Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 27 Dec
2007 18:11:33 +:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:27 +
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > Or to put it another way, you're objec
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > c) It's an extremely bizarre restriction, the likes of which do not
>> > currently exist, that will confuse the hell out of all the people
>> > that don't realise that such a restriction exists.
>>
I don't think it's that hard to understand "You can only set EAPI *once*
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:19:18 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which is fine. But then, the majority of devs shouldn't expect to be
> > able to provide opinions when it comes to the more technical
> > aspects.
> >
> Yes, but they can smell a nasty hack when they see one; starting with
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100
>> The majority of devs don't want to know how portage or paludis work
>> internally, that's not what interests most of us.
>
> Which is fine. But then, the majority of devs shouldn't expect to be
> able to provide opinions when it comes
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:01:15
+:
> I don't accept that I took it to that level, but I apologise
> unreservedly for responding to it.
Thanks. Now to leave it behind.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to
> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in the tree, so there is no
> backward compatibility issue.
It's both a backwards and a forwards compatibility iss
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the
> discussion will be more technical.
>
Based on your summary of the suggestions on the list, I believe you
misunderstood what many of us were arguing for.
* Set the EAPI inside the e
Duncan wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:35:07
> +:
>
>> Oh yeah I forgot, McCreesh thinks they're all idiots[1], so let's just
>> do what he says.
>
>> [1]
>> http://lab.obsethryl.eu/content/paludis-gentoo-and-ciaran-
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 19:26:08 Duncan wrote:
> I made this suggestion earlier but it was deep in a subthread and perhaps
> missed. Else, maybe it didn't reach you in time for this update.
> Anyway, here it is again:
(snip)
> Syntax:
>
> .ebuild[-]
Thanks, added syntax specification for
Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:56:12 +:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html
>>
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.txt
>
> Haven't read the previous discussion, apologies if this has been
> clarified alread
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007
16:43:10 +0100:
> Abstract
>
>
> This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds
> (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
This one does seem a marked improvement. Tha
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007
15:50:43 +0100:
> On Saturday 22 of December 2007 12:03:33 Duncan wrote:
>> If it were me the elementary school reply was made to, I'd
>> have felt it within my rights to ask for an apology. I th
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 12:03:33 Duncan wrote:
> I actually thought the point was pretty effective, given what it was in
> reply to. If it were me the elementary school reply was made to, I'd
> have felt it within my rights to ask for an apology. I therefore
> considered the ietf remark a
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec
2007 07:13:28 +:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> > On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
>> >> So plea
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:35:07
+:
> Oh yeah I forgot, McCreesh thinks they're all idiots[1], so let's just
> do what he says.
> [1]
> http://lab.obsethryl.eu/content/paludis-gentoo-and-ciaran-mccreesh-
uncensored
I read
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec
2007 07:12:28 +:
>> Funny thing is I think the USE-flag metadata thing would have breezed
>> through as a GLEP; I don't recall one person saying they thought it was
>> a bad idea.
>
> But you do rec
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:35:07 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yeah I forgot, McCreesh thinks they're all idiots[1]
No no. I think some of them are idiots. Get it right.
> Funny thing is I think the USE-flag metadata
> thing would have breezed through as a GLEP; I don't recall one
Duncan wrote:
> our users -- Gentoo sysadmins by another name.
THANK YOU! Finally someone said it (and explained it better than I could.)
All our users-- the ones who deal with the glitches that can arise in a
source distro which binary users never see-- have the skill level of an
admin anywhere
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 21 Dec
2007 13:59:22 +:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:43:43 -0500
> Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
>> > * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>>
>> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
>
> And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources
> the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:43:59 + (UTC)
> Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Because a) a future EAPI might want to change EAPI into a function
>>> rather than a variable, b) there are a zillion ways of setting a
>>> variable in bash and people already use all of them a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Because that would be introducing a new, non-extensible, inflexible
> requirement upon the content of ebuilds, and the goal of EAPI is to
> avoid doing exactly that.
