Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild
sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE="yes" globally, it does not mean that ebuilds
may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild
> sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE="yes" globally, it does not mean that ebuilds
> may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot
> change in s
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:31:38 +0200
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the question is whether it's accepted, what matters is whether it's
> accepted. If you're interested in legality, ask whether it should be
> accepted, not whether it is. spb did that in the same message, and I
> respon
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:15:35PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:52:39 +0200
> Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
> > > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:52:39 +0200
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
> > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
> >
> > Nnnnope. Not legal.
>
> The qu
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
> Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
>
> Nnnnope. Not legal.
The question was "Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a
CPV are both accepted?" Lo
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Carsten, no offense but I think you totally misunderstood the scope of
> what I was trying to convey
Yeah, sorry, should have had read your initial email carefully. Taking
anything before the last - as version information is indeed a Portage bu
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
According to PMS at least, PROVIDE only allows category/package, with
no versioning.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
Nnnnope. Not legal.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:31:44PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
> > don't know unless you actually check the tree.
>
> Is there any place in the
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:28:26 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. If the first character was a !, then remember that, strip the !
> from S, and repeat from 2.
> 5. If you reach this point, you have something that is not valid.
Sorry, but I completely fail to understand what tha
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:04:17 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version)
> requires =, >=, <, <= to begin it.
Nope. Something that starts with an operator is a versioned atom. A CPV
is used in other places when a specific versio
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires
> > =, >=, <, <= to begin it.
>
> So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case)
> to >=foo/bar
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
> don't know unless you actually check the tree.
Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both
accepted? Should there be?
--
[EMAIL
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires
>> =, >=, <, <= to begin it.
>>
>
> So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case)
> to >=foo/bar-0 !? Comp
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires
> =, >=, <, <= to begin it.
So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case)
to >=foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of line, imho. I don't understand
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>>> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
>>> don't know unless you actually check the tree.
>>>
>> I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 02:57:28 +0900
Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types
> > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
> > don't know unless you actually check the tree.
>
> Isn't "sys-fs/ntfs-3g" the atom and
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
> > don't know unless you actually check the tree.
> I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of
> an atom.
If you look the DEPEND/RDEPE
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
> Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper
>>> upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world
>>> is "ntfs-3g". I t
maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
> Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper
> > > upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in th
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper
> > upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world
> > is "ntfs-3g". I tried to rename the package however, Por
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream
name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is "ntfs-3g".
I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it
is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's inv
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
> I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and PMS bug. Since I
> believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that.
>
> Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream
> name and name referenced in every single doc in the wo
Howdy all,
I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and PMS bug. Since I
believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that.
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream
name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is "ntfs-3g".
I tried to renam
25 matches
Mail list logo
