On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:30:28 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 10:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > Strictly speaking, we don't have to since the lexing should be
> > predictable enough. Of course, mistakes like missing version following
> > the operator would result in curious error
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:32:33 +0800
konsolebox wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>dev-foo/bar{:1.3 :1.4 :1.5} ## Solves "A. Range dependencies vs
> >>slotting"
> >
> > I'm not sure about this. Slots are kinda special, especially with regard to
> > slot operators.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 10:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Strictly speaking, we don't have to since the lexing should be
>> predictable enough. Of course, mistakes like missing version following
>> the operator would result in curious errors.
>>
>>
On 11/08/2016 10:44 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 05:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:02 -0600
>>> William Hubbs wrote:
The plan, once the first release is out, is to rewrite this utility
i
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:39:09 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2016 09:49 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> >
>> > This wouldn't completely solve it, because we also have a := slot
>> > operator.
>>
>> Oh, duh...
>>
>>
>> > Brackets wou
On 11/08/2016 05:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:02 -0600
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> The plan, once the first release is out, is to rewrite this utility
>>> in a better language. I'm considering C, but if I am com
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 8 listopada 2016 09:17:11 CET, konsolebox
> napisał(a):
>>On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:09 PM, konsolebox
>>wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny
>>wrote:
Hi, everyone.
Following my previous RFC wrt version
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:02 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> The plan, once the first release is out, is to rewrite this utility
>> in a better language. I'm considering C, but if I am comfortable by
>> that time in Go or Rust, I may use o
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:02 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
>
> The plan, once the first release is out, is to rewrite this utility
> in a better language. I'm considering C, but if I am comfortable by
> that time in Go or Rust, I may use one of them.
>
For a low-level utility that is likely going t
On 11/08/2016 10:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Strictly speaking, we don't have to since the lexing should be
> predictable enough. Of course, mistakes like missing version following
> the operator would result in curious errors.
>
> The major problem with spaces I see is that it means we end up
All,
as part of bug 599044 [1], I have created a tmpfiles project which is a
standalone utility to handle systemd style tmpfiles.d files.
There is currently a live ebuild in the tree, but I haven't done any
releases yet.
Take a look at it, and anything about it is open for discussion at this
po
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:39:09 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 09:49 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > This wouldn't completely solve it, because we also have a := slot
> > operator.
>
> Oh, duh...
>
>
> > Brackets would help, or some new separator. Pick your poison:
>
> I wou
On 11/08/2016 09:49 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> This wouldn't completely solve it, because we also have a := slot
> operator.
Oh, duh...
> Brackets would help, or some new separator. Pick your poison:
I would really like to have spaces around the infix operators, but then
we need to separate
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> [...] In that proposal, the one problem mentioned is that the syntax
> would collide with the subslot dependency syntax. For example, right
> now, if I want to depend on SLOT=4 of app-foo/bar and I need my
> package to rebuild when app-foo/bar ch
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to
> start the second part of the discussion: how to improve version
> operators in a Future EAPI?
> I've collected various ideas on operator changes on a wiki page [1].
> I've tried
On 11/06/2016 05:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I've collected various ideas on operator changes on a wiki page [1].
> I've tried to stay open-minded and cover every possibility, even though
> I doubt some of them would be even considered.
>
> ...
>
> So, what are your comments?
>
I read throu
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 8 listopada 2016 08:09:55 CET, konsolebox
> napisał(a):
>>On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hi, everyone.
>>>
>>> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to
>>> start the second part of th
Dnia 8 listopada 2016 09:17:11 CET, konsolebox
napisał(a):
>On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:09 PM, konsolebox
>wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny
>wrote:
>>> Hi, everyone.
>>>
>>> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to
>>> start the second part of the
Dnia 8 listopada 2016 08:09:55 CET, konsolebox
napisał(a):
>On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hi, everyone.
>>
>> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to
>> start the second part of the discussion: how to improve version
>> operators in a Future
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:09 PM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hi, everyone.
>>
>> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to
>> start the second part of the discussion: how to improve version
>> operators in a Future EAPI?
>>
On 08/11/16 08:03, konsolebox wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:49 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>
>> Ewww, WTF should we use Google as a (bad) example?!
> I don't care if it's from Google or not, and you shouldn't as well.
> Grow up. It's got nothing to do with the solution.
I'll defer to mgorny as
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:49 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 08/11/16 07:09, konsolebox wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hi, everyone.
>>>
>>> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to
>>> start the second part of the discussion: how to imp
22 matches
Mail list logo
