On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:52:02 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2011/9/8 Michał Górny :
> >
> > Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll
> > commit this today.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Michał Górny
> >
>
> Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields one for AUTHOR and on
2011/9/8 Michał Górny :
>
> Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll
> commit this today.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields one for AUTHOR and one for MAINTAINER,
Also in the code do not use the autotols-utils... but just pl
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:14:56 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > So, here it goes. However, I'm not sure if that even deserves
> > a dedicated function as the destination is pretty constant.
>
> > # @BLURB: A few quick functions to install bash-compl
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
> So, here it goes. However, I'm not sure if that even deserves
> a dedicated function as the destination is pretty constant.
> # @BLURB: A few quick functions to install bash-completion files
> # @DESCRIPTION:
> # A few simple functions to help insta
On 15:20 Thu 01 Sep , Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne 1.9.2011 15:15, Michał Górny napsal(a):
> > We can either go with a new func and retroactively replace the
> > eclass, or retroactively fix all uses and fix the old funcs.
>
> As even if you fix main tree you can't ensure that you won't mess wi
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:27:12 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > I think the way to go would be to reimplement it completely. Maybe
> > just put dobashcomp() and newbashcomp() functions in eutils (to not
> > collide) and deprecate bash-completion.ecla
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
> I think the way to go would be to reimplement it completely. Maybe
> just put dobashcomp() and newbashcomp() functions in eutils (to not
> collide) and deprecate bash-completion.eclass?
I'd rather keep this in a separate bash-completion-2.eclass.
We
Dne 1.9.2011 15:15, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:56:42 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches
rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is
using that scheme to rename installed file.
Furthermore, it uses tw
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:56:42 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches
> > rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is
> > using that scheme to rename installed file.
> >
> > Furthermore, it uses two eclass variables to switch
On 09/01/2011 07:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking
about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself.
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather
one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuil
Dne 1.9.2011 14:48, Michał Górny napsal(a):
Hello,
Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking
about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself.
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather
one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuil
Hello,
Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking
about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself.
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather
one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is using that
scheme to rename installed fi
12 matches
Mail list logo
