Re: [gentoo-dev] New USE flags documentation

2007-12-09 Thread Thilo Bangert
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:10:58 +0100 > > Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the idea is really great > > > > [...] > > > > now this needs to be [...] made mandatory for all ebuilds. > > Uh, what? > > Why? If the idea is that great, then why does it

Re: [gentoo-dev] New USE flags documentation

2007-12-09 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On Nov 24, 2007 4:19 PM, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jose Luis Rivero wrote: > > I'm not asking for an extra overhead of 'bureaucracy' (write specs, > > mailling @dev, send to the council, etc.) but a bit more of communication > > would be appreciated: > > > All the above is complet

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Josh Sled
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Current html version available here: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. I'd suggest "-vc" (version controlled) or "-vcs" instead. (...not that it matters much, of course.) -

[gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
Hello, Attaching the GLEP source. Current html version available here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński GLEP: 54 Title: scm package version suffix Version: $Revision: $ Last-Modified: $Date: $ Author: Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: Dr

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 17:18:08 Josh Sled wrote: > Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Current html version available here: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html > > Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. > > I'd suggest "-vc" (version controll

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Petteri Räty
"Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes" doesn't --> don't signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 18:52:22 Petteri Räty wrote: > "Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle > arbitrary > version suffixes" > > doesn't --> don't thanks, fixed. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Jan Kundrát
> Specification > = > > ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other > valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just > like > revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: > > * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm``

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? Branches. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Ryan Hill
� wrote: >> Specification >> = >> >> ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other >> valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just >> like >> revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: >> >> * ``cat/pkg-1

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2007-12-09 23h59 UTC

2007-12-09 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2007-12-09 23h59 UTC. Removals: games-arcade/ultrastar-songs2007-12-03 21:20:49 tupone dev-java/sun-jaf-bin2007-12-05 01:51:12 betelgeu

[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: December 2nd - 9th, 2007

2007-12-09 Thread Ryan Hill
Attached are the packages marked for removal this week. -- looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees this latitude weakens my knees EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662) www-apps/viewcvs Gunn

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 > Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? > > Branches. How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead strings, which see

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/xmltv: ChangeLog xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild

2007-12-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 11:08 Sat 08 Dec , Matteo Azzali (mattepiu) wrote: > 1.1 media-tv/xmltv/xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-tv/xmltv/xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > plain: > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 > > Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What is the point of using version information along the scm > > > suffix? > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate > packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature. I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes one to need a