On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 10/02/2010 06:26 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>
>> My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how
>> not breaking the stable tree can be called being "overly
>> conservative".
>
> you have a quite broad definition of "
On 10/02/2010 06:26 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how
not breaking the stable tree can be called being "overly
conservative".
you have a quite broad definition of "breaking".
- clean slate emerge works before and after.
- adding a
В Сбт, 02/10/2010 в 10:43 -0700, Zac Medico пишет:
> On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run
> > lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc?
> We can do a portage-2.1.8.4 version bump with support for running
On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет:
>> Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install,
>> so it works even for binary packages.
>
> Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run
> lafilefi
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think it makes much difference though to them —
>>> > beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try.
>>> >
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostili
On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
I don't think it makes much difference though to them —
> beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try.
>
I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase
your objections with what I said in a way I can und
В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 20:02 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> I, sincerely, have poured enough effort in trying to solve the issue,
> discussing it, documenting it, showing how to deal with new packages,
> showing how to identify pointless .la files that only increase the
> number of them installed
В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет:
> Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install,
> so it works even for binary packages.
Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run
lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc?
--
Pete
Duncan wrote:
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted:
Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
get build failures again. And that confuses them si
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted:
> Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
>> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected.
On 10/01/2010 02:10 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
>>> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's
>>> unex
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
>> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's
>> unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable
On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
> wrote:
>> Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
>>> files? If it doesn't, I str
* Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb:
Hi folks,
I didn't follow the whole thread, just a quick note on .la files:
Why not just introducing a FEAUTURE or USE flag which causes
them not to be installed at all ?
la-files have a long, long history of causing headaches, and I
actually don't see the use o
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>>
>> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
>> files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
>> recommendatio
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 18.42 +0300, Eray Aslan ha scritto:
>
> Why not push for stabilization of 2.1.9 and then do the news item? Am
> I
> missing something?
Yah, the bickering of some people at having .la files disappear under
their feet, probably because they are affectionate to them,
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>
> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
> files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
> recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on
> bugzilla) ha
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:04:15PM +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 17.31 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
> > It's better to avoid suggesting this as such things tend to stay for a
> > very long time on user's systems and since this'll became redundant
> > once
> >
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 17.31 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
>
> It's better to avoid suggesting this as such things tend to stay for a
> very long time on user's systems and since this'll became redundant
> once
> portage 2.1.9 will go stable soon it'll la files will be "fixed" twice
> fo
19 matches
Mail list logo
