On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:19:09PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [-
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
1. It is not really human-friendly.
People don't say things like:
I need newer than monkey-1.2.
They say instead:
I need monkey, newer than version 1.2.
2. With long package
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
A package name can't end up with something looking like version.
Thus, if upstream names package:
frobnicator-11
We need to rename it in the tree, effectively losing the ability to
follow upstream naming and introducing a bunch of unnecessary
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:18:31 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
A package name can't end up with something looking like version.
Thus, if upstream names package:
frobnicator-11
We need to rename it in the tree, effectively
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What is currently not allowed are package names ending with a hyphen
followed by digits only (as in your above example). This seems to be
completely arbitrary, and we could remove this limitation, even with
existing dependency syntax.
I doubt we
On Sep 22, 2012 10:58 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
The syntax you are describing is used all over portage, not just
dependencies. Some examples are the
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
I like the current syntax.
lu
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:55:08 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
The fore-mentioned problems could be solved through introducing a more
natural dependency syntax:
PACKAGE-NAME [[*WSP] VERSION-OP [*WSP] PACKAGE-VERSION]]
If we'd rather not break backwards compatibility and add in
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:12:04 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
I like the current syntax.
Does that invalidate
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
I like the current one your proposal seems quite a problem for a large
deal of usecases.
1. It is not really human-friendly.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:13:48 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
I like the current one your proposal seems quite
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:07:38 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012 10:58 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
The syntax you are describing
On 23 September 2012 00:13, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Please try not fix/break what is not broken.
+1
--
Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
On 22/09/2012 09:35, Ben de Groot wrote:
Please try not fix/break what is not broken.
+1
Same here.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
1. It is not really human-friendly.
People don't say things like:
I need newer than monkey-1.2.
They say
On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
emerge 'foo = 1.1' 'bar 1.0'?
emerge foo '=' 1.1 bar '' 1.0?
How is the above easier to read than
emerge =foo-1.1 bar-1.0
?
I think your example is working against you*.*
The current syntax is much easier to read than the
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
1. It is not really
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:11:48 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
emerge 'foo = 1.1' 'bar 1.0'?
emerge foo '=' 1.1 bar '' 1.0?
How is the above easier to read than
emerge =foo-1.1 bar-1.0
Did you even test it?
On Sep 22, 2012 8:25 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:11:48 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
emerge 'foo = 1.1' 'bar 1.0'?
emerge foo '=' 1.1 bar '' 1.0?
How is the above
oops, didn't reply to the list. re-sending
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 19:19 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
So, I think you just don't like it and are inventing disadvantages
without even caring enough to consider them before writing.
Oh, I considered it for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [- PACKAGE-VERSION]
suffers a few problems:
1. It is not really human-friendly.
People don't say things like:
I need newer
No.
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012 8:25 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:11:48 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
emerge 'foo = 1.1' 'bar 1.0'?
emerge foo
23 matches
Mail list logo
