On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:24:06 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not if we move the rsync path properly so
>
> - older pm sync to a minimal try apt to upgrading portage and nothing
> else
>
> - newer sync to the full tree now supporting the newer an better and
> honey and milk eapi.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:59:53 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Wow that doesn't half sound like nonsense.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it's not nonsense. It's entirely true. If you don't
> > understand that then you can't contribute anything useful to the
> > discussion, so kindly stay ou
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:37:27 -0700
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs
> from trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a
> year or more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new
> fixed extens
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> >> So please make those people understand, so they can comment
> >> usefully.
> >
> > Are we in the elementary school or something? T
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:35:07 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yeah I forgot, McCreesh thinks they're all idiots[1]
No no. I think some of them are idiots. Get it right.
> Funny thing is I think the USE-flag metadata
> thing would have breezed through as a GLEP; I don't recall one
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:41:02 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
> > This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for
> > ebuilds (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
>
> It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
> but
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:34:17 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> > So please make those people understand, so they can comment
> > usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something?
Yes, for all intents and pur
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
> On Saturday 22 of December 2007 02:41:02 Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Piotr Jaroszy?ski kirjoitti:
>> > This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds
>> > (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
>>
>> It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in
Duncan wrote:
> our users -- Gentoo sysadmins by another name.
THANK YOU! Finally someone said it (and explained it better than I could.)
All our users-- the ones who deal with the glitches that can arise in a
source distro which binary users never see-- have the skill level of an
admin anywhere
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
>
> And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources the
> ebu
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
>> something like
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
>
> OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
>> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
> ridiculous.
>
ietf.org Are they ridiculous?
lu
--
Luca Bar
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:31:54 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ... ]
Thanks for all your work with wxWidgets packages.
--
Michal Kurgan
http://dev.gentoo.org/~moloh
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 02:41:02 Petteri Räty wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
> > This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds
> > (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
>
> It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
Seems you are count
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 21 Dec
2007 13:59:22 +:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:43:43 -0500
> Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
> This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds (for
> example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
but how about having subdirectories for different eapis. This should
even be faster for th
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
>> > * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>>
>> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
>
> And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources
> the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:48:31 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> No: without knowing the EAPI when generating said data. If that
>> >> needs to be known relatively soon in order to generate the rest,
>> >> extract it early. You still only need to load the fi
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:15:10 +0800:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Package manager EAPIs don't belong in the main tree, but they have uses
>> outside of it.
>
> Then would you please introduce how paludis-1 EAPI differs from o
Time to close bug #145884.
After over a year of waiting (but still way ahead of Debian), wxGTK 2.8 is
finally coming to Gentoo. I'd like to thank everyone for their patience while
we got the wrinkles ironed out.
Many of the problems we've had previously with wxWidgets in Gentoo were due in
g
Richard Freeman kirjoitti:
>
> How is having a line that states EAPI=foo in the ebuild any less trivial
> than putting a -foo at the end of the filename? If anything the latter
> is more typing - since the EAPI=foo line would probably be in skel.ebuild...
>
EAPI=foo is already in skel.ebuild bu
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15:05 Mon 17 Dec , Jim Ramsay (lack) wrote:
> > lack07/12/17 15:05:57
> > IUSE="+svg +video"
>
> svg already defaults on for all the desktop profiles, so I'm not
> really sure what that's gaining you.
Good point, removed '+' there
> > R
Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs from
trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a year or
more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new fixed
extension, with the requirement that the new ebuilds are required to
contain within them
On Dec 20, 2007 10:48 PM, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> > These are potentially ambiguos.
>
> Could you please elaborate a bit about the raw one?
>
Just that "raw" could mean more things. Anyway, I have no problem with
that since current packages in the tree us
This is a followup that I am now committing "qt4-build.eclass" with a lot of the
redundant functions for building Qt4 put into it.
The only packages that use/depend on it are currently masked, so feel free to
comment here with things you'd like to see changed in the eclass.
Caleb
--
[EMAIL PROT
On Thursday 20 December 2007 20:01:55 Zhang Le wrote:
> IMO, we can not have more than two EAPI's simultaneously.
That defeats the whole purpose of having EAPIs. Which is to keep a sane
upgrade path...
--
Bo Andresen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:46:35 Josh Saddler wrote:
> Who cares? Gentoo uses the ebuild/bash-with-shebang format. If you're
> trying to shove in something outside of that, that would be a package
> manager-specific format. Like XML-stuff (that can't include the shebang
> or EAPI="foo" at the to
On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
> > * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>
> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources the
ebuild to get the EAPI. Unless we ch
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:33:25 Joe Peterson wrote:
> Technical reasons to avoid the filename are:
>
> 2) Having the same info in more than one place is bad (requiring extra
> repoman checks and the potential for ambiguity).
As opposed to adding checks to make sure that obtaining the EAPI fr
On Thursday 20 December 2007 17:14:52 Thomas Pani wrote:
> > Are we Debian now? A new feature gets implemented (obviously because we
> > *need* it) and we can make use of it in a *year*?
>
> No, we're not Debian, thank god. I thought the "wait 1+ year" policy
> changed? Again citing Ciaran: "That w
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
> The question is really simple.
> Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
and we want to retain backwards compatibility for people who use old versi
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> something like
>
> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
#! /usr/bin/env ebuild
Then you can d
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:43:43 -0500
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> > thing works.
>
> I think this is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. This change
> impacts EVERYBODY - devs, users,
On Friday 21 December 2007 08:43:43 Richard Freeman wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> > thing works.
> CON:
> Yet another value to be parsed out of an increasingly-complex filename.
> Doesn't look pretty :)
Taste is a matter
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:48:31 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Point is that your filename format restricts it in exactly the same
>> manner. So let's just stick with the use cases which /that/ supports,
>> which can more easily be supported with the original
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> thing works.
>
I think this is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. This change
impacts EVERYBODY - devs, users, etc. To expect people not to comment
on it simply because they're not qualified to wri
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:29:34 -0500
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Ok. What's the EAPI for the following ebuild that's written in an
> > EAPI that hasn't been published yet? And how would I extract it?
> >
> > # Copyright blah blah
> >
> > import vim-spell
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> > Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to
> > write ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing
> > ebuilds, you have to know what you are and aren't allowe
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to write
> ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing ebuilds, you
> have to know what you are and aren't allowed to do in those ebuilds.
Then please try to keep things simple :)
The majority o
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Ok. What's the EAPI for the following ebuild that's written in an EAPI
> that hasn't been published yet? And how would I extract it?
>
> # Copyright blah blah
>
> import vim-spell using language="en"
>
Counterexample. How do you determine the eapi for the following
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
ridiculous.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> Did you autogenerate these ebuilds? It looks like the deps were pulled
> out of a conditional in the original qt.
They were pulled out, but they weren't autogenerated. It's all still a work in
progress.
> I've seen this in all of the split qt ebuilds. Should it go in the eclass?
Yep, going to
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:18:53 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well putting the eapi per tree/repo and provide a way to fetch
> directly the tree a package manager can understand sounds pretty much
> a simpler alternative.
And it defeats the whole point of having EAPI at all.
> Add
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:24:26 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since seems that enough people are against this glep and many are
>> undecided I started polling around for alternatives...
>
> But there has yet to be a correct technical objection, nor a corr
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:58:15 +0100
Thomas Pani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 deduc
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
