On 8/7/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What sort of problems? An example backing up your claims would be very nice.
While I don't agree with Enrico that splitting up slotted packages is
the right thing to do, there are some corner cases involving slots
that portage (more specific
Enrico,
> Yes, but package maintainers have to be much more carefully about
> these dependencies, as it would be necessary if we actually would
> treat them as different packages.
Have you asked the gentoo package maintainers how they feel on this
subject, or are you supposing/guessing?
--
Seem
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions
of one library. They are completely different libraries, where
one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look
similar, but are in no ways equal.
Have you actual
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> According to this philosophy, we should change the name of the package
>> every time net-misc/neon comes out with a new version, since it breaks
>> API on every version.
>
> If APIs break with every version (on non-alpha stuff), it's principle
> design failure. I tend to
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
If we changed the name of a package every time there was an API break,
we would literally have thousands of packages in the tree that essentially
do the same thing, just with different API's.
Yes, but it would be much more cleaner. Everyone would see what
actually happen
* Patrick McLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >
> > The APIs are incompatible.
> >
>
> They are still the both evolutions of the same development tree, they
> are the same package, just different versions.
Let's take an example the automobile world:
The Mitsubishi Galant is an sucessor
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions
> of one library. They are completely different libraries, where
> one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look
> similar, but are in no ways equal.
you don't know gtk. stop trolling.
>
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Yes, I'll file a bug on the whole gtk issue and all packages
using this ugly hacks.
You can save your time. Really. And vastly more important, save our
bug-wrangler's time. You've already filed a bug. It was closed as INVALID, and
except for you nobody in this thread agr
* Jean-Francois Gagnon Laporte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >> You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
> >>
> >> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.h
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>>
>>> It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
>>> problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
>>> if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
>>>
>>
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
BTW: how do you enforce an minimum gtk1 version ?
You know, a lot of these questions of yours could be answered clearly if
you look at the ebuild documentation and developer manuals.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ is a good start. :)
Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org maili
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
What sort of problems? An example backing up your claims would be very nice.
+ Additional complexity (slotting) is necessary, so additional
changes of bugs.
Oh please, this is so lame. That feature has been in existance for long enough
to be proven useful and not fault
* Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> >
> > It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
> > problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
> > if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
> >
>
> No?
In this cas
* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >Oh hell, this can't be serious !
>
> It is.
>
> >It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
> >problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
> >if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it o
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
Yes it is and it's been in use f
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
It is.
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
What sort of problems? An example backing up
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
> problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
> if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
>
No?
> gtk1 and gtk2 are completely different packages, they're not
> compatib
* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving
You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:43:00 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I've seen an ugly problem w/ gtk1 + gtk2. These two different
| packages are treated as one. Obviously very bad behaviour.
Uh, they're in different slots, so no, they're not treated as one.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
Hi folks,
I've seen an ugly problem w/ gtk1 + gtk2. These two different
packages are treated as one. Obviously very bad behaviour.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143063
IMHO this is a major problem, and we should fix it soon.
cu
--
--
21 matches
Mail list logo
