El mar, 06-03-2012 a las 11:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
I usually read messages in /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log to simply
warn me about es es_ES LINGUAS not being supported by that package.
That comes from eutils.eclass inside strip-linguas:
ewarn Sorry, but ${PN} does not support the
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:56 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:51 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:47 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
Even if they have some people in their mail aliases, looks like herds
are empty. If nobody volunteers to join
* Zac Medico schrieb am 08.03.12 um 17:30 Uhr:
On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
* Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr:
Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed
solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice.
_All_
On 03/09/12 00:51, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The function can do any crazy thing you want.
We don't need a function. We need to know the EAPI before we source the
ebuild, and a function doesn't give us that.
Surely we can source one or two lines of
On 03/09/2012 06:42 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 03/09/12 00:51, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The function can do any crazy thing you want.
We don't need a function. We need to know the EAPI before we source the
ebuild, and a function doesn't give us
On 03/09/12 10:05, Zac Medico wrote:
Surely we can source one or two lines of the ebuild safely, like the
example shows?
Why would we though, when sourcing is a relatively costly operation, and
there are much more efficient ways to get the EAPI?
There do not seem to be any that people
On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that it's not
magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've addressed that issue at
a small performance cost (we're really only sourcing the ebuild up to
'exit').
Also consider the
# /home/ssuominen/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (09 Mar 2012)
# Fails to build with GCC-4.6 wrt #380767. A lot has changed
# in new version wrt #388543. Other bugs #354323, #354863,
# and #407183.
# Unless fixed, removal in 30 days.
app-pda/syncevolution
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:41:09 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that
it's not magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've addressed
that issue at a small performance cost
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/03/12 10:41 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that
it's not magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've
addressed that issue at a small
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:02:23 +0100
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:56 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:51 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:47 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
Even if they have some people in
On 03/09/2012 07:51 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:41:09 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that
it's not magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 16:57, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
For net-zope, I'd prefer dropping it. We decided to get rid of Zope,
removed almost all relevant packages, so there's no point in keeping
the herd.
+1.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
On 03/09/2012 07:52 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 09/03/12 10:41 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that
it's not magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've
addressed that issue at a small
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:35:14 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 03/09/2012 12:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
This is of course isomorphic to requiring a specific EAPI=4 format,
but does allow you to do stupid things like x=`seq 4 4`; eapi $x;
if you want.
What
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:15:11AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
They may or may not have issues. Our goal is to minimize our
vulnerability to these kinds of issues as much as possible. Being able
to obtain the ebuild EAPI without the expense of sourcing it is one
small step toward this goal.
EAPI
On 03/09/2012 08:33 AM, Eray Aslan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:15:11AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
They may or may not have issues. Our goal is to minimize our
vulnerability to these kinds of issues as much as possible. Being able
to obtain the ebuild EAPI without the expense of sourcing it
On 03/09/12 10:58, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/09/2012 07:51 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:41:09 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that
it's not magic -- it's
On 03/09/12 11:29, Michał Górny wrote:
What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at 'syntax
error' before it starts executing stuff?
It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, so we
can bail out early.
This returns 1:
exit 1
On 03/09/2012 08:49 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The point was to be able to get the EAPI without crashing if the ebuild
uses newer features. If you can get the EAPI without sourcing, that
obviously accomplishes the goal. But there are other goals, too, like
not limiting the syntax of the EAPI
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at
'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff?
It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, so
we can bail out early.
How can you tell that this behaviour
On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at
'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff?
It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, so
we can bail out
On 03/09/2012 09:31 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at
'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff?
It doesn't parse the script completely, it
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:31:24 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at
'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff?
It
On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a
different name.
I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better
approach than semi- or repeat parsing, but I prefer preserving the
.ebuild
On 03/09/12 12:47, Zac Medico wrote:
Ulrich is talking about extensions which require a newer version of
bash. These kinds of extensions are quite common and don't cause
massive breaking because people simply have to upgrade bash in order
to use the new extensions, and their old scripts
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:02:51 +
James Broadhead jamesbroadh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a
different name.
I think that moving the data to the filename is
On 03/09/2012 10:24 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:02:51 +
James Broadhead jamesbroadh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a
different name.
I think
On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote:
On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a
different name.
I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better
approach than semi- or repeat
On 03/09/2012 10:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote:
On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a
different name.
I think that moving the data to the filename is
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Anyway, lets focus on our main goal, which is to decide on a way to
obtain the EAPI _without_ sourcing the ebuild.
Agreed. Plus, an approach that either uses the filename or something
like a comment line is also going to be
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:49:44 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
isnt the whole point of the proposal to get eapi without sourcing ?
so that we can use new bash features at local or global scope
without risking that people with an old bash get syntax errors
trying to get
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:56:03 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Every software product has an end of life. I think if a system hasn't
been updated in the last 2 years or so, then it's fair to assume that
it will never be updated. So, all relevant versions of portage should
simply show
El vie, 09-03-2012 a las 16:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:02:23 +0100
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:56 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:51 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:47
On 03/09/2012 09:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 09-03-2012 a las 16:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:02:23 +0100
Pacho Ramospa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:56 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:51 +0100, Pacho Ramos
On 03/09/12 13:56, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/09/2012 10:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote:
On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a
different name.
I think that
El vie, 09-03-2012 a las 22:02 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 03/09/2012 09:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 09-03-2012 a las 16:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:02:23 +0100
Pacho Ramospa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 13:56 +0100, Pacho
El vie, 09-03-2012 a las 21:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El vie, 09-03-2012 a las 22:02 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 03/09/2012 09:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 09-03-2012 a las 16:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:02:23 +0100
Pacho
On 9 March 2012 06:30, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:14:58 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Having a different, special rule for something that looks exactly like
lots of other things that do not have that different, special rule is
39 matches
Mail list logo
