-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/06/2012 05:27 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:44:34PM +0200, hasufell wrote:
>> -dep_str="dev-lang/python:${dep_str: -3}" ;; +
>> dep_str="dev-lang/python:${dep_str: -3}${_PYTHON_USE}" ;;
> should I as
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:44:34PM +0200, hasufell wrote:
> I am missing a replacement for PYTHON_USE_WITH.
>
> Would the attached patch help in any way? Review? Other ideas?
> --- python-distutils-ng.eclass
> +++ python-distutils-ng.eclass
> @@ -59,6 +59,25 @@
> # Set to any value to disable au
On Sep 6, 2012 10:18 AM, "Michael Orlitzky" wrote:
>
> On 09/05/2012 05:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane.
> >
> >> and isn't a compromise at all.
> >
> > I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required
> > outcome of this. Give
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:44:34 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> --- python-distutils-ng.eclass
> +++ python-distutils-ng.eclass
> @@ -59,6 +59,25 @@
> # Set to any value to disable automatic reinstallation of scripts in
> bin # directories. See python-distutils-ng_src_install function.
>
> +# @ECLASS-VAR
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:42:27 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
One signature is enough :P.
> On 06/09/12 04:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Not that I'm that brilliant to come up with somethi
I am missing a replacement for PYTHON_USE_WITH.
Would the attached patch help in any way? Review? Other ideas?
--- python-distutils-ng.eclass
+++ python-distutils-ng.eclass
@@ -59,6 +59,25 @@
# Set to any value to disable automatic reinstallation of scripts in bin
# directories. See python-distu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/09/12 04:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:22:24 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> So one of the advantages of using python-distutils-ng.eclass for
>> building (and bui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/09/12 04:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Not sure; you think of so many different things.. :D
I wanted it to be short -- this is a convenience variable to be used
in *DEPEND; and since it cont
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:22:24 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> So one of the advantages of using python-distutils-ng.eclass for
> building (and building against) python modules is that python module
> dependencies can be guaranteed against the same python targets as what
> you're building for, via
Yes. The manager can still parallelize prefetching, only consuming a build
job slot post fetch.
On Sep 6, 2012 11:49 AM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:49:13 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > One additional thought- re: the scenarios where we don't fetch to an
> > intermediate l
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:49:13 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> One additional thought- re: the scenarios where we don't fetch to an
> intermediate location, then transfer that contents into ${WORKDIR},
> while a better name is needed, something along the lines of
> RESTRICT=fetches-into-workdir come
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey all:
So one of the advantages of using python-distutils-ng.eclass for
building (and building against) python modules is that python module
dependencies can be guaranteed against the same python targets as what
you're building for, via the PYTHON
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> From a developer's perspective, it's obviously better to be able to do
> whatever you want. But for users it'd be nice to be able to request a
> bump to EAPI5 and not get told to buzz off.
It is easy. Don't ask for a bump to EAPI5. Ask f
On 09/05/2012 05:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>
> Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane.
>
>> and isn't a compromise at all.
>
> I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required
> outcome of this. Given the choice between something productive, and
> something not pr
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> If there's really no reason, why would anyone bother to file a bug for
> it? It's better for developers than the must-bump policy, and better for
> users than what we have now.
What change is even being proposed? If there is an issue that
On 09/05/2012 12:15 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs
are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can fi
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:07:22PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:00:05 +0200
> Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > I guess that's a pretty comprehensive "we need to do this properly"
> > > then.
> >
> > Did I say we don't need to? We have the two eclasses which need to do
> > this
On 09/06/2012 02:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> After reading this thread, I have seen numerous occasions where has been
> asked what this proposal actually solves. Unless I've accidentially
> skipped over it, the answer has yet to be given. It appears to me now
> sub-slot is a feature that makes
> "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes:
CM> This doesn't work if we have, for example, foo:1 and foo:2 both using
CM> the same SCM repository, but different branches.
The subversion eclass already handles that; it stores in $distfiles/$P/$branch.
The cvs eclass also could do so.
-JimC
--
James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/09/12 09:25 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> sub-slots is the 'some-identifier' part of
> ${SLOT}/${some-identifier}. It doesn't have to *replate* to ${PV}
> at all, and generally shouldn't.
>
>
..i have no idea what "replate" was supposed t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/09/12 05:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Replying to this email since it seems to be the discussion behind
> the "sub-slot" feature proposed for EAPI 5.
>
> On 04-06-2012 23:26:18 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> This is why I think we should try
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/09/12 03:55 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012, Gregory M Turner wrote:
>
>> Hello, in my overlay I need to fix a bunch of issues that crop up
>> when implementing EPREFIX construction in scripts due to Cygwin's
>> idiosyncr
On 9/6/2012 12:55 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012, Gregory M Turner wrote:
Several correct-ish solutions exist, i.e., in the above we could change
the concatenation statement to read:
EROOT="${ROOT}${EPREFIX#/}"
I'd rather do it the other way around:
EROOT=${ROOT%/}${EPREFIX}
Replying to this email since it seems to be the discussion behind
the "sub-slot" feature proposed for EAPI 5.
On 04-06-2012 23:26:18 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> This is why I think we should try to push a bit my first suggestion for
> the short term until "the perfect one" is ready as, until then,
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:31:29 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:27:55 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > But what I was saying is that I dislike the implicit 'no label ==
> > build+run'. It's unclear, very unclear.
> >
> > Why the heck:
> >
> > ( foo/bar )
> >
> > introduces
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:27:55 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> But what I was saying is that I dislike the implicit 'no label ==
> build+run'. It's unclear, very unclear.
>
> Why the heck:
>
> ( foo/bar )
>
> introduces another label than:
>
> use? ( foo/bar )
>
> ?
Labels are propagated in
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:00:40 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:39:25 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:58:51 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:15:43 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > If we really want to go this route, then
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:08:58PM +, Mark Bateman wrote:
> Patrick Lauer gentoo.org> writes:
>
> >
> > On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> > > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include t
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:54:15PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 02:15:40 hasufell wrote:
> > Is there a reason not to support static-libs in an ebuild if the package
> > supports it?
> >
> > It seems some developers don't care about this option. What's the gentoo
>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:06:45AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 31-08-2012 20:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>
>
> > Also, we're getting rather a lot of *DEPEND variables here... If
> > we're making people make major changes to
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:39:25 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:58:51 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:15:43 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > If we really want to go this route, then please at least require
> > > explicit label at start of DEPENDENCIES. A
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012, Gregory M Turner wrote:
> Hello, in my overlay I need to fix a bunch of issues that crop up when
> implementing EPREFIX construction in scripts due to Cygwin's
> idiosyncratic, but POSIX-compliant, handling of paths beginning with
> "//" (Cygwin does some arguably pat
Hello, in my overlay I need to fix a bunch of issues that crop up when
implementing EPREFIX construction in scripts due to Cygwin's
idiosyncratic, but POSIX-compliant, handling of paths beginning with
"//" (Cygwin does some arguably pathological stuff when such paths are
used).
Almost all of
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:58:51 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:15:43 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > If we really want to go this route, then please at least require
> > explicit label at start of DEPENDENCIES. And the same when appending
> > to DEPENDENCIES -- just so 'unlikel
34 matches
Mail list logo
