Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 20:49 Sun 18 Jan , AllenJB wrote:
Hi all,
What needs to be done to get
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=252157 and all the other changes
implemented on index2.xml to go live?
I have tried requesting information on the bugs, but this seems to have
got
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 07:11:52PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 15:07 Sat 17 Jan , Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > As a long term solution, can we just consume an inode and have some file
> > like /etc/baselayout2? The file must reside on the / partition even when
> > the major trees /usr, /v
On 15:07 Sat 17 Jan , Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> As a long term solution, can we just consume an inode and have some file
> like /etc/baselayout2? The file must reside on the / partition even when
> the major trees /usr, /var, /tmp, /opt, /boot, /home, /dev, /root are
> separate mountpoints.
Ho
On 21:03 Fri 16 Jan , Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> NO_MONO_DEPEND=(
> "dev-lang/mono"
> "dev-dotnet/libgdiplus"
> "dev-dotnet/gluezilla"
> )
I'm not a huge fan of having package-specific logic in eclasses. This
would be nicer to see as a variable set in the packages like
MONO_D
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2009-01-18 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-libs/ice2009-01-13 11:41:17 b33fc0d3
net-libs/icee 2009-01-13 13:04:18 b33fc0d3
app-text/new
On 20:49 Sun 18 Jan , AllenJB wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What needs to be done to get
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=252157 and all the other changes
> implemented on index2.xml to go live?
>
> I have tried requesting information on the bugs, but this seems to have
> got me nowhere.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:01:54 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> What's the benefit of changing syntax so dramatically? (apart from
> the sake of changing it to someone's liking) and what's so wrong with
> zillion of separate dependency variables? Are they too easy to read,
> implement and understand?
Petteri Räty wrote:
AllenJB wrote:
Hi all,
What needs to be done to get
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=252157 and all the other changes
implemented on index2.xml to go live?
I have tried requesting information on the bugs, but this seems to have
got me nowhere.
If there is still work
AllenJB wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What needs to be done to get
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=252157 and all the other changes
> implemented on index2.xml to go live?
>
> I have tried requesting information on the bugs, but this seems to have
> got me nowhere.
>
> If there is still work to
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Sunday 18 of January 2009 16:21:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> And yes, I'd really like to see this killed for EAPI 3. Ideally we'd go
>> with a single DEPENDENCIES variable with labels of some kind,
>> something like:
>>
>> DEPENDENCIES="
>> build:
>>
On Sunday 18 of January 2009 16:21:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And yes, I'd really like to see this killed for EAPI 3. Ideally we'd go
> with a single DEPENDENCIES variable with labels of some kind,
> something like:
>
> DEPENDENCIES="
> build:
> foo/bar
> build+run
Hi all,
What needs to be done to get
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=252157 and all the other changes
implemented on index2.xml to go live?
I have tried requesting information on the bugs, but this seems to have
got me nowhere.
If there is still work to be done, what is it? I am wi
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:21:55 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> One thing to note why it's bad to rely on it is that if you have an
> eclass setting RDEPEND then you are probably not getting what you
> wanted.
Actually, you do. If you have ebuild:
DEPEND="from/ebuild"
and eclass:
DEPEND="from
Peter Volkov wrote:
> Marius Mauch schrieb:
>> It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly
>
> FYI, I've opened bug to add repoman check for this:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255358
>
> /me also had feeling that it's good idea to rely on implicit RDEPEND and
> since it's not tr
В Вск, 18/01/2009 в 00:52 +0100, Friedrich Oslage пишет:
> Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
> > I'm raising this as an extension of bug 253076, but also because I see
> > the potential for danger.
> > As a long term solution, can we just consume an inode and have some file
> > like /etc/baselayout2?
Wha
Marius Mauch schrieb:
> It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly
FYI, I've opened bug to add repoman check for this:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255358
/me also had feeling that it's good idea to rely on implicit RDEPEND and
since it's not true, it's better to warn developers
16 matches
Mail list logo
