On Sunday 16 September 2012 22:41:14 Brian Harring wrote:
> Sans the implementation details, anyone got complaints with the
> intent?
sounds like no, so i'll probably pound something out once i finish perf :p
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 02:35:42PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:45:22AM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>
> > > Almost all affected packages can be bumped straight to 4 anyway and
> > > so use the improved syntax.
>
> toolchain_src_compile: EAPI=0: count: 38
>
> I'm not
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:45:22AM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > Almost all affected packages can be bumped straight to 4 anyway and
> > so use the improved syntax.
toolchain_src_compile: EAPI=0: count: 38
I'm not sure this can change any time soon. :/
--
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidge
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:45:22AM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:41:14 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:10:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Sunday 16 September 2012 03:51:04 Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > + if ! has $EAPI 0 1 2
On 9/17/2012 1:00 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:58:02 -0700
"Gregory M. Turner" wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that once we deprive the
ebuild developer of this feature, there is no simple, supported way
to retrieve the information except to depend on it.
ha
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:58:02 -0700
"Gregory M. Turner" wrote:
>
> > My main focus here is switching built_with_use to actively nagging
> > people to stop using it; this includes nagging EAPI0/1 users of it.
> > Sans the implementation details, anyone got complaints with the
> > intent?
>
> I h
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:58:02 -0700
"Gregory M. Turner" wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something, it seems that once we deprive the
> ebuild developer of this feature, there is no simple, supported way
> to retrieve the information except to depend on it.
has_version.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature
My main focus here is switching built_with_use to actively nagging
> people to stop using it; this includes nagging EAPI0/1 users of it.
Sans the implementation details, anyone got complaints with the
intent?
I have a concern about it, yes. But, maybe there's a good answer to my
concern, s
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:45:22 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> The aim would be to get rid of built_with_use not only in a distant
> future. The corresponding bug [1] is from 2009 and can't be fixed
... without something like "increasing EAPI baseline".
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:41:14 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:10:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2012 03:51:04 Brian Harring wrote:
> > > + if ! has $EAPI 0 1 2 3; then
> > > + eqawarn "built_with_use should not be used in
> > > $EAPI; u
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:10:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2012 03:51:04 Brian Harring wrote:
> > + if ! has $EAPI 0 1 2 3; then
> > + eqawarn "built_with_use should not be used in $EAPI; use USE
> > deps."
> > + elif has $EAPI 2 3; then
> > +
On Sunday 16 September 2012 03:51:04 Brian Harring wrote:
> + if ! has $EAPI 0 1 2 3; then
> + eqawarn "built_with_use should not be used in $EAPI; use USE
> deps."
> + elif has $EAPI 2 3; then
> + if [[ $hidden == yes ]] || $missing_was_set; then
> +
12 matches
Mail list logo
