On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:13:34PM +0200, hasufell wrote:
>> On 09/15/2015 02:00 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> > If you have interest in this package then you can do one or more of:
>> > * become a Gentoo developer (ha-ha)
>> hmm
> For backgro
Our bug queue has 90 bugs!
If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs.
To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5
Thanks!
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:13:34PM +0200, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 02:00 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > If you have interest in this package then you can do one or more of:
> > * become a Gentoo developer (ha-ha)
> hmm
For background, SGW did work on becoming a developer once before, but he
main
I am sorry, but due to lack in manpower Gentoo will drop full support of ccp4.
Please use upstream binary installer to get the latest version.
justin
+# Justin Lecher (15 Sep 2015)
+# Outdated and multiple bugs
+# Use upstream installer for up to version
+dev-libs/libjwc_c
+dev-libs/libjwc_f
+s
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:54:59 +0800
konsolebox wrote:
> Would that mean 5.1 is the same as 5.10? That's clearly illegal to
> what most versioning schemes packages follow including the semantic
> versioning (http://semver.org/).
Semantic versioning is a new fad. Certain upstreams still think that
On 09/15/2015 02:00 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> If you have interest in this package then you can do one or more of:
>
> * become a Gentoo developer (ha-ha)
hmm
> * maintain the ebuild by proxy (find a Gentoo developer to proxy you)
maybe, but not necessary for drive-by contributions
> * uploa
Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> * the former dev has removed himself as maintainer
> * the package is rather outdated now in portage
> * there are some ebuilds already which could be considered to be added
> (at least as unstable, sure)
>
> pls advise,
If you have interest in this package then you
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> We consider 5.01 and 5.010 as equal versions.
>> And do we still plan to keep them equal when we fix =*?
> Yes.
>> Would that mean 5.1 is the same as 5.10?
> No.
> RTFPMS, all the rules for version comparison are there:
> https://projects.g
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, konsolebox wrote:
>> We consider 5.01 and 5.010 as equal versions.
> And do we still plan to keep them equal when we fix =*?
Yes.
> Would that mean 5.1 is the same as 5.10?
No.
RTFPMS, all the rules for version comparison are there:
https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> We consider 5.01 and 5.010 as equal versions.
And do we still plan to keep them equal when we fix =*?
Would that mean 5.1 is the same as 5.10? That's clearly illegal to
what most versioning schemes packages follow including the semantic
v
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, konsolebox wrote:
> Here are my issues if we try to modify =* and not add another operator:
> 1) We'll completely abandon having an operator that matches the
> remaining parts of a version number for good: =cat/foo-5.2015* would
> no longer work.
If you look at the hi
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:26 PM, konsolebox wrote:
> Subslots are only applicable when creating ebuilds.
Sorry I have to correct this. They are also applicable to other areas
but not always sensible to use.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 09/14/2015 06:35 AM, konsolebox wrote:
>> So my suggestion is to add ~> as another operator. With it we can
>> have an expression like '~>pkg-1.0.2a' and it would be equivalent
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
wrote:
> On 9/14/15 9:13 AM, konsolebox wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/14/15 6:35 AM, konsolebox wrote:
Many times we need to match packages like this:
something-1.0.2a.*
>>>
>>> Could yo
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> Please don't add any more syntactic sugar to dependency strings.
> People might become confused about stuff like this:
>
> =cat/foo-1.3.1_rc3_p20130829-r42+[!a=,!b?,c(+)]:3=
=cat/foo-xyz+ is only one of the forms (we can still consider ~> or
15 matches
Mail list logo
