Hi folks!
I am not involved in creating the EAPI 2 draft but I am interested in
the discussion and would like to track the technical evolution but
this seams nearly impossible as you're not able to agree on a public
draft document.
* Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080911 20:02]:
> On Mon, 0
Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again.
>>>
>>> Quoting Zac earlier in #gentoo-portage:
>>>
>>> 21:46 < zmedico> jmbsvicetto: I think we essentially have a spec already
>>> that people can agree on. just take my draft and subtrac
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 22:14:57 -0400
Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was personally expecting to see some sort of section called "EAPI-1"
> that contains something like:
>
> "EAPI-1 consists of EAPI-0 with the following features added..."
Have a look at the eapi-differences-summary branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Thursday 11 September 2008 17:42:25 Zac Medico wrote:
>> Ebuilds that used this approach were easily fixed by moving the has_version
>> calls to pkg_preinst and storing the results in environment variables.
>
> Which br
On Thursday 11 September 2008 17:42:25 Zac Medico wrote:
> Ebuilds that used this approach were easily fixed by moving the has_version
> calls to pkg_preinst and storing the results in environment variables.
Which breaks with any portage old enough to not properly support storing
environment var
Torsten Veller:
> I guess some of you use spamassassin.
> Does anyone volunteer to maintain it?
> Search bugzilla for open bug-reports.
I (or much better net-mail) can take it.
Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
I guess some of you use spamassassin.
Does anyone volunteer to maintain it?
Search bugzilla for open bug-reports.
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Zac Medico wrote:
> I think it's worthwhile to have consistent phase ordering across all
> EAPIs. Consider an upgrade from EAPI 0 to EAPI 2. If the phase order
> is consistent across all EAPIs, as implemented in
> >=sys-apps/portage-2.1.5, then the order of phase executi
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:34:28 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the earlier discussion about EAPI-2 in
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3e9d42191c3537c4f699c12cadd0ad99.xml
> and cardoe's earlier request to the council ml, can the council
> members disc
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > Hi again.
> >
> > Quoting Zac earlier in #gentoo-portage:
> >
> > 21:46 < zmedico> jmbsvicetto: I think we essentially have a spec already
> > that people can agree on. just take my draft and subtract the eapi*
> > functions and the gitw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:34:28 +
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So we're talking about adding the following to EAPI-2:
>
> Are we treating PROPERTIES as purely optional and having no defined
> v
Dale wrote:
> Holger Hoffstaette wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:38:56 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
>>> Marius Mauch wrote:
>>>
Maybe the best solution is to drop the non-prefixed versions of 'world'
and 'system' completely
>>> Deprecating the old syntax sounds like a s
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:34:28 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So we're talking about adding the following to EAPI-2:
Are we treating PROPERTIES as purely optional and having no defined
values for EAPI 2 then?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP sign
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html
>
> By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase
> order t
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 September 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700
>>
>> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html
>>
>> By table
On Thursday 11 September 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700
>
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html
>
> By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase
> order to be part of E
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html
By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase
order to be part of EAPI 2?
Really, Portage needs to revert the order and go back to th
17 matches
Mail list logo
