On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:40:57 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is
> > a blocker for me)
>
> That already happened with EAPI 1 and sl
On Monday 31 of December 2007 15:33:51 Marius Mauch wrote:
> Still doesn't address my concerns, namely:
> - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is a
> blocker for me)
And what is the reason for not doing exactly that? Seems logical to me. And
btw. slot deps added in E
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is
> a blocker for me)
That already happened with EAPI 1 and slot deps.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:43:10 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the
> discussion
> will be more technical.
Still doesn't address my concerns, namely:
- silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond e
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:28:41 +0100
Michael Haubenwallner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This also could be done as (using 'ebuild' instead of 'emerge')
>
> #! /usr/bin/env ebuild.1
>
> and PM could provide some 'ebuild.1' executable, at the bare mimimum
> doing nothing but
>
> #! /
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 20:48 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:22:22 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> > something like
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
>
> Unfortunately the "
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:55:06 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Stuck ranges into metadata.xml for which EAPIs applied?
> > >
> > > No package manager required information can be in XML format.
> >
> > Says who? Us. We can change that, if we decide it's the best answer.
> >
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:22:22 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> something like
>
> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
Unfortunately the "emerge --eapi $foo" part would be passed as a single
argument to /usr/bi
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:54:16 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007/12/23, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > a) It's a massive restriction on what future ebuilds can do.
>
> - it handles a reasonnable range of likely future EAPIs,
It doesn't, though
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>>> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those people understand, so they can comment
usefully.
>>> Are we in the elementary
On 2007/12/23, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) It's a massive restriction on what future ebuilds can do.
- it handles a reasonnable range of likely future EAPIs,
- it includes the "extension changes when the way to extract EAPI
has to change" to avoid bounding future EAPIs to th
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:23:13 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that
> > hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.
>
> And can you remin
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:24:06 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not if we move the rsync path properly so
>>
>> - older pm sync to a minimal try apt to upgrading portage and nothing
>> else
>>
>> - newer sync to the full tree now supporting the newer an bett
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> Their docs are usually the source.
And files under Documentation
And they have a policy which requires them to write a doc for any new
feature/functionality to be accepted
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 01:14:46AM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
> >>> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 18:56:12 Daniel Drake wrote:
> Why (in terms of your GLEP) are you still allowing ebuilds to set EAPI
> inside the ebuild?
>
> It seems that one approach you might take is to move the EAPI selection
> into the filename and remove it from the ebuild itself, and it's n
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence
the discussion will be more technical.
As I still didn't get the "ok to commit" from our glep folks, read the
most current version here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html
http://dev.gent
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Zhang Le wrote:
>> Zhang Le wrote:
>>> I have just created a page of EAPI on wikipedia, let's improve it together.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAPI
>> And later convert it to guidexml and put it on gentoo.org, of course.
>
> Wikipedia uses GFDL while we use CC-BY-SA, so n
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
>>> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
discussion which is supposed t
On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that
> hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.
And can you remind us what technical objection, if any, has been raised
against the "EAPI set in contents with enough
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 09:09:27 Zhang Le wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> >> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
> >
> > Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
>
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:37:37 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
> > Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Luca Barbato wrote:
> >>> Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
> >>> 2008.0 out.
> >> And po
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:53:48 +
Simon Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi
> in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in
> the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different
> thing
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
> > Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
> >> discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who car
Zhang Le wrote:
> Zhang Le wrote:
>> I have just created a page of EAPI on wikipedia, let's improve it together.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAPI
>
> And later convert it to guidexml and put it on gentoo.org, of course.
Wikipedia uses GFDL while we use CC-BY-SA, so no, you can't do that
befor
Zhang Le wrote:
> I have just created a page of EAPI on wikipedia, let's improve it together.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAPI
And later convert it to guidexml and put it on gentoo.org, of course.
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:27:31 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But I am not sick of EAPI's. You see? I am sick of so *many* EAPI's.
>
> What? All two of them that you need to know about, where the second
> one is the first one with three new features?
Sorry,
Simon Cooper wrote:
> nearly all binary files do versioning/format information inside the
> files
Think of different EAPIs as different set of rules for the ebuild
contents. If you accept this, you can easily define "new EAPI" as a "new
format for ebuilds". It's nice that current EAPI "1" is backw
As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi
in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in
the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different
things). It just Seems Wrong - nearly all binary files do
versioning/format information
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
>>> 2008.0 out.
>> And postpone until some doc is out.
>
> There is absolutely no need for such a doc. You do
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
> > 2008.0 out.
>
> And postpone until some doc is out.
There is absolutely no need for such a doc. You don't need to
understand every l
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:47:53 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, if we decide to use .ebuild-1, will we provide a ebuild file for
> each EAPI for a specific version of software?
The GLEP covers this. There's no sensible way of doing so.
> I guess probably not, coz that is a huge wast
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a 2008.0 out.
And postpone until some doc is out.
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
>> discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who cares about
>> it.
>
> It's open to anyone who cares about it and is k
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
>> The question is really simple.
>> Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
>
> We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
> and we want to retain backwards compat
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
> discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who cares about
> it.
