On Thursday 01 April 2010 19:39:43 Dror Levin wrote:
> Here's another suggestion: how about we don't impose any ridiculous
> constraints on development and keep this discussion on the technological
> side of the original proposal?
It's not ridiculous to expect to have a new EAPI in a reasonable am
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:39:43 +0300
Dror Levin wrote:
> > If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't
> > Ciaran.
>
> I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke.
Could you point out where I've been personal and insulting in this
discussion please? I'd like to learn for fu
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:04, David Leverton wrote:
> If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't
> Ciaran.
>
I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke.
> As for the topic: the only real concern about VALID_USE that I've seen from
> anyone is about whether Portage can
On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:18:27 Brian Harring wrote:
> It's a bit brief and likely left out an insult or two
If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't Ciaran.
I've seen this attitude on IRC too. Funnily enough, you don't speak for other
people, you don't decide wha
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:38:36 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> > But if the kernel sources symlink is changed by installing new
> > kernel sources, there won't be a valid .config in the new directory
> > anyway.
>
> Oddly enough, I actually have an ebuild that directly contradicts
> that- used for man
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:18:27 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Summarizing ciaran's claim to end this nonsense-
>
> VALID_USE isn't useful because use cycle breaking can't be done
> according to strictures he desires, as such VALID_USE is pointless
> because pkg_pretend can cover it.
>
> It's a bit
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:23:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 03:59:54 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:42:10PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > > Basically, you want the PM to lie to the ebuild in some fashion.
> > > > Since pkg_preten
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 03:59:54 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:42:10PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > Basically, you want the PM to lie to the ebuild in some fashion.
> > > Since pkg_pretend is free form, it's effectively impossible to
> > > cover the scenarios it
Summarizing ciaran's claim to end this nonsense-
VALID_USE isn't useful because use cycle breaking can't be done
according to strictures he desires, as such VALID_USE is pointless
because pkg_pretend can cover it.
It's a bit brief and likely left out an insult or two, but it's to
the point at
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:42:10PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Basically, you want the PM to lie to the ebuild in some fashion.
> > Since pkg_pretend is free form, it's effectively impossible to cover
> > the scenarios it could check on- consider checking the kernel
> > config/versi
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:56:08 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Actually, I'm well aware I did. See, if PMS wasn't developed in a
> void you'd know build, bootstrap, acl and friends were already a
> known issue with use cycle breaking.
So since it's a known issue, why are you pushing for VALID_USE "be
Le jeudi 01 avril 2010 à 03:18 -0700, Brian Harring a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:10:20PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > jumping on the train here, but who said PM would not feed proper data to
> > pkg_pretend so it would behave like the DEPEND were already built. Could
> > some g
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:10:20PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> jumping on the train here, but who said PM would not feed proper data to
> pkg_pretend so it would behave like the DEPEND were already built. Could
> some guy involved in a PM development tell us about how this would be
> hand
Le jeudi 01 avril 2010 à 00:56 -0700, Brian Harring a écrit :
[snip]
> pkg_setup: ran just before the build of the pkg, after the pkg's
> DEPENDS are all built. Meaning you *can* do has_version checks,
> kernel config checks, etc, because the proceeding deps are now
> satisfied.
>
> pkg_preten
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 08:41:02AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:31:09 -0700
> > As demonstrated, that cycle is easily broken. A lot of the cycles
> > users run into originate that way also.
>
> Congratulations. You just turned on 'build' and 'bootstrap', and turned
> off
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:31:09 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> > Cycle breaking requires explicit instructions from the ebuilds in
> > question (many of which are system things, which further
> > complicates it) along with support from Portage, so it's a distant
> > future, lot of work thing.
>
> Nonse
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:56:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:46:26 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Actual name I don't hugely care about, I'm more interested in
> > ensuring we don't rule out doing use cycle breaking via a bad design
> > decision.
>
> Cycle breaking
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:46:26 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Actual name I don't hugely care about, I'm more interested in
> ensuring we don't rule out doing use cycle breaking via a bad design
> decision.
Cycle breaking requires explicit instructions from the ebuilds in
question (many of which are
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:49:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> VALID_USE does look a bit strange.
>
> how about
> IUSE_RULES
> or
> IUSE_RESTRICTIOMS
> or
> RUSE
> ?
It's not really IUSE; the constraints it specifies applies to USE
only.
USE_STATES, VALID_USES, VALID_USE_STA
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:20:35AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> Hola all-
>
> For those who aren't familiar, pkg_pretend is in EAPI4- the main usage
> of it is will be use dep checking- this email is specifically
> regarding an alternative to it that *should* be superior for that use
> case, b
Hola all-
For those who aren't familiar, pkg_pretend is in EAPI4- the main usage
of it is will be use dep checking- this email is specifically
regarding an alternative to it that *should* be superior for that use
case, but I'm looking for feedback.
Basically, we use the original VALID_USE prop
21 matches
Mail list logo
