On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:58:54AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
> > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
> >
> > The live version of the doc is available a
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:58:54AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
> > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
> >
> > The live version of the doc is available a
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
> proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
>
> The live version of the doc is available at
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependenc
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 14:01, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Readability is m
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:12:42 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> 1) This unifies the existing syntax down into a collapsed form. In
> >> doing so, there are measurable gains across the board for PM
> >> efficiency and rsync alone.
>
> Unifying existing syntax = cosmetic
Not *entirely* cosmetic. If
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:48:00 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:28:59 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > pkg1 rdepends <-> pkg2 rdepends; this is a contained cycle, and is
> > mergable.
>
> Do you have maybe a quick tool which could find those cycles
> in the tree for us?
I have
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:28:59 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> pkg1 rdepends <-> pkg2 rdepends; this is a contained cycle, and is
> mergable.
Do you have maybe a quick tool which could find those cycles
in the tree for us?
> keyword there is 'usable'. Wording could be expanded, but the core
> not
On 19 September 2012 14:01, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the
argument
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> From the other thread ("example conversion of gentoo-x86 current
>> deps to unified dependencies"):
>
> [Sorry, I've missed this one in the other thread, so replying here.]
>
>>> 4) It is no
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Matt Turner wrote:
> From the other thread ("example conversion of gentoo-x86 current
> deps to unified dependencies"):
[Sorry, I've missed this one in the other thread, so replying here.]
>> 4) It is not exherbo's DEPENDENCIES. Meaning it is not label based.
>> Meanin
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the
>>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would
On 19 September 2012 04:40, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:27:17 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
>> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
>> > > Micha
On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the
>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would
>> outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing v
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:53:09AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:19 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
> > Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:3
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
>
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
>
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > But didn't we already point out that
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND
> > > since they introduce conflicts?
> >
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND
> > since they introduce conflicts?
>
> You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency
> reso
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND
> since they introduce conflicts?
You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency resolution
works: currently, cycles consisting purely of RDEPENDs are ignorabl
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:53:55 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > > Zac Medico wrote:
> > > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCrees
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > > > Zac Medico wr
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > > Zac Medico wrote:
> > >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAP
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:27:17 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > So far, I'm not sure if there was a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/09/12 04:11 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200 Michał Górny
> wrote:
>> So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact
>> problem discussed which is solved by this syntax other than
>> cosmetics.
>
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact
> > > problem discussed which is solved by this sy
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
> > discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.
>
> Perhaps you should read the GLEP th
On 09/18/2012 01:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:2
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
> discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.
Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> >>> Zac Medico wrote:
> Also, if
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:18:31 +
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> >>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
> >>>
> >>> > """
> >>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
> >>> > >=app-arch
On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
it's
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
> >> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${R
On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
>> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
>> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This
> is what I would like to do for the
On 09/18/2012 03:35 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, vivo75@gmail com wrote:
>
>> Il 18/09/2012 11:38, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
>>> Which is longer than the original.;-)
>
>> RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 app-arch/xz-utils"
>> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} vir
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
>
>>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
>>>
>>> > """
>>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
>>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
>>> > app-arch/xz-utils"
>>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
>>>
On 9/18/12 7:07 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how
>> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going
>> to help us. They fit just fine into build-time depende
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how
>> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going
>> to help us. They fit just fine into bu
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how
> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going
> to help us. They fit just fine into build-time dependencies right now.
It would enable us to consid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/09/12 07:49 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Or, using your example:
>>
>> :build,run? (
>>
>>
>> ruby:targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 ) ruby:targets_ree18? (
>> dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 ) ) :run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )
>>
Just a minor poin
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
>>
>> > """
>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
>> > app-arch/xz-utils"
>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
>> > virtual/pkgconfig"
>> > """
>>
>> > becomes the follow
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38:50AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> >> Also, could you please stop spreading FUD with your examples?
>
> > It's not FUD; it's rendered deps, and a
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, vivo75@gmail com wrote:
> Il 18/09/2012 11:38, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
>> Which is longer than the original.;-)
> RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 app-arch/xz-utils"
> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig"
> DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:04:51AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> A potential dev-libs/dep package
I assume this is a hypothetical package; if this is something out of
your personal eapi/repo, please state so.
