On 11/28/2010 01:56 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-11-28 21:30:47 Zac Medico napisał(a):
>> It seems like the problem here is that we don't have separate profiles
>> for stable and unstable keywords. The obvious solution would be to have
>> separate profiles, mask the flags i
On 11/28/2010 11:56 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>
>> It seems like the problem here is that we don't have separate profiles
>> for stable and unstable keywords. The obvious solution would be to have
>> separate profiles, mask the flags in the stable profiles, and unmask the
>> f
2010-11-28 21:30:47 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 11/28/2010 12:07 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-11-28 20:59:05 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> >> It seems like you're trying to bypass an important function of repoman
> >> though. The idea is that repoman is supposed to protect use
On 11/28/2010 12:07 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-11-28 20:59:05 Zac Medico napisał(a):
>> It seems like you're trying to bypass an important function of repoman
>> though. The idea is that repoman is supposed to protect users from
>> experiencing unsatisfiable dependencies
2010-11-28 20:59:05 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 11/28/2010 10:15 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-11-19 16:51:03 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> >> On 10/25/2010 06:24 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> >>> use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files would ca
On 11/28/2010 10:15 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-11-19 16:51:03 Zac Medico napisał(a):
>> On 10/25/2010 06:24 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files would cause that
>>> `repoman` would treat
>>> given USE f
2010-11-19 16:51:03 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 10/25/2010 06:24 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files would cause that
> > `repoman` would treat
> > given USE flags in the same way as masked USE flags. These files wouldn't
> > af
On 10/25/2010 06:24 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files would cause that
> `repoman` would treat
> given USE flags in the same way as masked USE flags. These files wouldn't
> affect behavior of
> `emerge`:
> - If user has enabled
2010-10-25 16:03:01 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:56:18 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-10-25 15:42:00 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:23 +0200
> > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > > 1. Support for ".
On 10/25/2010 06:23 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 10/25/2010 04:24 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> I would like to request that 2 additional features are added to EAPI="4".
>> These features will be needed for further development of python.eclass.
>>
>> 1. Support for "." character
Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 19.23 +0300, Petteri Räty ha scritto:
>
> Ideally we should have consistency across languages so if we go down
> this road then for example ruby should eventually support it too. Ruby
> people: can you provide your input.
We don't really care since we use the Ruby
On 10/25/2010 04:24 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to request that 2 additional features are added to EAPI="4".
> These features will be needed for further development of python.eclass.
>
> 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
Ideally we should have c
Am 25.10.2010 16:43, schrieb Fabio Erculiani:
> Implementing a feature to just satisfy your tiny, corner-case (how
> many people would take benefit out of it?) use case is just against
> any software engineering best practice, and it's a good path towards
> bloat and complexity. I think people can
2010-10-25 16:03:01 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:56:18 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-10-25 15:42:00 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:23 +0200
> > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > > 1. Support for ".
2010-10-25 16:43:43 Fabio Erculiani napisał(a):
> Implementing a feature to just satisfy your tiny, corner-case (how
> many people would take benefit out of it?) use case is just against
> any software engineering best practice, and it's a good path towards
> bloat and complexity. I think people ca
Implementing a feature to just satisfy your tiny, corner-case (how
many people would take benefit out of it?) use case is just against
any software engineering best practice, and it's a good path towards
bloat and complexity. I think people can understand "python_abis_2_5"
well enough, besides bein
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:56:50 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
>
> Are you aware that this would break existing programs that do regexp
> matching on USE flags? The current im
2010-10-25 15:56:50 Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>
> > 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
>
> Are you aware that this would break existing programs that do regexp
> matching on USE flags?
I suggest this featur
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:56:18 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-10-25 15:42:00 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:23 +0200
> > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
> >
> > If you do this,
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
Are you aware that this would break existing programs that do regexp
matching on USE flags? The current implementation of the useq()
function in portage is probably the most
2010-10-25 15:42:00 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:23 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
>
> If you do this, you'll have to either convert everything using Python
> ABIs to EAPI 4 immediately, or have
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:23 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
If you do this, you'll have to either convert everything using Python
ABIs to EAPI 4 immediately, or have two sets of flag names. Won't users
get confused if they ha
I would like to request that 2 additional features are added to EAPI="4".
These features will be needed for further development of python.eclass.
1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags
2. Support for use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files in profiles
These files would h
I would like to suggest that EAPI="4" be reopened for ability of using dots in
USE flag names, which was suggested in bug #311795.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
24 matches
Mail list logo
