Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I think you're massively underestimating the requirements of the
average user, what with the tree as complex as it is these days. Most
users now:
* Have to use external repositories
* Have to handle at least some keywording overrides themselves
* Have to have some way of m
Steve Long wrote:
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>
>> Larry Lines wrote:
>>
>>> The network analysts at
>>> one of my jobs actually make the new people install Gentoo on a box just
>>> for the experience.
>>>
>>>
>> Unless there's a compelling business argument for this practice,
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Larry Lines wrote:
>> The network analysts at
>> one of my jobs actually make the new people install Gentoo on a box just
>> for the experience.
>>
> Unless there's a compelling business argument for this practice, I
> consider it an abuse of authority. Does this
Steve Dibb wrote:
> Michael Krelin wrote:
>>> If you're feeling ambitious, it might be more appropriate to change that
>>> use flag to ``ps: Add support for postscript'' so that it describes the
>>> functionality rather than the package providing that functionality.
>>
>> Isn't less ambiguous 'post
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
> I have heard about the magic limit of 5, but whatever...
>
Is there a *technical* objection then to server?
global use flags (searching: server)
no matching entries found
local use flags (searching: server)
**
Larry Lines wrote:
The network analysts at
one of my jobs actually make the new people install Gentoo on a box just
for the experience.
Unless there's a compelling business argument for this practice, I
consider it an abuse of authority. Does this practice increase revenues
or decrease costs
Michael Krelin wrote:
If you're feeling ambitious, it might be more appropriate to change that
use flag to ``ps: Add support for postscript'' so that it describes the
functionality rather than the package providing that functionality.
Isn't less ambiguous 'postscript' even better?
I was think
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:01:45 +0100
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by
> > portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though.
>
> The additional post
If you're feeling ambitious, it might be more appropriate to change that
use flag to ``ps: Add support for postscript'' so that it describes the
functionality rather than the package providing that functionality.
Isn't less ambiguous 'postscript' even better?
Love,
H
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org ma
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 14:13 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Samstag, 17. März 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they
> > want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing,
> > qa, feedback. I think it's a
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 02:20 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>
> There is a bit of contradiction in what you said there.
> Either the package is well tested, and should go into the tree, first
> with ~arch keywords, and then eventually with arch keywords, or
> it is experimental, and as such
Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any objections to globalizing the 'gs' use flag on support for ghostscript?
> [-] gs (app-office/rabbit):
> Ghostscript support
>
> [-] gs (media-gfx/graphicsmagick):
> enable ghostscript support
>
> [-] gs (media-gfx/imagemagick):
> enable gho
On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> It's already used by alsa-driver.
Then either me or the one doing so missed something on the discussion, why it
was requested in the first place. Something to clarify in our ebuild policy.
Carsten
pgpUkMku2iZHo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:06:07 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke kirjoitti:
> > On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and
> >> honored by portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream
> >> scheme
Carsten Lohrke napsal(a):
> The additional postfix is reserved exclusively for user local ebuilds, not
> for
> the ones provided by us.
Such as media-sound/alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 ? :)
Anyway, if you have better ideas, move them to Bug 166522; multiple
suffixes are definitely needed, just
> Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives
> off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since
> it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of
> pre-release. Which they won't find.
We have stable, testing and masked ebuilds
On Samstag, 17. März 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they
> want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing,
> qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to
> be caught before act
This is a valid argument for a single postfix with a lower order than alpha,
but not a reason to add everything what's out there. I don't see the need to
match upstream's versioning bit by bit. Honestly said I've never understood
why our order is alpha, beta, pre and not pre, alpha, beta, which
Carsten Lohrke kirjoitti:
> On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by
>> portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though.
>
> The additional postfix is reserved exclusively for user local ebuilds, no
On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by
> portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though.
The additional postfix is reserved exclusively for user local ebuilds, not for
the ones provided by us.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:46:22 +0100 "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing we could do would be to separate hierarchy from version
> naming.
That was one of Zynot's goals. You might want to investigate how they
ended up solving it.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
On Saturday 17 of March 2007 12:28:42 Steve Dibb wrote:
> Any objections to globalizing the 'gs' use flag on support for ghostscript?
I have heard about the magic limit of 5, but whatever...
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Moc napsal(a):
> Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) napsal(a):
>> According to
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules
>> it seems to me the versioning is focused on package stability life
>> cycle. In netbean
Any objections to globalizing the 'gs' use flag on support for ghostscript?
$ euse -i gs
global use flags (searching: gs)
no matching entries found
local use flags (searching: gs)
***
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hierarchy would be the following
>>
>> snapshot -> dev -> build -> alpha -> beta
>
> And that's where the problems start. As you
Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) napsal(a):
> According to
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules
> it seems to me the versioning is focused on package stability life
> cycle. In netbeans case it is _prealpha and definitely not stable
> patched release. So _al
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they
> want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing,
> qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to
> be caught before actual releases, during develo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules
it seems to me the versioning is focused on package stability life
cycle. In netbeans case it is _prealpha and definitely not stable
patched release. So _a
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 01:08 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> Rather then analyze the proposed solution, I'd like to
> question the problem itself. Do we really want to provide
> all the different intermediate development "sort of releases"
> in our tree?
That came up in the link I provide
Rather then analyze the proposed solution, I'd like to
question the problem itself. Do we really want to provide
all the different intermediate development "sort of releases"
in our tree?
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> After reviewing
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/in
30 matches
Mail list logo
