On 2008-07-20 17:38, Peter Volkov uttered these thoughts:
> В Вск, 13/07/2008 в 23:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> > Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you understand?
> > Do you seriously consider not being able to add or change global scope
> > functions in future EAPIs to
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:38:32 +0400
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> В Вск, 13/07/2008 в 23:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> > Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you
> > understand? Do you seriously consider not being able to add or
> > change global scope functions in
В Вск, 13/07/2008 в 23:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you understand?
> Do you seriously consider not being able to add or change global scope
> functions in future EAPIs to be a non-issue, or were you ignoring those
> two bullet points?
I
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:58:36 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be more constructive to create a list of new
> features/capabilities that depend on this GLEP. For each I'd define:
>
> 1. The feature/unmet need.
> 2. Why it can't be done or can only be done poorly witho
Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
So you're saying the GLEP's of no use until Portage supports them, but
Portage can't support them until you say yes to the GLEP...
I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have
other official package managers approved
Petteri Räty wrote:
> I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have
> other official package managers approved before accepting the GLEP.
In addition, I'd want to see why the particular approach suggested in this
GELP is the "only" way (as some seem to claim). I have y
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:16:42 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you're saying the GLEP's of no use until Portage supports them,
> > but Portage can't support them until you say yes to the GLEP...
>
> I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or
> have other
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:58:01 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes I can think a lot of features like this that would be of great
use in the main tree but as long as Portage is the only official and
stable package manager and doesn't support the things you
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:58:01 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes I can think a lot of features like this that would be of great
> use in the main tree but as long as Portage is the only official and
> stable package manager and doesn't support the things you listed, the
> GLEP is no
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no
compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope
functions in future EAPIs. As such those problems as stated
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:32:58 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry to say this, but I actually do take offence at most things
> you write.
Perhaps you should consider what that indicates about yourself, rather
than about me.
> > As you know fine well, implementing what clear
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What GLEP 55 fails to address right now is the very development process
> it is seemingly supposed to alleviate. It addresses the issue of EAPI
> implementation from the viewpoint of the package manager's developer,
> bu
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:22:35 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:13:44 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:43:06 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > People are already doing those other things, an
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:13:44 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:43:06 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People are already doing those other things, and doing them badly,
> > because there's currently no other option. This isn't some
> > hy
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:43:06 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People are already doing those other things, and doing them badly,
> because there's currently no other option. This isn't some
> hypothetical future requirement.
When you wrote "doing them badly", did you mean to imp
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:37:35 -0700
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't require any of those things, but maybe other people do and If
> so; they should probably come
> to the meeting or otherwise make themselves known because they were
> not at the previous meeting.
http://sources.ge
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no
>> compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope
>> f
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no
> compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope
> functions in future EAPIs. As such those problems as stated are not
> in scope for
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
>> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLE
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may
>> be, but that's unclear until it's been revised.
>
> Which part of t
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may
> be, but that's unclear until it's been revised.
Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you understand?
Do you seriously consider not
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for
> scm
> dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine
I thought we established that EAPI (no matter how it's defined) only
controls ebuild _contents_ ..
Hi all,
Here is the summary from Thursday's council meeting. The complete log
will show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
Quick summary
=
GLEP 54: There were numerous
23 matches
Mail list logo
