Le 17/08/2011 21:57, Matthew Summers a écrit :
> +1 on this. It saves the ebuild for posterity AND prevents users
> hitting nasty bits. This seems to me to beg for a proper well-defined
> policy, in any case.
>
We already have a policy for this and it's called portage.
If a package is broken (an
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:45, Thomas Kahle wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
>>
>> On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
>>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:58:32 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> You can insist on this SRC_URI + DEFINED_PHASES approach, but I
>> doubt that package manager developers will want to rely on these
>> kinds of fragile assumptions. You thought that relyi
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:58:32 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> You can insist on this SRC_URI + DEFINED_PHASES approach, but I doubt
> that package manager developers will want to rely on these kinds of
> fragile assumptions. You thought that relying on the "virtual"
> category name was ridiculous, but th
Am 17.08.2011 18:45, schrieb Thomas Kahle:
> Hi,
>
> I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
>
> On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
>> developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to
>> ma
On 08/17/2011 10:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:19:06 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>>> And isn't a random PROPERTIES value more fragile? If someone uses it
>>> incorrectly, the results are undefined. With older PMs, resul
most users just hunt the program name and gentoo to a searchengine
they get the info that the ebuild is in cvs but in graveyard.
but hey i am just a user.
Mario
2011/8/17 Markos Chandras :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 17/08/2011 06:04 ??, Mario Fetka wrote:
>> how a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/08/2011 05:56 ??, Alex Alexander wrote:
> We could try removing all keywords and masking ebuilds that are
> abandoned with bugs but upstream is still active, instead of
> removing them completely. That way the ebuild will be there when/if
> so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Kahle wrote:
> Is there a way for X to easily query the portage history and dig up
> the ebuild that was there at some point. She could then use the old
> ebuild for their new version, but without efficient search she would
> probably start fro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/08/2011 06:04 ??, Mario Fetka wrote:
> how about adding a new tag metadata,xml so that it is not imported
> into the rsync tree
>
What is the difference between your proposal and removing the package?
In both cases, the broken ebuild does not
how about adding a new tag metadata,xml so that it is not imported
into the rsync tree
Mario
2011/8/17 Alex Alexander :
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:45, Thomas Kahle wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
>>
>> On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Person
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:19:06 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > And isn't a random PROPERTIES value more fragile? If someone uses it
> > incorrectly, the results are undefined. With older PMs, results are
> > undefined.
>
> > While having empty SR
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:45, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
>
> On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
>> developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) t
Hi,
I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
> developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to
> maintain thousands of ebuilds.
[...]
> We need to suppor
On 08/17/2011 07:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:40:45 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Is the real issue that ebuild developers aren't using workarounds in
>> order to overcome the shortcomings of some dependency resolvers?
>> Really?
>
> The real issue is that Portage has nea
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:40:45 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> Is the real issue that ebuild developers aren't using workarounds in
> order to overcome the shortcomings of some dependency resolvers?
> Really?
The real issue is that Portage has nearly as much unspecified voodoo
in its behaviour as a web b
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:27:36 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> Note that the jre and jdk relationship isn't necessarily the only
> relationship with these properties. Wouldn't it be better to make the
> dependency resolver a bit smarter (as implemented in portage for many
> years), than to introduce a bun
On 08/17/2011 12:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:51:27 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2011 01:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>>
On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:
On 08/17/2011 12:20 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think
> they
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
> And isn't a random PROPERTIES value more fragile? If someone uses it
> incorrectly, the results are undefined. With older PMs, results are
> undefined.
> While having empty SRC_URI and no DEFINED_PHASES guarantees that
> the ebuild won't install a
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:25:22 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> So by all means either read up on flameeyes' libtool blog posts or
> contact him, but it may well be possible to simply eliminate that
> problem *.la file
Uhm, the failure is in src_install.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
sig
Matti Bickel posted on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:30:43 +0200 as excerpted:
> Hi folks,
>
> coming back from an extended vacation I found bug #351266[1] still open.
> The root cause of this install failure seems to be libtool trying to
> relink php's apache module.
> So that leaves me with either:
> a)
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >>> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think
> >>> they are creating correct packages?
> >>
> >> Are you say
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:51:27 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 01:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
> >>> Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/16/
24 matches
Mail list logo
