On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:14:23PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 17:31, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Worse, it actually makes parsing _worse_ than it already is. ??What G55
> > had going for it was ease of filtering out unsupported eapi's.
> > Literally just filter the readdir results.
On 03/12/12 11:57, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring wrote:
>> Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
>> xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
>> since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call
>
Alec Warner posted on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:53:58 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Kent Fredric
> wrote:
>> On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
going to the council again (decisions are not
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote
> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
> use GLEP 55.
A filename should not be (ab)used as a database. The main argument for
GLEP 55 is that it would make ebuild-processing generic. I.e. making
eb
On 13 March 2012 19:41, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote
>
>> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
>> use GLEP 55.
>
> A filename should not be (ab)used as a database. The main argument for
> GLEP 55 is that it
101 - 105 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
