On 01.06.2017 23:18, Jonas Stein wrote:
> 2. Specification
>
> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be
> written in the field
>
>
> It should be NONE, if debian has no corresponding package.
> UNSET or no field, if the creator of the ebuild did not
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:40:15 -0400
Alec Warner wrote:
> Do we really need to store and distribute this data though?
Aggregating this kind of data by cross-referencing multiple providers
and then trying discovery against debians equivalents of that, while
workable, would be likely fragile and unpr
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On sob, 2017-06-03 at 03:22 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:51:25 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > ...so if a Gentoo package is split into 40 packages in Debian, are you
> > > going to list all of them?
> >
> > If
On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 13:56:52 +0100
Andrey Utkin wrote:
> You have searched for packages that names contain libavcodec in
> suite(s) stable, all sections, and all architectures. Found 4
> matching packages. Package libavcodec-dev
> Package libavcodec-extra
> Package libavcodec-extra-56
> Package li
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted
> > those remotes to the source package used to build them all.
>
> I think in the event they're a
On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted
> those remotes to the source package used to build them all.
I think in the event they're a form of conventional
foo
foo-dev
foo-dbg
etc, under the knowledge t
On sob, 2017-06-03 at 03:22 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:51:25 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > ...so if a Gentoo package is split into 40 packages in Debian, are you
> > going to list all of them?
>
> If it would be useful to do so, maybe.
>
> But its a text file, peopl
On 06/01/2017 11:59 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:36:24 -0700
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
>> +1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be
>> movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD?
>> Slackware? Where do we draw the line?
>
>
On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:51:25 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> ...so if a Gentoo package is split into 40 packages in Debian, are you
> going to list all of them?
If it would be useful to do so, maybe.
But its a text file, people are capable of making judgements about
adding 3.2k of text, I hope. ( w
On sob, 2017-06-03 at 02:38 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:07:44 +0700
> "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow?
>
> Not sure it should. Even though one package may be the logical equivalent
> of a handful of de
On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:07:44 +0700
"Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote:
> Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow?
Not sure it should. Even though one package may be the logical equivalent
of a handful of debian packages, doesn't mean there's going to be a useful
USE <-> pack
> libfoo-debug
Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow?
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:36:24 -0700
Daniel Campbell wrote:
> +1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be
> movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD?
> Slackware? Where do we draw the line?
I'd say "as need be". Here we have a few extra benefits f
>> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be
>> written in the field
>>
> Why space separated?
> Its already legal to specify the field multiple times, and it should
> work better that way for consistency with things that can already parse
> XML.
>
> That way there's
On 06/01/2017 06:09 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:18:22 +0200
> Jonas Stein wrote:
>
>> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be
>> written in the field
>>
>
> Why space separated?
>
> Its already legal to specify the field multiple times, and it
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:18:22 +0200
Jonas Stein wrote:
> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be
> written in the field
>
Why space separated?
Its already legal to specify the field multiple times, and it should
work better that way for consistency with things that
Hello,
this RFC is about the addition of a new field
to metadata.xml
The field should contain a list of the equivalent debian package names,
or a defined string for NONE or UNSET.
A feature request ticket was prepared here:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619132
1. Motivation
=
17 matches
Mail list logo
