On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to
> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in the tree, so there is no
> backward compatibility issue.
It's both a backwards and a forwards compatibility iss
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the
> discussion will be more technical.
>
Based on your summary of the suggestions on the list, I believe you
misunderstood what many of us were arguing for.
* Set the EAPI inside the e
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> So please everybody, give a warm welcome to Richard.
Richard, big welcome!
-Joe
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> * Eclasses may not set EAPI.
>>
>> * Eclasses may not assume a particular EAPI.
>
> I disagree here. It would be annoying and possibly even hindering in
> future not being able to use higher EAPI features in eclasses
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> Richard is married and has two children.
Yay a parent! (How many are there? I can only think of Neddy..)
> So please everybody, give a warm welcome to Richard.
>
Well done Rich :D
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:54:16 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007/12/23, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > a) It's a massive restriction on what future ebuilds can do.
>
> - it handles a reasonnable range of likely future EAPIs,
It doesn't, though
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:19:30 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So please everybody, give a warm welcome to Richard.
Welcome, Richard!
JeR
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:49:10 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As long as there is an agreement in any given point of time, it is
OK. Such as, put your EAPI definition on the first line of your
ebuild, like EAPI="value"
>>>
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2007-12-23 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-db/xpg 2007-12-19 03:52:10 wltjr
dev-db/firebird-docs2007-12-19 04:02:10 wltjr
dev-java/blackdown-j
Duncan wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:35:07
> +:
>
>> Oh yeah I forgot, McCreesh thinks they're all idiots[1], so let's just
>> do what he says.
>
>> [1]
>> http://lab.obsethryl.eu/content/paludis-gentoo-and-ciaran-
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 19:57 +0100, Markus Meier wrote:
>
> java5 6
I think eventually we want to do something else there and possibly get
rid of that flag. Otherwise we would also end up with java6, java7, ...
We aren't exactly saying don't do it, but don't think we would
On 2007/12/23, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) It's a massive restriction on what future ebuilds can do.
- it handles a reasonnable range of likely future EAPIs,
- it includes the "extension changes when the way to extract EAPI
has to change" to avoid bounding future EAPIs to th
After a long and bumpy ride, concluded by a very BOFH-esque "LDAP
replication failure, we're on it" (thanks Robin, by the way), it's my
pleasure to announce that Richard Freeman (rich0) is a new Gentoo
developer. Richard has been an amd64 AT for some time already, and so
will join the amd64 team. H
14 matches
Mail list logo