>
If you're putting all this metadata in the filename, I'm not sure how
you can distinguish between the fi
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:43:59 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because a) a future EAPI might want to change EAPI into a function
> > rather than a variable, b) there are a zillion ways of setting a
> > variable in bash and people already use all of them and c)
> > introducing new w
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 20 Dec
2007 03:54:00 +:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:28:55 -0500
> Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:59:47 -0500
>> > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTE
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 19 Dec 2007
17:50:19 +0100:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:03:54AM -0500, Jim Ramsay wrote:
>>
>> The sense I've gotten from this discussion so far is that if you want
>> features from two EAPIs you know *c
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:03:54AM -0500, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> "Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > > > Mixing EAPIs can't work.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because EAPIs can define collidi
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > > Mixing EAPIs can't work.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because EAPIs can define colliding features.
The sense I've gotten from this discussion so far is that if y
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > Mixing EAPIs can't work.
>
> Why?
Because EAPIs can define colliding features.
- ferdy
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4
pgp90C5dzn9AZ.pgp
Descripti
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Mixing EAPIs can't work.
Why? I'm afraid that before proposing that we could go back thinking
about which is the usage of EAPI.
Is the a concise and clear text about it already?
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~
On Wednesday 19 of December 2007 15:27:07 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 07:45:44PM +, Duncan wrote:
> >> 'app-shells/bash-3.2_p17-r1.ebuild-prefix 1 2 foo zork bar baz fa querty
> >> 3 8 4' (and that example uses no odd chars beyond the EAPI compone
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 07:45:44PM +, Duncan wrote:
>> "Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 18 Dec 2007
>> 18:56:32 +0100:
>>
And as we have now learned that EAPI strings are not limited to digits
(
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 19 Dec
2007 00:06:53 +:
>> And if a particular ebuild uses features from a non-conflicting
>> super-set of several such EAPIs (Ulrich's message) ...
>
> Then there should be an EAPI defined that permits al
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:50:22 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 18 Dec
> 2007 21:11:20 +0100:
> > On Tuesday 18 of December 2007 20:45:44 Duncan wrote:
> >> How about when we have a dozen or so
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 18 Dec 2007
21:11:20 +0100:
> On Tuesday 18 of December 2007 20:45:44 Duncan wrote:
>> How about when we have a dozen or so EAPIs active, several of which
>> apply to a specific ebuild?
>
> Where is this ide
On Tuesday 18 of December 2007 20:45:44 Duncan wrote:
> How about when we have a dozen or so EAPIs active, several of which apply
> to a specific ebuild?
Where is this idea of mixing EAPIs coming from? It really doesn't make much
sense.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ma
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 07:45:44PM +, Duncan wrote:
> "Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 18 Dec 2007
> 18:56:32 +0100:
>
> >> And as we have now learned that EAPI strings are not limited to digits
> >> (see ciaranm's message) and may
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 18 Dec 2007
18:56:32 +0100:
>> And as we have now learned that EAPI strings are not limited to digits
>> (see ciaranm's message) and may even contain blanks (see grobian's
>> message), we would have ebuild
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:05:13PM +, Steve Long wrote:
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
>
> > On 2007/12/18, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:10:46 -0700
> >> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I probably missed some of the stuff lead
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On 2007/12/18, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:10:46 -0700
>> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I probably missed some of the stuff leading up to this GLEP, but
>> > what is the problem with having the EAPI in
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:53:50 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Put directly, what is stopping us from actually allowing DIFFERENT
> pre- source and post-source EAPI values?
That's effectively what happens when a package manager sources a
current EAPI=1 in a variable ebuild.
> Here's
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 17 Dec 2007
23:20:01 +0100:
> Let's call the EAPI included in the ebuild filename the pre-source EAPI,
> and the EAPI set inside the ebuild the post-source EAPI. Given these
> two, the final EAPI used by the
41 matches
Mail list logo
