ir overlay is just a prove that the herd is dying and needs
> assistance. That goes especially for science.
Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs better package management
support for overlays?
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux
Code
projects for this were a mistake.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlG4rCsACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGtggCfXAKVZ6hTDOuoJyFkXSfD0hRX
qo0An0wvJBcu7LNaPT7ybIbeFaVECScz
=wzUv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
PEND variables is a single variable plus labels. The same syntax
could be used here, so you'd do:
SRC_URI="http://blah/blah restrict: http://blah/other";
and so on, with the usual parentheses for restricting scope of labels.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
not heard people ask for defaults like that before. Most people,
when configuring, get these files created automatically for them
anyway, and they're useful to have around so you know what to tweak.
*shrug* It would be trivial to do a per-distribution default config
that gets overridden.
--
Ci
at the time the specs
were approved. The point of a stable EAPI is that once approved it
doesn't change.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
at the
entire log, and not just one line of it.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlG8mb0ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhFoiQCaA5Y+T4UY2lvzGFg8VZXcl4df
0VMAoJf2dqE3T6ztIKCaMc/jXzTUxJOw
=bD6A
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:45:05 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 06:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >> On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
s that it doesn't just apply to
current versions of package manglers.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
d fast later.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ttleneck.
If the CPU is your bottleneck, Python won't help you. Python's threads
are fine for making IO easier, but the GIL prevents them from being of
any use for CPU intensive calculations.
Having said that, the CPU isn't your bottleneck.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
:-)
I'm starting to think we're all doing this wrong by going for a naive
"single choice then backtrack" model, fully consistent or otherwise.
Perhaps we're going to have to bite the bullet and go for stronger
propagation models and one of the many better alternativ
but if you're looking for a big leap
forward then the most useful thing we could do is reduce or eliminate
some of the requirements that make dependency resolution such a fiddly
(not hard) problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
" Fix
> it yourself, already.
Package moves are a huge pain and suffer all kinds of technical
limitations. In particular, once something's moved, it can't be moved
back.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:58:05 -0500
Gordon Pettey wrote:
> > So why are these features behind use flags?
>
> Wild guess: It's -bin. It's built with those flags. You can't choose
> to install it with flags other than what it was built with.
So why does it have u
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:05:35 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > So why are these features behind use flags?
>
> For compatibility with ${PYTHON_USEDEP}.
Why not fix PYTHON_USEDEP?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
7;s just wrong, and intermittently leads to very
strange behaviour.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
k if there are := dependencies.
So the tradeoff is between "require more revbumps" or "randomly broken
dependency handling", and neither is ideal. Portage currently leans
towards the latter, on the grounds that users expect broken
dependencies and strange failures every now and again, but hate
"wasting time" on "unnecessary" revbumps.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
g
that can't be triggered manually and is thus not a security issue?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
uaranteed to work.
>
> There are branches. There is obviously /A/ linear path from the tag
> to the head (it is in the log)
The log doesn't give you a linear path. Use --decorate --graph to
avoid the illusion.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
a world of difference between a horrible breakage and an
occasional unnecessary compile. If users are concerned about how they
spend their CPU time, they're using the wrong distribution.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:22:32 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:13:49 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:03:28 +1000
> > Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > > > How often does this situation even come up? If 9/10 times the
&
as possible" doesn't come into it anywhere. It's not
even a well defined requirement.
Also also, the spec generally avoids wordings that prohibit the package
manager from breaking things (partly because Portage doesn't properly
enforce dependencies, partly because prohibiting the user from breaking
things if they really want to is not the Gentoo way). The spec prefers
to state things in terms of what can be relied upon to work.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> from breaking things if they really want to is not the Gentoo way).
> > The spec prefers to state things in terms of what can be relied upon
> > to work.
>
> Supposing we are dealing with shared libraries only, how is that an
> improvement over preserve-libs ?