It's open to anyone who cares about it and is knowledgeable enough to
provide inf
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
>> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
> ridiculous.
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other t
Thomas Pani wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
>> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
>>> But an total outsider has no chance to deduce what the 1 in ebuild-1
>>> means on his own.
>> A total o
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:24:06 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not if we move the rsync path properly so
>
> - older pm sync to a minimal try apt to upgrading portage and nothing
> else
>
> - newer sync to the full tree now supporting the newer an better and
> honey and milk eapi.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:37:27 -0700
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs
> from trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a
> year or more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new
> fixed extens
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> >> So please make those people understand, so they can comment
> >> usefully.
> >
> > Are we in the elementary school or something? T
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:34:17 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> > So please make those people understand, so they can comment
> > usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something?
Yes, for all intents and pur
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
>
> And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources the
> ebu
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
>> something like
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
>
> OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
>> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
> ridiculous.
>
ietf.org Are they ridiculous?
lu
--
Luca Bar
Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs from
trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a year or
more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new fixed
extension, with the requirement that the new ebuilds are required to
contain within them
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:46:35 Josh Saddler wrote:
> Who cares? Gentoo uses the ebuild/bash-with-shebang format. If you're
> trying to shove in something outside of that, that would be a package
> manager-specific format. Like XML-stuff (that can't include the shebang
> or EAPI="foo" at the to
On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
> > * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>
> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources the
ebuild to get the EAPI. Unless we ch
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:33:25 Joe Peterson wrote:
> Technical reasons to avoid the filename are:
>
> 2) Having the same info in more than one place is bad (requiring extra
> repoman checks and the potential for ambiguity).
As opposed to adding checks to make sure that obtaining the EAPI fr
On Thursday 20 December 2007 17:14:52 Thomas Pani wrote:
> > Are we Debian now? A new feature gets implemented (obviously because we
> > *need* it) and we can make use of it in a *year*?
>
> No, we're not Debian, thank god. I thought the "wait 1+ year" policy
> changed? Again citing Ciaran: "That w
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
> The question is really simple.
> Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
and we want to retain backwards compatibility for people who use old versi
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> something like
>
> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
#! /usr/bin/env ebuild
Then you can d
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:43:43 -0500
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> > thing works.
>
> I think this is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. This change
> impacts EVERYBODY - devs, users,
On Friday 21 December 2007 08:43:43 Richard Freeman wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> > thing works.
> CON:
> Yet another value to be parsed out of an increasingly-complex filename.
> Doesn't look pretty :)
Taste is a matter
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> thing works.
>
I think this is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. This change
impacts EVERYBODY - devs, users, etc. To expect people not to comment
on it simply because they're not qualified to wri
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> > Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to
> > write ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing
> > ebuilds, you have to know what you are and aren't allowe
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to write
> ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing ebuilds, you
> have to know what you are and aren't allowed to do in those ebuilds.
Then please try to keep things simple :)
The majority o
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
ridiculous.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:18:53 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well putting the eapi per tree/repo and provide a way to fetch
> directly the tree a package manager can understand sounds pretty much
> a simpler alternative.
And it defeats the whole point of having EAPI at all.
> Add
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:24:26 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since seems that enough people are against this glep and many are
>> undecided I started polling around for alternatives...
>
> But there has yet to be a correct technical objection, nor a corr
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:58:15 +0100
Thomas Pani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
> > Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
> >> But an total outsider has no chance to deduc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
>> But an total outsider has no chance to deduce what the 1 in ebuild-1
>> means on his own.
>
> A total outsider doesn't need to
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:24:26 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since seems that enough people are against this glep and many are
> undecided I started polling around for alternatives...
But there has yet to be a correct technical objection, nor a correct
alternative proposed, nor a d
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Near as I can tell, it's only the Paludis folks that are interested
>> in pushing this GLEP through.
>
> Have you tried asking the Portage developer?
>
yes, and I'm waiting for others' opinions too ^^;
Since seems that enough people are against this glep and many are
u
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:46:35 -0800
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
> >> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
>> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
> * It's a format restriction. Some formats have to start with something
> that's n
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:27:31 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I am not sick of EAPI's. You see? I am sick of so *many* EAPI's.
What? All two of them that you need to know about, where the second
one is the first one with three new features?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descr
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:03:25 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We can't take the risk of forking/splitting ourselves in exchange of
>> only a little features.
>
> EAPI introduces no risk of that. Quite the opposite -- it reduces it by
> making it less likely t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:56:35 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By "all people", I mean all those who have participated in this
>> discussion. They shown their concern.
>> We should listen to what they said.
>
> Even when what they said was nonsense
No nonsen
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:03:25 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can't take the risk of forking/splitting ourselves in exchange of
> only a little features.
EAPI introduces no risk of that. Quite the opposite -- it reduces it by
making it less likely that people will get sick of the ina
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:56:35 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By "all people", I mean all those who have participated in this
> discussion. They shown their concern.
> We should listen to what they said.
Even when what they said was nonsense and the equivalent of running
around saying t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:34:07 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>> Why rush on this thing?
>> If the EAPI's feature is not freezing, I think we should do nothing
>> but wait.