> might have valid use case for USE flags related to USE_EXPAND=
Il 18/09/2012 11:38, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
Which is longer than the original.;-)
Ulrich
RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 app-arch/xz-utils"
DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig"
DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
app-arch/xz-utils" dep:build?(v
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:24:26 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are
> > > only needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively
> > > ephemeral build/run time depends tha
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:48:16AM +0200, hasufell wrote:
> I am unsure if that does or could solve the problem why GLEP 62 was
> created, meaning... would enabling the "foo" useflag after the package
> has been emerged trigger a remerge in the following example?
>
> DEPENDENCIES="
> dep:run
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
>> Also, could you please stop spreading FUD with your examples?
> It's not FUD; it's rendered deps, and a demonstration of how they
> collapse down naturally on their own regardless
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are only
> > needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively ephemeral
> > build/run time depends that go away once testing is completed.
>
> Does that mean that USE=
> test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are only
> needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively ephemeral
> build/run time depends that go away once testing is completed.
Does that mean that USE=test is going away somehow?
Also, could you please stop spreading FUD wit
I am unsure if that does or could solve the problem why GLEP 62 was
created, meaning... would enabling the "foo" useflag after the package
has been emerged trigger a remerge in the following example?
DEPENDENCIES="
dep:run? (
foo? ( dev-libs/foobar )
)"
A potential dev-libs/dep package might have valid use case for USE flags
related to USE_EXPAND="DEP".
Your suggested syntax for types of dependencies in DEPENDENCIES would conflict
with these USE flags
after implementing ":" delimiter for USE_EXPAND-related USE flags.
I vote for a separate synta
On 17 September 2012 22:14, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:11:59 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> > And even now, people are using COMMON_DEPEND to work around *DEPEND
>> > duplication.
>>
>> Yes, and that works just fine. I don't see what's wrong with that...
>
> Well perhaps you
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 20:41, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800
>> Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using *DEPEND. The
>>> case hasn't been made yet why we need to change
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:11:59 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> > And even now, people are using COMMON_DEPEND to work around *DEPEND
> > duplication.
>
> Yes, and that works just fine. I don't see what's wrong with that...
Well perhaps you should read Brian's lengthy explanation that started
this thre
On 17 September 2012 21:58, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:48:07 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 17 September 2012 20:41, Ciaran McCreesh
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800
>> > Ben de Groot wrote:
>> >> Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:48:07 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 20:41, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800
> > Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using *DEPEND.
> >> The case hasn't been made yet why we need to c
On 17 September 2012 20:41, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using *DEPEND. The
>> case hasn't been made yet why we need to change that in the first
>> place.
>
> We're looking at something lik
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using *DEPEND. The
> case hasn't been made yet why we need to change that in the first
> place.
We're looking at something like eight *DEPEND variables in EAPI 6, with
considerable overlap
On 17 September 2012 18:55, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2012 6:13 AM, "Brian Harring" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 07:32:39PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
>> >On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Brian Harring" <[1]ferri...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Folks-
>> >>
>> >
On Sep 17, 2012 6:13 AM, "Brian Harring" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 07:32:39PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> >On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Brian Harring" <[1]ferri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks-
> >>
> >> Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written fo
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 06:52 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> Folks-
>
> Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
> proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
>
> The live version of the doc is available at
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible
Brian Harring wrote:
> Comments?
: is used for namespaces elsewhere too. The familiarity is good.
//Peter
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 07:32:39PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
>On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Brian Harring" <[1]ferri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Folks-
>>
>> Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what
>I'm
>> proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, Alex Alexander wrote:
> Am I the only one who thinks that this dep:{build,...} thing looks
> really ugly and is hard to read?
+1
> IMO simply removing the "dep" part would greatly improve things:
> DEPENDENCIES="
> :build,run? ( ... )
> :run? ( ... )
> "
IMHO it woul
On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Brian Harring" wrote:
>
> Folks-
>
> Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
> proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
>
> The live version of the doc is available at
>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependen
Folks-
Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
The live version of the doc is available at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html
Wording fixes will occur, but the core concept s
68 matches
Mail list logo
