On Friday, June 17, 2011 02:40:27 justin wrote:
> >> I wasn't aware of that. We are lacking any documentation about the
> >> proper documentation for manpages in all eclass writing guides.
> >
> > the syntax is fully documented in the utility that generates it. see the
> > awk in the eclass-manpa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/06/2011 03:30 πμ, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011
W dniu 17.06.2011 05:03, Mike Frysinger pisze:
>> DEPEND="virtual/fortran"
>> > RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"
> i'm not sure that RDEPEND is correct. do all fortran compilers additionally
> require the fortran compiler to be available at runtime ?
They require fortran runtime library if they don't link it
On 17/06/11 11:01, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> W dniu 17.06.2011 05:03, Mike Frysinger pisze:
>>> DEPEND="virtual/fortran"
RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"
>> i'm not sure that RDEPEND is correct. do all fortran compilers additionally
>> require the fortran compiler to be available at runtime ?
> They requir
On 06/17/2011 04:10 PM, Stuart Longland (redhatter) wrote:
> redhatter11/06/17 13:10:02
>
> Modified: package.mask
> Log:
> Masking of media-radio/svxlink-090426 and media-radio/gmfsk. The former
> will
> need a major overhaul, and I intend to replace the ebuild with a ne
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy
doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either. There
are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 17/06/2011 05:25 ??, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
>
> And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
>
Rich,
That's a bit controversial. Do
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:25:42 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
>
> And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
>
> Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid
El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> If we
> think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
> how the git migration goes.
Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because
the pre
* justin :
> Now using the new pkg_pretend for EAPI=4
While T is defined in all phases, PMS also says that "pkg_pretend must
not write to the filesystem".
Is it allowed to write to T or not? Can the specs be clearer if it's allowed?
--
Thanks
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:25:21 +0200
Torsten Veller wrote:
> * justin :
> > Now using the new pkg_pretend for EAPI=4
>
> While T is defined in all phases, PMS also says that "pkg_pretend must
> not write to the filesystem".
>
> Is it allowed to write to T or not? Can the specs be clearer if it's
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Torsten Veller wrote:
> While T is defined in all phases, PMS also says that "pkg_pretend
> must not write to the filesystem".
> Is it allowed to write to T or not? Can the specs be clearer if it's
> allowed?
"Must not write to the filesystem" seems to be very clear to
On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
> What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that
> not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove,
> but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit
> changing something in (some
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> > If we
> > think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
> > how the git migration goes.
>
> Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to gi
On Friday, June 17, 2011 05:01:10 Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> W dniu 17.06.2011 05:03, Mike Frysinger pisze:
> >> DEPEND="virtual/fortran"
> >>
> >> > RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"
> >
> > i'm not sure that RDEPEND is correct. do all fortran compilers
> > additionally require the fortran compiler to be availa
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:25:21 Torsten Veller wrote:
> * justin :
> > Now using the new pkg_pretend for EAPI=4
>
> While T is defined in all phases, PMS also says that "pkg_pretend must
> not write to the filesystem".
>
> Is it allowed to write to T or not? Can the specs be clearer if it's
> a
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
>> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
>> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they
>> simply avoided separate removals.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 17.06.2011 18:41, Mike Frysinger pisze:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 05:01:10 Kacper Kowalik wrote:
>> W dniu 17.06.2011 05:03, Mike Frysinger pisze:
DEPEND="virtual/fortran"
> RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"
>>>
>>> i'm not sure that RDEPEND is
On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:39:22 Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> W dniu 17.06.2011 18:41, Mike Frysinger pisze:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2011 05:01:10 Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> >> W dniu 17.06.2011 05:03, Mike Frysinger pisze:
> DEPEND="virtual/fortran"
>
> > RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"
> >>>
> >>> i
On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
>>> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
>>> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little i
more thoughts as to why this is a bad idea ... how do you deal with runtime
library requirements which only the compiler knows about ? sys-devel/gcc
provides many runtime libraries such as libgcc_s.so. but whether the package
actually needs that at runtime may depend purely on the arch/abi, or
On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?
i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the
ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own tail for a while
-mike
signature.asc
Description
Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:34:35 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My
>> last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on
>> RHEL. He was missing the libdbusm
On Tue, 14 June 2011 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die;
> > > at the time of the rule, portage couldn't handle re
El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
>> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
>>> If we
>>> think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
>>> how the git migration goes.
>> Just a few words
On Friday, June 17, 2011 16:37:02 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> >> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> >>> If we
> >>> think that tweaking the changelog policy
Stanislav asked me to review. I'm also including the list since other
people may also be interested how to handle ruby ebuilds.
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 22:04 +, Stanislav Ochotnicky (sochotnicky)
wrote:
> sochotnicky11/06/15 22:04:56
>
> Added:metadata.xml ChangeLog fromcv
Another ruby ebuild review. Some of the issues that were present in
fromcvs are also in this ebuild, I won't repeat them.
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 22:01 +, Stanislav Ochotnicky (sochotnicky)
wrote:
> sochotnicky11/06/15 22:01:26
>
> Added:rcsparse-0_pre45.ebuild metadata.xm
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:11:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we've already discussed POSIX strictness in the tree multiple times,
> and it's been shot down multiple times for good reason. GNU
> extensions make life a hell of a lot easier, the majority of people
> are developing/testing on such sys
29 matches
Mail list logo
