2009/5/18 Steven J Long :
> David Leverton wrote:
>
>> 2009/5/17 Ben de Groot :
>>> I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into the tree wasn't particularly
>>> problematic.
>>
>> I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Ciaran means functions
>> provided by the package manager that ebuilds c
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:42:19 +0200
Robert Buchholz wrote:
> I'm not following. Why should it be discouraged?
> I was happy with it until now.
Versionator is a lot better than what people were doing before I wrote
it. It's just nowhere near as good as what a package manager provided
solution comb
On Monday 18 May 2009, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100
>
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
>
> Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree? It
> would help us now if you were to simply record y
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:28:00 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
>
> Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree? It
> would help us now if you were to sim
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100
> Steven J Long wrote:
>> I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this
>> oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at
>> least 5 years.
>
> Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
David Leverton wrote:
> 2009/5/17 Ben de Groot :
>> I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into the tree wasn't particularly
>> problematic.
>
> I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Ciaran means functions
> provided by the package manager that ebuilds can call during metadata
> generat
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree? It
would help us now if you were to simply record your mistakes for
everybody else to easily avoid. It's sti
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100
Steven J Long wrote:
> I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this
> oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at
> least 5 years.
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
Anything that finally lets us kil
Joe Peterson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> 3. "Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the
>>> scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like
>>> 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely."
>>> Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning
Just a heads up that I wrote a more detailed description of the
peformance hit that EAPI in the ebuild introduces.
Might come up with some numbers later too.
[1] -
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#easily-fetchable-eapi-inside-the-ebuild
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:18:14 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of
> > different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me.
>
> We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of
> different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me.
We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets highly
crazy -- EAPIs aren't orderable, so it's not obvious which one th
2009/5/17 Ryan Hill :
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
>>
>> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
>>
>> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
>> 2. EAPI in the filename
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
>
> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
>
> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
> 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
