On 11/06/12 05:45, Duncan wrote:
> Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:39:19 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
>>> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the
>>> package would by definition not be in the tree, and you would
On 05/11/2012 13:45, Duncan wrote:
>
> What about doing overlays, but ONLY one-at-a-time, and ONLY on special-
> request-runs, presumably immediately pre-tree-introduction? Among other
> things that might help for stuff like kde where a whole slew of packages
> are introduced to the tree (and s
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:39:19 -0800 as excerpted:
> On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
>> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the
>> package would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have
>> to file any bugs at all, jus
On 01/11/2012 19:23, Steven J. Long wrote:
> He's right tho: the topic was "Why doesn't your tinderbox work with
> overlays?" Your response was to insult Arfrever and not actually answer
> the point.
_Arfrever himself_ point to my reason in that blog post, FFS.
> Not that I agree with the argumen
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> He's right tho: the topic was "Why doesn't your tinderbox work with
> overlays?" Your response was to insult Arfrever and not actually answer
> the point.
Well, nobody is paying Diego to make a tinderbox that works with
overlays. He actual
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 01:00:14 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> This has nothing to do with dependencies not getting rebuilt when the library
> does. It's about switching to an earlier compiler version and having
> every single package depending on that library fail to build due to something
> that is non-
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:50:13PM -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Dirty experiments, no. Testing stuff that's almost ready, yes. If you
> run the tinderbox against dirty experiments, the time _I_ pour in to
> sort through the logs report bugs is wasted because they'll hit stupid
> hacks that fa
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:30:06 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> I guess it will be difficult for representatives from a given distribution to
> "fix" very much upstream, if possible I think that the distribution should
> instead be fixed to deal with the limits imposed by upstream practises.
Also, the am
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:30:06 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > You can NOT
>
> I am not saying that it is a good idea, but of course you can. It has
> pretty sucky effects on how your library can be used, disabling
> various smart stuff that modern systems do, but I guess the upstre
On 10/31/12 11:13 PM, Graham Murray wrote:
> Ryan Hill writes:
>
>> Christ on a $#@%! crutch. You can NOT auto-enable C++11 in your library
>> based
>> on a configure test and then stuff flags that are not supported by previous
>> compiler versions into pkg-config for library consumers. Somebo
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:21:38 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Graham Murray wrote:
> > > Christ on a $#@%! crutch. You can NOT auto-enable C++11 in your library
> > > based
> > > on a configure test and then stuff flags that are not supported by
> > > previous
> > > compiler versions into pkg-config
Ryan Hill wrote:
> You can NOT
I am not saying that it is a good idea, but of course you can. It has
pretty sucky effects on how your library can be used, disabling
various smart stuff that modern systems do, but I guess the upstream
practises may be from a different time.
> Somebody sane please
Graham Murray wrote:
> > Christ on a $#@%! crutch. You can NOT auto-enable C++11 in your library
> > based
> > on a configure test and then stuff flags that are not supported by previous
> > compiler versions into pkg-config for library consumers. Somebody sane
> > please fix this.
>
> Though i
On 31/10/2012 23:13, Graham Murray wrote:
> Though is it not normally a reasonable assumption that the library
> consumers will be built with the same or later compiler version as the
> library? In which case it does no harm.
Not really, it's not.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flam
Ryan Hill writes:
> Christ on a $#@%! crutch. You can NOT auto-enable C++11 in your library based
> on a configure test and then stuff flags that are not supported by previous
> compiler versions into pkg-config for library consumers. Somebody sane
> please fix this.
Though is it not normally
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:39:14 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 11:35 -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > The problem with ICU is worse than you expect. For once, with version
> > 50, it changes ABI (but not soname as far as I can tell) depending on
> > which compiler you
16 matches
Mail list logo
