On Tuesday 19 June 2012 23:59:02 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2012 17:35:00 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of vari
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 23:27:06 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/13/2012 06
On 06/20/2012 06:46 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 17:35:00 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
>> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs pre
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>
On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people pu
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 17:35:00 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't
> > have to call the respective src_* fu
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> >>> pkg
On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have
to cal
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't
> have to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass.
> unfortunately this adds point
On 06/16/2012 01:05 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
Le vendredi 15 juin 2012 à 21:04 +0200, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 09:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of v
On 06/16/2012 02:21 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
Anything build-time related should not be placed into pkg_setup (I am
That is propably not very accurate statement, like with placing the call
to `enewuser` when you need the user at src_configure(), src_compile() etc.
pointing the finger to th
Anything build-time related should not be placed into pkg_setup (I am
pointing the finger to those build-related die() that are breaking
binpkgs support). There's src_prepare() and src_configure() nowadays.
--
Fabio Erculiani
Le vendredi 15 juin 2012 à 21:04 +0200, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 09:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> > > pkg_setup that only matte
El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 09:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
> > call the respec
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have
> > to call the respective src_* func from an
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:24:54 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 09:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3
> > variables, DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare, and
> > XFCONF for src_configure
> >
> > No way we will add all 3 p
On 06/15/2012 09:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables,
> DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare, and XFCONF for src_configure
>
> No way we will add all 3 phases to every Xfce ebuild since that would
> defeat the purpose of the
On 06/15/2012 10:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Using all 3 vars would also likely mean that the diff's for xfce-overlay
* vars -> phases
silly typing error. sorry.
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this
adds pointless overhead to bi
El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
> call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this
> add
On Tuesday 12 June 2012 23:54:45 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 June 2012 23:20:53 Michael Sterrett wrote:
> > Calling "use" in global scope isn't allowed so what are you suggesting
> > they do instead?
>
> as implied in the body of my message, put it into the relevant src_* func.
> in thi
On Tuesday 12 June 2012 23:20:53 Michael Sterrett wrote:
> Calling "use" in global scope isn't allowed so what are you suggesting
> they do instead?
as implied in the body of my message, put it into the relevant src_* func. in
this case, src_prepare.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On 2012-06-12 Tue 20:20, Michael Sterrett wrote:
> Calling "use" in global scope isn't allowed so what are you suggesting
> they do instead?
Can't they just do something similar to how most cmake-utils and
autotools-utils users do things? For example:
src_configure() {
G2CONF="${G2CONF}
Calling "use" in global scope isn't allowed so what are you suggesting
they do instead?
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
> ca
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this
adds pointless overhead to binpkgs. can we please move away from this
pr
26 matches
Mail list logo
