-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/05/2015 01:04 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 02:21 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have plans to split ?/cargo-bin [1] package from the
>> dev-lang/rust-bin one. We have already dev-rust/cargo package in
>> the rust overl
On 09/05/2015 02:21 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have plans to split ?/cargo-bin [1] package from the dev-lang/rust-bin
> one. We have already dev-rust/cargo package in the rust overlay[2].
>
> It would be logical to have dev-rust/cargo-bin package then. But there
> is a problem: it w
Hi,
I have plans to split ?/cargo-bin [1] package from the dev-lang/rust-bin
one. We have already dev-rust/cargo package in the rust overlay[2].
It would be logical to have dev-rust/cargo-bin package then. But there
is a problem: it will be the only package in this category in the tree
and it is
On 09/05/2015 06:14 PM, Guilherme Amadio wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
>>> can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doe
On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
> > can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't
> > change when this moves into the package m
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 02:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
>>> can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't
>>> change w
On 09/05/2015 02:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
>> can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't
>> change when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6?
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
> can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't
> change when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6?
So far, the EAPI 6 draft says [1]:
eapply_user
T
On 09/05/2015 02:07 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Julian Ospald wrote:
>> This is particularly useful for people who run alternative
>> package managers and want to control their configuration.
>
> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
> c
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Julian Ospald wrote:
> This is particularly useful for people who run alternative
> package managers and want to control their configuration.
I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name
This is particularly useful for people who run alternative
package managers and want to control their configuration.
Github-PR: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/69
---
eclass/eutils.eclass | 14 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/eutils.eclas
11 matches
Mail list logo
