On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> I think you will encounter namespace collisions, thats why I CC'd zac
> as he maintains mirror-dist ;p
>
Why the hell didn't we think of this before!? :o
The mirror-dist script *cannot* rename the upstream files for storage,
since emerge will
And thankyou for all the fish you've given.
http://cia.vc/stats/author/corsair
You've done a pretty good job of making Gentoo great especially for ppc64.
Good luck with whatever you do next.
Patrick Lauer wrote:
Hi all,
with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you
count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite
confusing.
To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating
existing ebuilds over some time
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote:
>> >> > > Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely
>> >> > > aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure.
>> >> > > Making 1 or 2 the default fo
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:51:11 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > >> The same kind that always happens when lots of ebuilds get
> > >> changed.
> > >
> > > ... lots of new features and a few bugs that get fixed the next
> > > day? Hey, that sounds quite bad. And maybe some new herd testers?
> > > How ru
On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote:
> >> > > Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely
> >> > > aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure.
> >> > > Making 1 or 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting
> >> > > existing things
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and
> migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until
> EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point in the future.
> I would set the start of deprecation warnings about
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:41:39 Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200
>> >
>> > Markos Chandras wrote:
>> >> I took a look on EAPI2 specifications b
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100
>>
>> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> > Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which
>> > eapi has which features available. And ea
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:02:54 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > So? When people do new things, they can move the EAPI forward.
> > That's not a reason to modify existing things.
>
> The added complexity of having a dozen eapis does not offer any
> benefits to the average developer.
There is no added
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100
>
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which
> > eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0,
> > so we don't have to rewrite to
Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
I am interested in the number of ebuilds at specific APIs in the tree,
do you have those numbers?
Basically, how much work is this (raw ebuild count)?
Total ebuilds 26209
EAPI0 ebuilds 22880
EAPI1 ebuilds 1855
EAPI2 ebuilds 1474
this numbers b
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which
> eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0,
> so we don't have to rewrite tons of things.
So? When people do new things, they can move the EAPI
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:21:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100
>
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and
> > migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until
> > EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point
Alec Warner wrote:
> I am interested in the number of ebuilds at specific APIs in the tree,
> do you have those numbers?
> Basically, how much work is this (raw ebuild count)?
>
Total ebuilds 26209
EAPI0 ebuilds 22880
EAPI1 ebuilds 1855
EAPI2 ebuilds 1474
this numbers based on regexps =)
On Saturday 21 March 2009 19:37:12 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you
> count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite
> confusing.
> To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
if you are following pybugz, we have moved development from google code
(which is subversion) to github. The url for the page there is
http://www.github.com/ColdWind/pybugz
Thanks,
- --
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
willi...@g
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and
> migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until
> EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point in the future.
Uh. Why?
Introducing a policy encouraging moving thi
Alec Warner schrieb am 21.03.2009 20:45:
Be more specific, what actual problems have you encountered?
What are some other ways we could mitigate these issues (it seems like
tool improvements could be a big one here)?
Regarding the depreciation of EAPI's I think eclasses will probably
benefit
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:41:39 Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200
> >
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> I took a look on EAPI2 specifications but couldn't find how mirrors
> >> behave with arrows.
> >
> > It's
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you
> count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite
> confusing.
Be more specific, what actual problems have you encountered?
Wha
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>> I took a look on EAPI2 specifications but couldn't find how mirrors
>> behave with arrows.
>
> It's supposed to say this:
>
>> In EAPIs supporting arrows, if an arrow is used,
Hi all,
with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you
count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite
confusing.
To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating
existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher unt
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Sebastian,
> Why would I want to do that? The license files should stay untouched.
> There is
> nothing wrong of having both licenses on ebuild since this is the upstream
> policy.
I forgot that the license files upstream might change
so I agree you need a cop
On Saturday 21 March 2009 15:46:19 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > Qt-creator[1] program can support perforce[2] software configuration
> > manager. My concern is the perforce license. According to their site[3]
> > there is a dual(?) license.
> > Ther
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200
Markos Chandras wrote:
> I took a look on EAPI2 specifications but couldn't find how mirrors
> behave with arrows.
It's supposed to say this:
> In EAPIs supporting arrows, if an arrow is used, the filename used
> when saving to \t{DISTDIR} shall instead be the
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Qt-creator[1] program can support perforce[2] software configuration
> manager.
> My concern is the perforce license. According to their site[3] there is a
> dual(?) license.
> There is the standard commercial license[4] and one for free software
On Saturday 21 March 2009 14:50:08 Robert Buchholz wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Doing some research I found out that perforce-cli was in the portage
> > back in 2006 but not anymore. Can somebody recall the reason why it
> > is not there anymore? If it wasn't a
On Saturday 21 March 2009, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Doing some research I found out that perforce-cli was in the portage
> back in 2006 but not anymore. Can somebody recall the reason why it
> is not there anymore? If it wasn't a license issue , I want to bring
> it back ( at least the client
Hello folks,
Qt-creator[1] program can support perforce[2] software configuration
manager.
My concern is the perforce license. According to their site[3] there is a
dual(?) license.
There is the standard commercial license[4] and one for free software
development[4]. Should I add both?
On Friday 20 March 2009 09:29:49 Markus Rothe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> it's a classical subject for a classical reason: I don't have time to
> contribute work to Gentoo anymore. So please retire me [1].
>
> It was fun to work with all of you and it is a great experience to work in
> such a big project.
31 matches
Mail list logo