We aren't dealing with shared libraries only. Even if we were, a) shared
libraries have dependencies upon things that are not shared libraries,
like text files, and b) subslots don't facilitate using an old, insecure
shared library to generate content.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
libraries, like text files, and b) subslots don't facilitate using
> > an old, insecure shared library to generate content.
>
> I don't see how current subslots improve a)
With subslots, the developer specifies dependencies. With fix-linkage,
the package mangler has to guess
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:16:57 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:25:12 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:49:49 -0400
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > Again, symbols have nothing to do here. Since you have poor
> > > con
up but it
> maintains a half working system all the way long that allows you to
> finish the update.
There is no "half working". Something is either correct or it isn't.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:12:06 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:41:59 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 13:05:07 -0400
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > 'occasional unnecessary rebuild' is a big deal since subslots
> >
s proven to be correct enough. You have yet
> to show a correct, in your sense, solution.
The correct solution is heavy slotting. And I'd hardly consider
"intermittently introduces invisible security holes and causes
unbootable systems" to be "correct enough"...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:22:48 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:44:57 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 15:31:14 -0400
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > Well, ok, but this doesn't relate to what I was writing. Subslot,
> &g
every
time a package has a revision bump or version bump with only minor
changes that could be handled with a partial rebuild, if only anyone
cared enough to support that. Sure, in an ideal world it would be
avoidable, but avoiding it shouldn't be high on the list of anyone's
priorities.
debuild-1 EAPI, whose features are mostly in EAPI 5 now,
then I remember Gentoo getting a lot of valuable experience that was
used to decide how to improve the package format.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:50:49 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 07:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone
> >> remembering the
ary ways upon undocumented Portage internals
that can change between versions.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[TL;DR folks, skip to last paragraph summary.]
Most of this is wrong. I'd recommend skipping the whole thing.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> >> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
> >> yet(when we
y're being
> >>> used, trade ideas, etc.
>
> > No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow
> > PMS.
>
> So fix PMS to reflect reality. Again.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of a standard here.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:50:36 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:0
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:50:56 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> >> Sergey Popov wrote:
> >>> I am all for the
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:53:09 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 11:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:56 +0800
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 a
t only requires a single option class to be complete [1]. That option
> defines which handler class should be used to create the set.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:54:40 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:56:09 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > > > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > &g
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:57:57 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:09:40 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Er, look at the first post in the thread:
>
> That was about the repository, not about the PMS; the question was
> whether we need to respect the PMS
Ask
o-one's submitted a proposal for it that's gained
Council approval.
Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works should be
added to the new developer quiz, so we can be sure people understand the
appropriate ways of making changes and where the power lies.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:53:26 +0200
Michael Weber wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 09:51 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works should
> > be added to the new developer quiz, so we can
and designed or codesigned a fair number of the new
features that have been introduced to the format since then, and have a
few GLEPS with my name on them. So I'd hope I can safely claim that I'm
not prone to some of basic misunderstandings about how Gentoo works
that have been exhibited in this thread.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
slots or version
restrictions. This is bad, because a "KDE 7" set is a useful idea. So
using more modern terminology:
"A set is a collection of dependency specifications, grouped together
and given a name for convenience".
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
as a user feature, but not as a tree feature.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ouncil vote on "what's allowed in the
tree". The PMS team has no authority to add in new features without
Council approval. The only way PMS could be "blocking progress" is if it
failed to keep up to date with a Council vote, and this hasn't happened
here and h
tage and to git migration, not PMS.
PMS has *helped* with progress, not slowed it down: it has allowed us
to experiment with new features in other, quicker-to-develop package
managers before having to spend the effort implementing them in
Portage. Have a look at features added in EAPIs 1 and lat
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:12:31 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> > > I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
> > >
rtage reuses code in such a way that
there are accidental undocumented "features" every now and again, and
this is one of them that someone spotted and started using. Directories
for package.mask were introduced as a user config feature, not a tree
feature (read the commit message that added the feature to Portage).