>
> There's no reason to make Gentoo g
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:38:43 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am afraid if we want all people accept this GLEP wholeheartedly,
>> someone ought to be stand out and take this responsibility.
>
> No no, we want all the people who are qualified to discuss it t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:26:06 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And no, it's not worth writing them. If people have time to spend
>>> documenting ebuildy things, there are a lot more useful places to
>>> start.
>> It worths. It will influence our future.
>
> A
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:38:43 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am afraid if we want all people accept this GLEP wholeheartedly,
> someone ought to be stand out and take this responsibility.
No no, we want all the people who are qualified to discuss it to accept
it, and the rest to acce
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:34:07 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>
> Why rush on this thing?
> If the EAPI's feature is not freezing, I think we should do nothing
> but wait.
There's no reason to make Gentoo go even longer without features.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:09:44 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see it differently.
>> Everyone participated in this discussion has shown their concerns
>> about their distro.
>> If someone don't understand, we should help them to understand, not
>> just exclu
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:26:06 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are none. If anyone really wants to know, they can read the
> > code for their package manager of choice (or better, all of them).
>
> Then I suggest stop this discussion and make a documentation first.
> Seriously.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
>> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
>
> Three problems:
>
> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
Why rush o
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:46:00 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> People who know what they're talking about are more than welcome to
>>> contradict me. People who don't understand what's being discussed
>>> (which is most people in
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:09:44 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no slang in one's words is just a minimum requirement of
> communication.
There was no slang. That was plain English.
> I see it differently.
> Everyone participated in this discussion has shown their concerns
> about their
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, it is only 3 chars.
> ebuild-1 is way too long, which is what I think not elegant.
Why? This is Unix, not dos.
> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
> But an total outsider has no chan
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:54:10 +0100
> "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2007 12:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'm guessing there're lots of people moaning because they think they
>>> understand filenames and can therefore co
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:46:00 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > People who know what they're talking about are more than welcome to
> > contradict me. People who don't understand what's being discussed
> > (which is most people in this thread) need to learn t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:52:16 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Exactly.
>> And this way is not elegant.
>> File name is used to uniquely identify a file in a system, not to
>> decide how the content of the file should be interpreted.
>> Never ever seen a file t
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:41:04 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
> >> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> People who know what they're talking about are more than welcome to
> contradict me. People who don't understand what's being discussed
> (which is most people in this thread) need to learn to stop wasting
> people's time.
Point the documents that could help people getting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
>> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
>
> Three problems:
>
> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
We have to
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
Three problems:
* We have to wait a year before we can use it.
* It's a format restriction. Some formats have
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> No. Issues like this benefit from *well informed* diverse viewpoints.
> They don't benefit from people running around going "waah! waah!
> doesn't look nice! add format restrictions!" without understanding why
> it's necessary.
Putting a tag in the file name or at the to o
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:54:10 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 12:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm guessing there're lots of people moaning because they think they
> > understand filenames and can therefore comment. Unfortunately, most
>
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:33:25 -0700
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. I just joined Gentoo this year, and it is disheartening to see
> the nastiness that some people are resorting to on this list. I've
> never seen so much anger and biting remarks in a project, and I can
> imagine it
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:52:16 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly.
> And this way is not elegant.
> File name is used to uniquely identify a file in a system, not to
> decide how the content of the file should be interpreted.
> Never ever seen a file type extension with a version num
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:57:54 +0100
Michael Haubenwallner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if we do not start with "EAPI=1" variable, but "eapi 1" function
> immediately ?
Uh. Then we're back to the zillion months wait before people can
use anything.
> *) Given it is the first bash-command in
Thomas Pani wrote:
> My concern is technical: Filenames are for identifying files uniquely.
> An ebuild is uniquely identified by /-, so that's what it's
> filename should be. Adding anything else to the filename will only
> clutter the tree and lead to additional inconsitencies. Yes, you can
> che
On 11:26 Thu 20 Dec , Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Thursday 20 December 2007 11:09:44 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > Looking at my kernel config, ext3 and reiser explicitly support
> > > > xattrs, and I see jfs and xfs have acls and security labels,
> > > > which might be usable.
> [...]
>
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti:
>> Unportable to filesystems that don't support extended attributes isn't
>> very interesting to me, unless they're common. Out of curiosity, do you
>> know which ones that would be? Looking at my kernel config, ext3 and
>> reiser explicitly suppo
Jim Ramsay wrote:
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How would it be different than having EAPI="string" put in a defined
>> position of the file?
>
> It's not - It is just defining that position to be in the name of the
> file instead of the contents :)
Exactly.
And this way is not ele
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I'm guessing there're lots of people moaning because they think they
> understand filenames and can therefore comment. Unfortunately, most of
> those people don't understand the metadata generation process, and
> therefore can't comment usefully...
So please make those peo
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Rémi Cardona wrote:
>
>> I'll speak up then :)
>>
>> What I _really_ would like to see ASAP :
>>
>> 1) Dropping digest-* files for real (ie, not even having them on the
>> master rsync server and CVS)
>>
Slated for after 2007.1 is released.
>> 2) Slotted deps (I had t
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
