On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:59:48PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Said single inheritance protection was added 06/05/06 (rev 3544),
> > stabled for x86 roughly 06/22/06.
> >
> > Hasn't even yet made it to a release media- meaning folk installing
> > from the most current rel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> Said single inheritance protection was added 06/05/06 (rev 3544),
> stabled for x86 roughly 06/22/06.
>
> Hasn't even yet made it to a release media- meaning folk installing
> from the most current release media still can get
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
This is pretty much exactly what Kumba was talking about. I didn't like
the idea simply because it allowed the user to shoot themselves in the
foot way too easily. It will also cause QA problems, since the profiles
wouldn't be strictly controlled by the arch teams and re
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:24:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
> it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
> only need to unconstrain the number of parents allowed in the parent
> file (o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Alec Warner wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:54:41 -0500 Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> | It will also cause QA problems, since the profiles wouldn't be
>> | strictly controlled by the arch teams and releng anym
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:54:41 -0500 Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| It will also cause QA problems, since the profiles wouldn't be
| strictly controlled by the arch teams and releng anymore.
Uh, that's easily solved. Demand that anyone changing non-arch profile
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:54:41 -0500 Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| It will also cause QA problems, since the profiles wouldn't be
| strictly controlled by the arch teams and releng anymore.
Uh, that's easily solved. Demand that anyone changing non-arch profile
things gets prior approva
Alec Warner wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You can get the best of both worlds using straight MI, if the profile
tree is structured properly. Use the existing hierarchy for the 'main'
profile and mixins (nodes with no parent) as extras. The only problem
with this is Portage's current reliance upo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:11:25 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| > | it's easy to en
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:11:25 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| > | it's easy to enable multiple inheritance
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
| only need to unconstrain the number of parents allowed in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
> | it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
> | only n
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
| only need to unconstrain the number of parents allowed in the parent
| file (only 1 is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but it's easy to
enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we only need to unconstrain
the number of parents allowed in the parent file (only 1 is currently allowed
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:42:32PM +, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo
> >
> > This works better:
> >
> > $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo/
> >
> > This avoids the case where a file by the same name exists (for
> > example, in licenses/).
>
> may be
> $ cd gentoo-x86/*-*/
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:08:50 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being an amd64 dev, I want to basically add a 'me too!' here. I think
> it's not necessary to add the --info output when all worked well,
> though, if instead the output of -pv $PN was given. Except when there
> was a f
[...]
>>
>> $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo
>
> This works better:
>
> $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo/
>
> This avoids the case where a file by the same name exists (for
> example, in licenses/).
may be
$ cd gentoo-x86/*-*/foo/
?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:13:48 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
> > package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
> > preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:13:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
> > package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
> > preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one, not to
> > m
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
> package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
> preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one, not to
> mention specifying no version at all). Including the category means
> arch
Being an amd64 dev, I want to basically add a 'me too!' here. I think
it's not necessary to add the --info output when all worked well,
though, if instead the output of -pv $PN was given. Except when there
was a failure reported before, because then we need it to compare the two.
Regarding the inl
> it does say make it an attachment if it's too long, but how long
> is too long?
8K characters (and bugzilla will actually send you to places where the
sun doesn't shine if you try to post something that exceeds this limit).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature
Richard Fish wrote:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67179 is marked
> RESOLVED/WORKSFORME, which according to the descriptions means that I
> should be able to re-open the bug. But there is no option to do so.
> Why?
>
> -Richard
Only the person who reported the bug can reopen it (or so
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67179 is marked
RESOLVED/WORKSFORME, which according to the descriptions means that I
should be able to re-open the bug. But there is no option to do so.
Why?
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
24 matches
Mail list logo