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
out a new keyword? Let maintainers put
stablereq directly in KEYWORDS, and let arch teams pick it out from
there.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlITxXAACgkQ96zL6DUtXhFJDQCggDsTHXBo5UDFCHOCeloCfXc8
1dUAn1DVVm7MITSa13UChGRbNrkmJ
are some pkg_ phases.
> This could be handled via support from the PM, too.
I'd rather not have zillions of systems supported by the PM directly.
'unpack' is bad enough...
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlIcuqwACgkQ9
e argue about what we _don't_ use.
>
> Note: please CC me in your response.
Security does not come from the compiler. There is no compiler flag
that magically makes insecure code secure.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
sing the word
> testing implies some sort of path to stable, which is not the case
> with many packages. I prefer to say unstable.
Well it should, because ~arch was supposed to mean "candidate for
becoming arch".
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
all called
"markdown", all of which require different tools to process correctly?
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlJB0lQACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGGawCgr5uPYjBOTIYyxz1/zUKJCUpg
b8oAoMMFn4F1psgiy10rqUNqCJeF1HU3
=jfdj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
the libraries breaks. A little
extra rebuilding doesn't hurt anyone, but breakages do.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:51:26 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> There isn't a 100% perfect solution currently, and I agree that
> hurrying people will simply move us from "not enough rebuilds" to
> "too many rebuilds".
This is still a huge improvement.
-
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:14:11 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 26/09/2013 20:55, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:51:26 +1000
> > Michael Palimaka wrote:
> >> There isn't a 100% perfect solution currently, and I agree that
> >> hurryin
or a very
small number of packages.
> subslots are far from perfect atm
But they're much better than not having them, and they're probably as
good as you're going to get any time soon.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:00:01 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> ( virtual/perl-* is a maintenance nightmare )
virtual/perl-* is self-inflicted.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:44 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:53:14 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:53:53 -0300
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > please spend your time on something useful:
> > > fix bug #449094
ey work and a prototype
implementation, "subslot dictionaries" is like "magic beans".
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
mall vim that doesn't link to things, and a big gvim that
does.
Secondly, Vim's build system means you'd have to build the whole thing
twice anyway if you wanted to do a vim that doesn't link to Gtk+ and a
gVim that does in the same ebuild.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 22:11:38 +0200
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I understand that you want to shorten the time between bug opening and
> commit... but I do not understand what you suggest...
Switching to Git would be a good start.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:05:20 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 04:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 22:11:38 +0200
> > Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >> I understand that you want to shorten the time between bug opening
> >> and commit... but I d
s
> being done WRONG.
Realistically, we're not going to get decent resolutions of these kinds
of thing until we have EAPI support for specifying in a package mangler
readable format what a dependency means and why it is there, rather
than just what does or does not satisfy it.
- --
Ciaran Mc
give the resolver lots more
information, and you need to make sure developers provide that
information correctly. Such a scheme can certainly be made to work:
http://exherbo.org/docs/exheres-for-smarties.html#annotations
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ourself what you changed to make it work or
how or why you implemented it.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
so that someone else could do that.
> Creating multilib-portage was easier then this request
Had you kept track of what changes you made and why you made them when
writing multilib-portage, we'd not have this problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ht way to go.
>
> Sure it does - it defaults to :* when :* was never specified. I don't
> see how defaulting to :0= is a "policy" any more than :* is.
SLOT=0 isn't special in PMS these days. (Historically it was. Now SLOT
is mandatory, and it doesn't default
ludis treats :* and "no slot specified"
differently. The former allows for runtime switching of slots. The
latter assumes "we don't know which slot it needs, so to be safe we'll
have to assume it could be any of them".
