Dnia 2014-04-30, o godz. 20:14:35
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> The goal is to make overriding parts of build process easy. Before,
> the eclass called cmake-utils directly via multilib_foreach_abi,
> therefore user overriding a phase function needed to call
> multilib_foreach_abi himself, and likel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote:
> I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would
> be added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new
> violations).
I want to repeat my stance from the linked bug that making thi
Hi,
(please avoid cross-list e-mails in the future if possible. Makes
threading horrible)
On 05/09/2014 07:21 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would
>> be added or renamed downstream (at least this will
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
> properly?
Yes, when your "instead of ..." is not an option.
> What other distributions do? Or are we
On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
>> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
>> properly?
>
> Yes, when your "instead of ..." is
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
>> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
>> properly?
>
> Yes, when your "instead of .
On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:10:50 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
> >> files instead of communicating that to upstrea
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s).
> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to coop
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
>
> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s).
>
>
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
>>
>> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
>> some of which can be
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
> >> Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
> >>
> >> It indeed is, this is
11 matches
Mail list logo
