Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
>> Having to write an ebuild just to install something in a package manager
>> friendly way and be able to uninstall it cleanly later is a defect, not
>> a feature.
>
I've always rather liked that I can tell someone in -dev-help or -chat "
Vaeth wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Having to write an ebuild just to install something in a package manager
friendly way and be able to uninstall it cleanly later is a defect
No, this is exactly what ebuilds meant for: That the package manager
keeps track of your package, and possibly also re
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Having to write an ebuild just to install something in a package manager
> friendly way and be able to uninstall it cleanly later is a defect
No, this is exactly what ebuilds meant for: That the package manager
keeps track of your package, and possibly also recompiles i
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 09 Sep 2008
02:06:45 +0100:
> If you consider package.provided to be your package manager provided
> tool, you need a much better package manager. Paludis has 'importare'
> for tracking (with full uninstall, up
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:58:52 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 09 Sep
> 2008 00:38:48 +0100:
> > People shouldn't be writing ebuilds to do that at all. They should
> > be using a package manager p
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 09 Sep 2008
00:38:48 +0100:
> People shouldn't be writing ebuilds to do that at all. They should be
> using a package manager provided tool that lets them keep track of
> ebuild-less packages in a way that inte
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:20:15 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What proportion of people do you think know whether or not you need
> > a die with econf or emake?
>
> This is a valid point as well. However, for a user simply concerned
> with getting a functional ebuild so the packag
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 08 Sep 2008
23:13:25 +0100:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:33:50 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> One of the great things about ebuilds is that they're very natural to
>> write in most cases,
Vaeth wrote:
> The point is that in contrast to shell code you need additional
> pre-knowledge to read or write it.
>
True.
>> the syntax looks fine and the syntax is in fact still bash.
>
> I do not want to start a discussion now whether this is
> implicit semantic or sort of an extended synta
Ben de Groot wrote:
> It may be 2 lines less, but it is 42 characters more.
> Plus, I dislike caps. :-p
Well the original patch used DEFAULT_CONFIG_ENABLE and DEFAULT_CONFIG_WITH
and didn't invoke any subshells. I'm not sure what the thinking behind
changing it was, unless it was a straight lift
10 matches
Mail list logo