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ctually, Paludis interprets a lack of slot dependency as a "don't
know", and assumes that it might be unsafe to switch slots at runtime
in these cases.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
d match multiple slots
and which didn't specify either := or :*. AFAIK this never actually
happened.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
with emerge -e @world. Although it's a bad
> idea for everybody to do so, the systems without "emerge -e @world"
> for two years is likely to suck anyway.
>
> It just reflects the fact that the world is not perfect.
Gentoo is the only distribution that gets thi
supposed to be able to
address. You should raise this issue with them rather than accusing
each other on the lists.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
with everything turned on does less
validation that Paludis does with everything turned off...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:16:47 +0900
hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
> or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How feasible is
> that?
It's not.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
If you're really
thinking about switching, the way to go is to write a client for
Paludis which mimics Portage's UI. But the politics make switching from
Portage to anything a lost cause.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e universe.
There are real world cases where an algorithm has an O(n^3) step that
takes a day, and a O(2^n) step that takes a second for most inputs. You
shouldn't be using O() to make performance comparisons.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
here are
> troubles. It's too risky to touch portage right now. Everyone
> understands that this is a kamikaze job.
Uh, no. We already know lots of things that are wrong with the Portage
design. We also know how to fix those things. Neither of those is the
sticking point.
--
Ciaran
s.
There used to be a "feature" whereby if resolution took too long, you'd
get an incomplete answer. The second time you ran the resolution, the
time could differ, so you'd get a different incomplete answer. Dunno if
this has been fixed yet.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
we should have an independent API backend that tools can
> query; not rewrite our tools every time users want to use them with a
> different package manager.
Not an API. APIs are bad. What we should have is a good set of
lightweight Unix-friendly command line tools. See, for example, the
&q
orrific abuses commonly used in the
tree...), and the well-documented REQUIRED_USE screwup.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nfigs and the like. The way around that is to allow
communication via pipes, still in a Unix-friendly manner. This can be
implemented nearly transparently.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
get confused by "stable use masks". This is
going to be even worse: users aren't going to understand why a noarch
package isn't available for them.
Thirdly, you have to decide how to deal with long chains and cycles in
noarch dependencies.
Fourthly, the interaction with
t; (And people not using repoman will have some extra fun!)
Well couldn't QA start focusing on non-cosmetic issues? I can provide a
list if you need it.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
hat people would know what it meant. Maybe we need a bit more
text to clear up the misconception we see every now and again that
"undefined" somehow means "it's ok to assume what some version of
Portage happens to do, since the specification doesn't say you can't
do
XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms.
Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it
harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to fix.
Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give a big
noisy sandbox violation fo
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27
> Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800
> > Alec Warner wrote:
> > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to
>
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 14:36:54 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> * set homepage to games project page
Why? Eclasses setting a homepage was never a good idea...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 14:45:12 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> On 02/02/2014 02:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 14:36:54 +0100 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >> * set homepage to games project page
> >
> > Why? Eclasses setting a homepage was never a go
; QA team's decisions require more than a flip of a dime; it takes a
> little more involvement, as well as solid evidence and reasoning.
Why?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
d in those
> checks are no longer used. It's currently reasonable to have this
> amount of checks, but imagine it growing to what you would need for
> 10 versions; that'd be a different story, but perhaps it is too early
> to wonder about this now.
Removing EAPIs doesn't help you: you still need to be able to uninstall
things.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
it's suggesting how to deal with an unsatisfiable resolution.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
message that's
produced.
So really we should just scrap REQUIRED_USE in EAPI 6, and migrate any
ebuilds currently using it to a sane alternative.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:41:58 +
hasufell wrote:
> But the question is... what sane alternative to REQUIRED_USE? That
> will also have impact on a lot of eclasses.
Either pkg_pretend, or Exherbo's MYOPTIONS.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:04:08 +
hasufell wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner
> > wrote:
> >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> >
> > And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a
>
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400
Damien Levac wrote:
> A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.
Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff
actually working?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
1601 - 1700 of 3510 matches
Mail list logo
