im to have thought about what he's saying before doing
so), you just continue acting like that. So, how can you possibly expect
any support?
--
Thomas Pani
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
et the
stage tarball and most probably source tarballs as well.
--
Thomas Pani
Here's why I think you can't -- or at least shouldn't -- put EAPI into
the filename.
>From your EAPI definition:
> A cat/pkg-ver has exactly one EAPI. That EAPI belongs to the
> cat/pkg-ver as a whole, and is static across that cat/pkg-ver.
It's clearly NOT the purpose of a filename to describe h
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:37:01 +0100
> Thomas Pani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As cat/pkg-ver ultimately is ONE file in the filesystem, there's no
>> reason to put any information about the EAPI in the filename.
>
> Sure there is. It
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>> I DO understand.
>
> You don't. The complete paragraph of yours shows you don't.
>
Interesting, because my statement is the same (in meaning) that Ciaran
made two days ago. He stated it was "[...] another option. It's
considered less ideal [...]" ([1], in case you want t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
>> But an total outsider has no chance to deduce what the 1 in ebuild-1
>> means on his own.
>
> A total outsider doesn't need to
Works fine here (x86). Having set both RC_{QUIET,VERBOSE}="no" it's a
little more verbose than what I'm used to (especially udev loading
madwifi) but that's early enough in the boot sequence not to bug me.
It took me some time to find /etc/conf.d/modules, but it's certainly
useful :).
Regards,
th
