W dniu nie, 29.10.2017 o godzinie 20∶54 +, użytkownik Robin H.
Johnson napisał:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 07:47:41PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> ...
> > > If users need other values, it's a package-manager config knob.
> >
> > We don't want pre-EAPI times where things will fail out of the box
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 07:47:41PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
...
> > If users need other values, it's a package-manager config knob.
>
> We don't want pre-EAPI times where things will fail out of the box
> unless the user choose the one tool that got the whole list right
> and/or configure it to
W dniu sob, 28.10.2017 o godzinie 18∶44 +, użytkownik Robin H.
Johnson napisał:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 01:50:46PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > A SVN or Git repo might also have dot-named directories.
> >
> > I like the implicit idea better as it is more consistent with normal
> > tool b
W dniu sob, 28.10.2017 o godzinie 15∶46 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> > > > > > On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu sob, 28.10.2017 o godzinie 14∶49 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
> > napisał:
> > > Other tools like "find" don't special-case dot-prefixed files
> > >
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 01:50:46PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > A SVN or Git repo might also have dot-named directories.
> I like the implicit idea better as it is more consistent with normal
> tool behavior, like 'ls' not listing the files. Dotfiles can be created
> by many random tools or even
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu sob, 28.10.2017 o godzinie 14∶49 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
> napisał:
>> Other tools like "find" don't special-case dot-prefixed files
>> though (in fact, "ls" may well be the exception there).
>>
>> Implicit ignores only create an unn
W dniu sob, 28.10.2017 o godzinie 14∶49 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> > > > > > On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > The Manifest files can also specify ``IGNORE`` entries to skip
> > > > Manifest verification of subdirectories and/or files. Files and
> > > > directories s
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > The Manifest files can also specify ``IGNORE`` entries to skip
>> > Manifest verification of subdirectories and/or files. Files and
>> > directories starting with a dot are always implicitly ignored.
>> > All files that are not ignored must be co
W dniu pią, 27.10.2017 o godzinie 21∶05 +, użytkownik Robin H.
Johnson napisał:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:12:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > 2. Alike the original Manifest2, the files should be split into two
> >groups — files whose authenticity is critical, and those whose
> >mi
On 28.10.2017 05:27, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 28/10/17 03:41, Dean Stephens wrote:
>> On 10/27/17 17:48, Hanno Böck wrote:
>>> Should a package manager reject a sync if it is too old? or not install
>>> packages if a sync hasn't happened for some time? What is considered
>>> "outdated"? I think th
On 28/10/17 03:41, Dean Stephens wrote:
> On 10/27/17 17:48, Hanno Böck wrote:
>> Should a package manager reject a sync if it is too old? or not install
>> packages if a sync hasn't happened for some time? What is considered
>> "outdated"? I think that should be clarified how exactly it's supposed
On 10/27/17 02:22, Michał Górny wrote:
> Yes. We can't technically distinguish intentional package removal by user
> from malicious third party stripping them. This is something that a package
> manager extension might handle but it doesn't belong in the spec.
>
"Implementations may provide mech
On 10/27/17 17:48, Hanno Böck wrote:
> Should a package manager reject a sync if it is too old? or not install
> packages if a sync hasn't happened for some time? What is considered
> "outdated"? I think that should be clarified how exactly it's supposed
> to work.
>
If such a rejection is to be t
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:12:25 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> After a week of hard work, I'd like to request your comments
> on the draft of GLEP 74. This GLEP aims to replace the old
> tree-signing GLEPs 58 and 60 with a superior implementation and more
> complete specification.
Thanks for work
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:12:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> After a week of hard work, I'd like to request your comments
> on the draft of GLEP 74. This GLEP aims to replace the old tree-signing
> GLEPs 58 and 60 with a superior implementation and more complete
> specificatio
Dnia 26 października 2017 23:58:53 CEST, Roy Bamford
napisał(a):
>On 2017.10.26 21:12, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hi, everyone.
>>
>> After a week of hard work, I'd like to request your comments
>> on the draft of GLEP 74. This GLEP aims to replace the old
>> tree-signing
>> GLEPs 58 and 60 with a s
On 2017.10.26 21:12, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> After a week of hard work, I'd like to request your comments
> on the draft of GLEP 74. This GLEP aims to replace the old
> tree-signing
> GLEPs 58 and 60 with a superior implementation and more complete
> specification.
>
> The origina
Hi, everyone.
After a week of hard work, I'd like to request your comments
on the draft of GLEP 74. This GLEP aims to replace the old tree-signing
GLEPs 58 and 60 with a superior implementation and more complete
specification.
The original tree-signing GLEPs were accepted a few years back but the
18 matches
Mail list logo
