On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Erik Mackdanz wrote:
> Kristian Fiskerstrand writes:
>> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is not
>> updated to handle it solves it.
>>
>> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats?
>
> Wouldn't a blacklist be more practical than a whiteli
Kristian Fiskerstrand writes:
> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is not
> updated to handle it solves it.
>
> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats?
Wouldn't a blacklist be more practical than a whitelist?
root# cat /usr/portage/profiles/eclass.eapi.mask
foou
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 09:19:42 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >
> > I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a
> > section of the eclass (as many already have) that does e.g (take this
> > for example purposes
On 09/06/2016 03:38 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 06/09/16 14:35, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 03:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
>>> wrote:
I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a
sec
On 06/09/16 14:35, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 03:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
>> wrote:
>>> I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a
>>> section of the eclass (as many already have) that does
On 09/06/2016 03:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>
>> I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a
>> section of the eclass (as many already have) that does e.g (take this
>> for example purposes) there is no EA
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a
> section of the eclass (as many already have) that does e.g (take this
> for example purposes) there is no EAPI/PMS change needed
> case "${EAPI:-0}" in
>
On 09/06/2016 12:44 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:03:36 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
>> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or
>>> strongly encourage) to include an explicit
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:03:36 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or
> > strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been
> > tested for in order to
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:45:30 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200
> > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
>> >> Kristian Fisker
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 14:58:29 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:20:29 +0200
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200
> > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >
> > > On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexi
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or
> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been
> tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs.
>
> We have seen some iss
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:20:29 +0200
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> > On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
> > >>
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
> >> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Devs,
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering
On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
>> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Devs,
>>>
>>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or
>>> strongly encourage) to include
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
>> Hi Devs,
>>
>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or
>> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been
>> tested for
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or
> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been
> tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs.
>
> We have
Hi Devs,
I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or
strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been
tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs.
We have seen some issues already with EAPI6 bump related to get_libdir
and people upda
19 matches
Mail list logo
