On 6/17/2013 4:10 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
>>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
implemented a
On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
>>> implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of P
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
>>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
>>>
>>> So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be
>>> fixed.
>> How does that make any sense?
Dnia 2013-06-15, o godz. 18:25:15
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, hasufell wrote:
>
> >> PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
> >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
> >>
> >> So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
>> implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS
>> to properly document the behavior seems r
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
> implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS
> to properly document the behavior seems reasonable.
Part of the point of EAPI stability is that it doesn
On 06/15/2013 06:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
> implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS
> to properly document the behavior seems reasonable.
>
Right, that's why my quote from the council log does not m
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:24:13 +0200
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> What does it take to change future specifications to guarantee this?
>
> You can have it from EAPI 6 onwards.
>
>> What's holding this from becoming guaranteed? Why not fix the sp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:45:05 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 06:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >> On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>> Why not fix the specs?
> >
> >> from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/2013 06:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200 hasufell
> wrote:
>> On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> Why not fix the specs?
>
>> from council log
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-log
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Why not fix the specs?
>
> from council log
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120911.txt
>
> Okay for EAPI 5. *Nothing* gets ap
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:24:13 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> What does it take to change future specifications to guarantee this?
You can have it from EAPI 6 onwards.
> What's holding this from becoming guaranteed? Why not fix the specs?
The specs accurately reflect Portage behaviour at the time the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Why not fix the specs?
>
from council log
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120911.txt
Okay for EAPI 5. *Nothing* gets applied retroactively. *EVER*
So that means some people thi
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:16:32 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> > The devmanual warns that calling die in a subshell does not work.
>
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/error-handling/index.html
>
> > This warning has been obsolete for
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, hasufell wrote:
>> PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
>>
>> So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be
>> fixed.
> How does that make any sense?
It makes p
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Are there any objections to removing this warning from the
>> devmanual?
>
> PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
>
> So the devmanual agrees with the spe
On 15/06/2013 17:19, hasufell wrote:
> How does that make any sense?
>
It does not, but I don't remember anybody trying to assert that PMS
makes sense in quite a long time.
(Yes I still think that the PMS is 90% a waste of time)
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http:/
On 06/15/2013 06:16 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
>
> So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be
> fixed.
>
How does that make any sense?
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> The devmanual warns that calling die in a subshell does not work.
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/error-handling/index.html
> This warning has been obsolete for some time; modern versions of
> Portage handle die in a subshell just fin
On 15/06/2013 17:06, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Are there any objections to removing this warning from the devmanual?
Please, go for it.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
The devmanual warns that calling die in a subshell does not work.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/error-handling/index.html
This warning has been obsolete for some time; modern versions of
Portage handle die in a subshell just fine.
In
21 matches
Mail list logo
