instead of changing rules for existing ebuilds, then, why not formalize
> some guidelines for non-ebuild-compatible packages in the tree, separate
> from EAPIs? Allowing new package formats is the next logical
> generalization after considering new and incompatible ebuild for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 02:57:47PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> According to FHS we are doing it right:
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARLIBVARIABLESTATEINFORMATION
>
> I guess what I would really like to know is...why does it matter?
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> History suggests that if it goes up for debate again, no decision
> will ever be reached.
If we simply have to decide between alternatives "scm" and "live",
then I don't see what should be so complicated about reaching a
decision.
GLEP 54 doesn
On 2009/05/17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Let's take a very simple
> > example:
> > - eapi X says "_p is equal to _p0"
> > - eapi Y says "_p is greater than any _pN"
> > --> of "foo-1_p1 with EAPI=X" and "foo-1_p with EAPI=Y", what is
> > the "best" version?
>
> You don't define it quit
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> 2009/5/17 Ben de Groot :
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to suggest to include possibility of usin
Joe Peterson wrote:
> I have not seen much discussion lately regarding the choice of the string,
> "scm"
> in this GLEP. I asked the author today on IRC, and he said he doesn't have a
> particularly strong reason for "scm" beyond historical reasons.
>
> Since we are stuck with the string once it
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> About a million years ago, we were going to move all the SCM
> packages into their own category (but it never happened, because
> port001's script didn't work). There was a huge bikeshed debate
> about whether to use vcs, rcs, scm or something el
On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> - Vote on GLEP 54
> This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on
> whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed.
> The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the
> problems mentioned in GLEP
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:57:40 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On 2009/05/17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > You don't define it quite like that. You define it by mapping EAPI X
> > _p onto super-EAPI _p0, and EAPI Y _p onto super_EAPI _pINFINITY.
> > That way the ordering's well defined.
>
Ryan Hill posted
2009051752.133c7...@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on Sun, 17
May 2009 11:11:52 -0600:
>> Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) - When is
>> it allowed to use an EAPI in the tree (given as offset to the release
>> of portage supporting that eapi
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:41 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> (See EAPI-3, now preapproved, but conditional on feature
> implementation, with removal of some feature or other possible before
> final approval if not all PMs support it in a timely manner.)
EAPI 3's approval is base
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 11:11 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
> > On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200
> > Tiziano Müller wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong. For example:
> > > - stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending
> >
2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > So, unless you're doing a pkgmove
> > it's a dangerous thing since the PM can't reliably track reverse deps
> > when doing uninstalls since it has to use the vdb entry for that,
> > doesn't i
2009/5/17 Thomas de Grenier de Latour :
> On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson wrote:
>
>> - Vote on GLEP 54
>> This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on
>> whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed.
>> The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplemen
On Sunday 17 May 2009 15:55:55 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 02:57:47PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > According to FHS we are doing it right:
> > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARLIBVARIABLESTATEINFORMATI
> >ON
> >
> > I guess what I would really like to know is...wh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:41 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ryan Hill posted
> 2009051752.133c7...@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on Sun, 17
> May 2009 11:11:52 -0600:
>
> >> Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) - When is
> >> it allowed to
Let me first say that I think this revision is much improved, and makes
it clearer what we are talking about.
As to the stated problem(s):
1. "Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package dir
too)"
A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish to
allow t
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:00:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> > On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
> > Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > So, unless you're doing a pkgmove
> > > it's a dangerous thing since the PM can't reliably track revers
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> 1. "Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package
> dir too)"
> A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish
> to allow this in the first place. The current inherit behavior with
> eclasses in a cen
On Sun, 17 May 2009 15:19:17 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:00:21 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>
> > 2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> > > On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
> > > Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > > So, unless you're doing a pkgmove
>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> 3. "Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the
>> scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like
>> 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely."
>> Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably
>>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> 1. "Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package
>> dir too)"
>> A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish
>> to allow this in the first place. The current inherit be
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:08:05 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> > There are already horrible hacks in the tree to get per-package
> > 'eclasses'. That's a clear sign there's something lacking.
>
> I haven't come across any horrible hacks, that I'm aware of, but of
> course my interest is only in certain
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot :
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200
>> Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> 2. "Add new global scope functions in any sane way"
>>> This is a valid use case, as seen by the eapi-2 update. But the way
>>> this is currently handled by portage (advising to upgra
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Upstreams don't standardise either way on - vs _, so there's no
> reason Gentoo should.
Upstreams use all sorts of strange versioning schemes. Here is a small
collection:
1_14 -> 1.14(app-emacs/limit)
1.0pre4-> 1
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:54:04 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Upstreams don't standardise either way on - vs _, so there's no
> > reason Gentoo should.
>
> Upstreams use all sorts of strange versioning schemes. Here is a small
> collection:
And we can handle a lot more of them sensibly than we cu
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> 1_14 -> 1.14(app-emacs/limit)
>> 12B5 -> 12.2.5 (dev-lang/erlang)
> These we should handle.
How? Both "limit-1_14" and "erlang-12B5" are valid package names,
so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV s
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:11:45 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> 1_14 -> 1.14(app-emacs/limit)
> >> 12B5 -> 12.2.5 (dev-lang/erlang)
>
> > These we should handle.
>
> How? Both "limit-1_14" and "erlang-12B5" are va
> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> How? Both "limit-1_14" and "erlang-12B5" are valid package names,
>> so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts?
> By the time the things we need to get this done end up being
> accepted, we'll probably be using ranged deps, so i
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:30:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> How? Both "limit-1_14" and "erlang-12B5" are valid package names,
> >> so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts?
>
> > By the time the things we need to get this done
> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> In fact, with GLEP 54 we have the problem already now.
>> P=foo-1a-scm could mean both of the following:
>>
>> PN=foo PV=1a-scm
>> PN=foo-1a PV=scm
> We've had that problem ever since -100dpi things had to be made legal,
But so far you c
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:43:43 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed.
You mean like -r0?
It's easily solved by a careful definition, in any case, just the same
way that there's already a careful definition full of weaselling out to
allow other abuses... There's
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2009-05-17 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-www/adobesvg2009-05-12 15:12:45 ulm
dev-tcltk/tkdiff2009-05-12 19:22:52 mescalinum
media-sound/ermixer 2
if you've got something that needs to block glibc-2.9 going stable, now is the
time to make it block Bug 270243. with us finally using glibc-2.8 and
gcc-4.3.2, hopefully these core packages wont lag for so long.
clicky link: http://bugs.gentoo.org/270243
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This
I'm planning to request stabilization of Python 2.6.* in August.
I will also request stabilizations of other packages which need to be
stabilized before Python 2.6.*.
Please test various packages with Python 2.6.*. If you find a package
which fails to build or doesn't work with Python 2.6.*, pleas
> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed.
> You mean like -r0?
The revision is not part of PV. And it's easily split off, since the
string "-r" cannot occur elsewhere in the package version.
> It's easily solved by a careful definition, in
90 matches
Mail list logo
