On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:19:09PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
> Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The current dependency syntax:
> > >
> > > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-
Alex Alexander wrote:
>On Sep 22, 2012 8:25 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:11:48 +0300
>> Alex Alexander wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > emerge 'foo >= 1.1' 'bar < 1.0'?
>> > > emerge foo '>=' 1.1 bar '<' 1.0?
>> >
>> > How is
No.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The current dependency syntax:
>
> [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
>
> suffers a few problems:
>
>
> 1. It is not really human-friendly.
>
> People don't say things like:
>
oops, didn't reply to the list. re-sending
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 19:19 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
> So, I think you just don't like it and are inventing disadvantages
> without even caring enough to consider them before writing.
>
Oh, I considered it for th
On Sep 22, 2012 8:25 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:11:48 +0300
> Alex Alexander wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
> > >
> > > emerge 'foo >= 1.1' 'bar < 1.0'?
> > > emerge foo '>=' 1.1 bar '<' 1.0?
> >
> > How is the above easier to read than
> >
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:11:48 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
> >
> > emerge 'foo >= 1.1' 'bar < 1.0'?
> > emerge foo '>=' 1.1 bar '<' 1.0?
>
> How is the above easier to read than
>
> emerge >=foo-1.1 =foo-1.1' ' I think your example is working agai
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The current dependency syntax:
> >
> > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
> >
> > suffers a few problems:
> >
> >
> > 1. It is not really human-fr
On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>
> emerge 'foo >= 1.1' 'bar < 1.0'?
> emerge foo '>=' 1.1 bar '<' 1.0?
How is the above easier to read than
emerge >=foo-1.1
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The current dependency syntax:
>
> [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
>
> suffers a few problems:
>
>
> 1. It is not really human-friendly.
>
> People don't say things like:
>
> I need newer than monkey-1.2.
On 22/09/2012 09:35, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> > Please try not fix/break what is not broken.
> +1
Same here.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On 23 September 2012 00:13, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Please try not fix/break what is not broken.
+1
--
Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:07:38 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2012 10:58 AM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > The current dependency syntax:
> >
> > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
> >
> > suffers a few problems:
>
> The syntax you are describing is used al
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:13:48 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The current dependency syntax:
> >
> > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
> >
> > suffers a few problems:
>
> I like the current one your proposal seems quite
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The current dependency syntax:
>
> [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
>
> suffers a few problems:
I like the current one your proposal seems quite a problem for a large
deal of usecases.
> 1. It is not really human-friendl
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:12:04 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The current dependency syntax:
> >
> > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
> >
> > suffers a few problems:
>
> I like the current syntax.
Does that invalidate
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:55:08 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> The fore-mentioned problems could be solved through introducing a more
> natural dependency syntax:
>
> PACKAGE-NAME [[*WSP] VERSION-OP [*WSP] PACKAGE-VERSION]]
If we'd rather not break backwards compatibility and add in all kinds
of whi
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The current dependency syntax:
>
> [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
>
> suffers a few problems:
I like the current syntax.
lu
On Sep 22, 2012 10:58 AM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The current dependency syntax:
>
> [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION]
>
> suffers a few problems:
The syntax you are describing is used all over portage, not just
dependencies. Some examples are the /etc/portage/package
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>> What is currently not allowed are package names ending with a hyphen
>> followed by digits only (as in your above example). This seems to be
>> completely arbitrary, and we could remove this limitation, even with
>> existing dependency syntax.
> I
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:18:31 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > A package name can't end up with something looking like version.
>
> > Thus, if upstream names package:
>
> > frobnicator-11
>
> > We need to rename it in the tree, effectively lo
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> A package name can't end up with something looking like version.
> Thus, if upstream names package:
> frobnicator-11
> We need to rename it in the tree, effectively losing the ability to
> follow upstream naming and introducing a bunch of unnec
22 matches
Mail list logo
