fyi my email client doesn't recognize urls in the subject line, don't
know about anyone elses... but it'd be nice to click the link to the
bug, and you know have some clue what this is about without reading
the bug (e.g. a useful subject line). sorry I can't be of
any further help here.
On Tue, F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
> only allowed to p
Petteri Räty wrote:
Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
> only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to m
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:43:44 -0100
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:46 -0800
> > Brian Harring wrote:
> < snip a few arguments>
>
> Ciaran and Brian,
>
> please respect Pettery's request and move your discussion to the
> GLEP55 thread or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:46 -0800
> Brian Harring wrote:
< snip a few arguments>
Ciaran and Brian,
please respect Pettery's request and move your discussion to the GLEP55
thread or to another thread, but leave it out of thi
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:24:45 -0800
Brian Harring wrote:
> > You can do that on a variable assignment too, with all the same
> > implications as having it as a function, and a slightly less
> > horrible upgrade path.
>
> You're contradicting your own statements. Pkg level eclasses (if
> reusing
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:11:04AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:46 -0800
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Bullshit. First invocation of the ebuild, that means it can do
> > whatever it wants to the environment- literally swapping in the EAPI
> > environment right then/the
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:46 -0800
Brian Harring wrote:
> Bullshit. First invocation of the ebuild, that means it can do
> whatever it wants to the environment- literally swapping in the EAPI
> environment right then/there. Auto inherits, changing the inherit
> mechanism, everything (this inc
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:03:07PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:49:51 -0800
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > 4) eapi as a function; instead of "EAPI=1", do "eapi 1", required as
> > the first statement (simplest way).
>
> Doesn't solve anything over having it as a variable,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:49:51 -0800
Brian Harring wrote:
> 4) eapi as a function; instead of "EAPI=1", do "eapi 1", required as
> the first statement (simplest way).
Doesn't solve anything over having it as a variable, and has a messy
upgrade path.
> - global scope changes can occur (inherit
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 11:10:01 Timothy Redaelli wrote:
> what do you think about checking for bashism on install_qa_check?
> Obviously only for scripts with #!/bin/sh and #!/sbin/runscript as first
> line.
>
> I think checkbashisms.pl [1] could be a good start point.
>
> [1] http://svn.debi
Brian Harring wrote:
>
> 4) eapi as a function; instead of "EAPI=1", do "eapi 1", required as
> the first statement (simplest way).
> pros:
> - global scope changes can occur (inherit mechanism changes
> included).
> - expanding on the first, auto inherits (pkg level) are possible-
>
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
> only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to m
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
>> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
>> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks.
>
> I've already comm
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:21:23AM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> 1) Status quo
> - does not allow changing inherit
> - bash version in global scope
> - global scope in general is quite locked down
Yuck, I want per-package eclasses and all those other goodies.
> 2) EAPI in file extension
>
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:17:29 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
> I'd rather see more people backing their ideas with numbers...
I already told you your numbers are nonsense.
Of course opening the file when you've already opened it isn't going to
make any difference.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Thomas Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:56:04PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
Yes, it will warn noisily. This is unacceptable, since stable users
will have months and months of noise when new rules come along.
"unacceptable"...
as in "it's ugly to see"...
No, it's unacceptable becaus
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:33:44 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
That sounds like an implementation detail that you could solve by
using something else than a flat file database for metadata if
open()/read() calls are the slow part.
Metadata's shipped with the tree. It's a PMS
Hi,
what do you think about checking for bashism on install_qa_check?
Obviously only for scripts with #!/bin/sh and #!/sbin/runscript as first line.
I think checkbashisms.pl [1] could be a good start point.
[1] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/devscripts/trunk/scripts/checkbashisms.pl
--
Timothy `
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:56:04 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
> > That you're bringing ebuild.sh into this shows you still haven't
> > worked out how the process works. There is no need to use ebuild.sh
> > (which is a very good thing, because launching bash is
> > slow) when there's valid me
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:56:04PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Yes, it will warn noisily. This is unacceptable, since stable users
>> will have months and months of noise when new rules come along.
>
> "unacceptable"...
>
> as in "it's ugly to see"...
>
No, it's unacceptable because stable users
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:04:46 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
given that the simplest thing is hacking ebuild.sh and extract eapi
with a simple C program (you can use pcre or ragel if you want)
exactly before the ebuild source:
That you're bringing ebuild.sh into this shows yo
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:04:46 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
> given that the simplest thing is hacking ebuild.sh and extract eapi
> with a simple C program (you can use pcre or ragel if you want)
> exactly before the ebuild source:
That you're bringing ebuild.sh into this shows you still haven't worke
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:33:44 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> That sounds like an implementation detail that you could solve by
> using something else than a flat file database for metadata if
> open()/read() calls are the slow part.
Metadata's shipped with the tree. It's a PMS detail.
If we didn't
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:34:41 +0100
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Well, you could theoretical consider everything in the cache valid
> within the current scope, find the eapi within the cache or the ebuild
> and then reconsider things.
You can't even do that, because new EAPIs might change how cache
ent
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in
> order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks.
Thanks for opening a spot to voice our opinions
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vot
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:42:38PM +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le mardi 24 février 2009 à 09:47 -0800, Brian Harring a écrit :
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:26:48PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> > > Thursdays
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:21:23AM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> My notes so far:
>
> 1) Status quo
> - does not allow changing inherit
> - bash version in global scope
> - global scope in general is quite locked down
>
> 2) EAPI in file extension
> - Allows changing global scope and the
Le mardi 24 février 2009 à 09:47 -0800, Brian Harring a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:26:48PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> > irc.freenode
* Petteri Räty :
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Open council spot
> > -
> >
> > leio is next on the list. He's willing to join the council. A few of us
> > already voted to confirm him on-list, and we're waiting on the others.
> >
> > Goal: Vote to confirm him, if necessary.
> >
>
Petteri Räty wrote:
> 2) EAPI in file extension
> - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild
> a) .ebuild-
> - ignored by current Portage
> c) ..
> - ignored by current Portage
Any of the above are fine with me, there is a demonstrated need for
this to intr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild
> c) .ebuild in current directory
> - needs one year wait
I'm all for 1 or 3c, because we're not in any rush.
I don't see why there's such an immediate need to make as drastic
chang
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 23:26 Sun 22 Feb , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
>> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
>> irc.freenode.net) !
>>
>> If you have something you'd wish for us to cha
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:21 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> get opinions [..] to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks.
> only allowed to post a single reply to this thread
Thank you for that, I usually don't follow long threads, so apologies if
things have been discussed already.
Bas
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:23 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks.
[...]
I dislike GLEP 55 aesthetically, b
Hi!
My preference, most wanted to least wanted:
- inside the ebuild
If it's not too much pain. Yes, that is a very subjective
metric and it's what a large amount of flames has been about.
- in the filename, but not as a tail
eg: foo-2.3.4-r2+9.build
yes, alternate separators might be b
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:37:11 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:28:43 +0100
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:24:16 +
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:16:54 +0100
> > > Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > > > You're doubling the number of fi
I have no strong opinion about this.
> 2) EAPI in file extension
> - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild
> a) .ebuild-
> - ignored by current Portage
simple, straightforward but ugly
> b) ..ebuild
> - current Portage does not work with this
this only
40 matches
Mail list logo
