On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:24:06 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> ---
> general-concepts/dependencies/text.xml | 38 ++
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/general-concepts/dependencies/text.xml
> b/general-concepts/dependencies/text.xml
> index 2f10380..64be9dc
On Sat, 2018-08-25 at 01:14 +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Il 24/08/18 19:08, Mike Gilbert ha scritto:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
> > > Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you want to define behavior that can be relied
Il giorno sab 25 ago 2018 alle ore 01:45 Zac Medico ha
scritto:
> On 08/24/2018 04:14 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >
> > Il 24/08/18 19:08, Mike Gilbert ha scritto:
> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Kent Fredric
> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
> >>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
On 08/24/2018 04:14 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>
> Il 24/08/18 19:08, Mike Gilbert ha scritto:
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
>>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>
If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it
Il 24/08/18 19:08, Mike Gilbert ha scritto:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it
>>> should be specified in PMS. PMS does not define any
USE=doc has a very overloaded meaning.
Meson doesn't ship pre-generated gtk-docs like autotools did, thus
developers writing GLib/GTK+ apps may want to keep them around, as
libraries move from autotools to meson. gtk-doc is integrated into
various IDEs and standalone devhelp viewer, giving a
---
general-concepts/dependencies/text.xml | 38 ++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git a/general-concepts/dependencies/text.xml
b/general-concepts/dependencies/text.xml
index 2f10380..64be9dc 100644
--- a/general-concepts/dependencies/text.xml
+++
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 24.08.2018 kell 13:28, kirjutas Brian Evans:
> This is a very simple eclass which only calls these functions from
> eclasses:
> ver_cut (EAPI 0-6)
> get_libdir (EAPI 0-5)
> get_libname (ALL EAPI)
>
> I see no little reason to place die statements for unknown EAPIs.
> Just
This is a very simple eclass which only calls these functions from eclasses:
ver_cut (EAPI 0-6)
get_libdir (EAPI 0-5)
get_libname (ALL EAPI)
I see no little reason to place die statements for unknown EAPIs.
Just changing the eclasses to better suit the latest EAPI should be OK.
Signed-off-by:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> > If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it
> > should be specified in PMS. PMS does not define any meaning for the
> > "test" USE flag.
>
> We should
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:37 AM Virgil Dupras wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:23 AM Kent Fredric
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:29:29 -0400
> > > Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >
> > > > Setting RESTRICT="!test? (
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it
> should be specified in PMS. PMS does not define any meaning for the
> "test" USE flag.
We should eschew idealism about how the world *should* behave, and avoid
making
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:13:42 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think an exp arch is also overkill. How many packages simply can't
> be built for i486? I think a profile+masking makes a lot more sense
> than an entire new level of QA that touches every ebuild in the tree
> because there might be a
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:23 AM Kent Fredric
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:29:29 -0400
> > Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > > Setting RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" is generally sufficient.
> >
> > But that would require setting that
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:23 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:29:29 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> > Setting RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" is generally sufficient.
>
> But that would require setting that virtually *everything* that has
> both tests, and required dependencies for
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
> > Ben Kohler wrote:
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this?
> >
> > Or perhaps, a new
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this?
>
> Or perhaps, a new (exp) arch entirely dedicated to legacy x86?
Sounds like a lot of work for
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:29:29 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Setting RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" is generally sufficient.
But that would require setting that virtually *everything* that has
both tests, and required dependencies for tests.
Which, in my experience, is practically everything with
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
Ben Kohler wrote:
> Thoughts?
Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this?
Or perhaps, a new (exp) arch entirely dedicated to legacy x86?
The latter would be ideal for ensuring everything we *claim* works on
i486 does indeed work there,
19 matches
Mail list logo
