Am Montag, 19. Oktober 2015, 09:58:34 schrieb Michał Górny:
>
> Why do you assume I overlooked something? I thought exactly of this
> case, and decide that will force developers to finally write sane
> eclasses.
>
Can we adapt the gravitational constant of the universe for this special case
too,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change.
The fact that you'
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> However, as you say, putting it in cmake-utils needs to be properly
> thought so that it doesn't conflict with other eclasses: Hence the need
> to properly define what eclasses should call eapply_user and apply
> patches and what should no
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:17:13 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:20 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >
> >> >> I'd say the best approach for compatibility if you have an
> >> >> existing eclass and i
the masked testing has been pretty stable, so i've bumped 2.22-r1 into ~arch
-mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change.
>>> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really
>>> dimin
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change.
>> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really
>> diminish the impact of each one. Any of them could brea
On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change.
> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really
> diminish the impact of each one. Any of them could break a system or
> need to be reverted.
>
Since when do
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:13 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> We already know that. But if e.g. ago runs his scripts at 00:00 with
> ~300 packages stabilized, the history (without git command line) on
> github/gitweb will be fun to read (and people DO that).
>
It doesn't seem like it would have been any b
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:20 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> [...]
>> >
>> >> I'd say the best approach for compatibility if you have an existing
>> >> eclass and it already exports src_prepare is to not call
>> >> eapply_user unless it firm
On 10/19/2015 07:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple
>> unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so
>> comfortable with that idea..
>
> Nor am I. A commit sho
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple
> unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so
> comfortable with that idea..
Nor am I. A commit should be a set of related changes. Stabilizing
all of K
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/10/15 11:04 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and
>> hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits
>> less atomic" con
On 10/19/2015 10:04 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and
>> hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits less
>> atomic" conversely.
>>
>> Just so i make sure i'm understanding
On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>
>
> It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and
> hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits less
> atomic" conversely.
>
> Just so i make sure i'm understanding this right, hasufell's
> suggestion is to, in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/10/15 08:21 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell
>> wrote:
>>> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: """
>>> amd64 stabilizations
>>>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:20 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
[...]
> >
> >> I'd say the best approach for compatibility if you have an existing
> >> eclass and it already exports src_prepare is to not call
> >> eapply_user unless it firmly falls into the #2 category above.
> >
> > Replace 'not call
(To avoid repeating the same exception over and over, please
understand that nothing said below is intended to apply to the
do-everything eclasses used by KDE/etc, where the eclass and ebuilds
are carefully maintained in conjunction with each other.)
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:38:49 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> > But there is something important we've overlooked: should eclasses
> > that export src_prepare call eapply_user ? I think yes, otherwise
> > they'd make packages inheriting them
# James Le Cuirot (19 Oct 2015)
# Dead projects with no revdeps. Removal in 30 days.
dev-java/commons-attributes
dev-java/xjavadoc
--
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> But there is something important we've overlooked: should eclasses that
> export src_prepare call eapply_user ? I think yes, otherwise they'd
> make packages inheriting them violate the 'at least once rule'.
This sort of thing has been disc
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like:
>> """
>> amd64 stabilizations
>>
>>
>> """
>> possibly pre-pending the rough domain like "kde", if any. I think kde
>> herd already
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell wrote:
> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like:
> """
> amd64 stabilizations
>
>
> """
> possibly pre-pending the rough domain like "kde", if any. I think kde
> herd already does that, no?
Sounds sane to me.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
I'd like to discuss whether we should allow/encourage stabilization
commits to be less atomic. They often bloat the history, make it hard to
skim through the summaries list and people who are looking for
stabilization probably do 'git log -- ' anyway, no? In
addition, I'm not sure the bug informati
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 09:52:25 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In addition to the EAPI 6 specification, a draft of the "EAPI Cheat
> Sheet" is ready.
Awesome! Thank you.
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/6-draft/eapi-cheatsheet.pdf
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/6-draft/eapi-cheatsheet-nocom
On 21.09.15 02:53, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 12:00:28 AM James Le Cuirot wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:54:24 -0400
>> Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 20, 2015 11:33:34 PM James Le Cuirot wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:53:25 -0400
Fe
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:25:29 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Anthony G Basile wrote:
>
> > Why can't you just do something like this in the implementation of
> > eapply_user()? I must be missing some subtle point.
>
> > foo() {
> > if [[ -z $DONE ]]; then
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Anthony G Basile wrote:
> Why can't you just do something like this in the implementation of
> eapply_user()? I must be missing some subtle point.
> foo() {
> if [[ -z $DONE ]]; then
> DONE="all done"
> echo "in foo"
>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:09:41 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:04:22 +0200
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:34 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200
> > > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 20
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:04:22 +0200
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:34 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
> > > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Sun, 1
On 10/19/15 3:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200
Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
So the question is if we sh
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:34 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200
> > > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > >> So the question is if we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/10/2015 21:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In addition to the EAPI 6 specification, a draft of the "EAPI
> Cheat Sheet" is ready.
>
Great idea, I love it!
Thanks for your time on this
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/6-draft/eapi-cheatsheet.pdf
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 03:22:37 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 10/19/15 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> >>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200
> >>> Ulrich Mueller wr
On 10/19/15 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
So the question is if we should add a sentence like the following
to the spec:
In EAPIs wher
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> >> So the question is if we should add a sentence like the following
> >> to the spec:
> >>
> >> In EAPIs where
37 matches
Mail list logo
