Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:09 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> [...]
>> And finally, as already pointed out by Rich, you should not talk about
>> any specific EAPI you like/prefer/want to be used everyhwere, but
>> instead about the issue you want to solve. So just point out
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> That time you think you are saving, will be need to be lost if, for
> example, some QA policy appears in the future to move to try to run
> tests in parallel when possible, or force verbose output.
So you're suggesting that I should invest 15
El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 17:15 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
[...]
> I am not talking about hypothetical problems, i am talking about a real
> thing: my limited amount of free time i am able and willing to spend for
> Gentoo. And i prefer spending it on fixing real bugs over spending
> additional
El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:09 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
[...]
> And finally, as already pointed out by Rich, you should not talk about
> any specific EAPI you like/prefer/want to be used everyhwere, but
> instead about the issue you want to solve. So just point out the issue
> and ask the mai
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:09 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
>> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>>> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 22:39 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
>> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>>
El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:29 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
[...]
> > And finally, as already pointed out by Rich, you should not talk about
> > any specific EAPI you like/prefer/want to be used everyhwere, but
> > instead about the issue you want to solve. So just point out the issue
> > and ask t
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4?
Seriously, what people are still having problems with trimming quotes?
Pacho, I wrote a sarcastic manual for you about how to trim quotes in
your replies on the mailing list, but you are still not doing it.
El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:09 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 22:39 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> >> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> >>> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > I volunteer to do
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 22:39 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
>> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>>> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
> if I have time
El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 08:14 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió:
> > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200
> > > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > >
> > > > Seriously, what people is s
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200
> > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >
> > > Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4?
> > > If there are doubts about its
El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4?
> > If there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved
> > instead of ignored kee
El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 22:39 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> >> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> >>> I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
> >>> if I have time... what prevents me fro
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> This is not about "having problems with handling eapi-X", this is just
> about limited time and the choice where to spend that time. If you do
> just a version bump, you often dont have to touch the ebuild at all,
> just copy, test, commit an
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4?
> If there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved
> instead of ignored keeping ebuilds with older eapis. The only eapi
> that probably adds no advant
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
>> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>>> I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
>>> if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that
>>> changes to ebuilds not maintained by me
El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
> > if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that
> > changes to ebuilds not maintained by me and not knowing if deve
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
> if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that
> changes to ebuilds not maintained by me and not knowing if developers
> agree on using latest eapi if possible. A more general soluti
El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 15:47 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió:
[...]
> > Because it will add even more work, I mean:
> > - I catch a package using and old eapi and, then, still not passing
> > --disable-silent-rules option. => First problem, I need to notice that
> > package, there are packages I s
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:09:15 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 14:51 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:21:52 +0200
> > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > What I am trying to say is that, if we agree latest eapi is
> > > technically better, we
El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 14:51 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:21:52 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What I am trying to say is that, if we agree latest eapi is
> > technically better, we need to try to get it used when possible (I
> > mean, when, for example,
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:21:52 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
[...]
> What I am trying to say is that, if we agree latest eapi is
> technically better, we need to try to get it used when possible (I
> mean, when, for example, eclasses are ported) for a "QA" reasoning.
i think we all agree that there ar
El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 15:35 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Personally I see no major difficult in moving to eapi4, what exact
> > difficult are you (I mean people still sticking with eapi0/1) seeing?
>
> It is harder than cp. :)
>
> If
On 10/18/2012 09:09 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Anyways, we're seriously getting off topic here. I don't think anyone
> objected to removing the EAPI 0 requirement for system packages (and in
> reality no one follows it anyways.
An EAPI 0 requirement for system packages is just silly these days.
> E
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:36:27 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Well, it's not just about ebuilds you maintain. Think about something
> > like the gcc-porting trackers where you have to touch a lot of ebuilds
> > across the tree. You really do have to have a working knowledge of the
> > differences
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Personally I see no major difficult in moving to eapi4, what exact
> difficult are you (I mean people still sticking with eapi0/1) seeing?
It is harder than cp. :)
If I write a new ebuild I would always target the most recent EAPI.
However,
El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 13:49 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > I didn't think eapi4 features were still "unfamiliar" to so many
> > people... let's say, what about deprecating eapi1, 2 and 0 for newer
> > ebuilds? Is eapi2 so unfamiliar also
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I didn't think eapi4 features were still "unfamiliar" to so many
> people... let's say, what about deprecating eapi1, 2 and 0 for newer
> ebuilds? Is eapi2 so unfamiliar also to not force it as older eapi for
> newer ebuilds (eapi3 changes loo
El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 09:36 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red
> >> herring. The fact that there are packages w
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red
>> herring. The fact that there are packages written in Erlang in the
>> tree doesn't cause me any issues even though
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less
> > using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is
> > the advantage for a new ebuild to s
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less
> using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is
> the advantage for a new ebuild to still rely on old src_compile phase
> instead of src_prepare/confi
El mar, 16-10-2012 a las 23:42 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:28:20 +0200
> Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600
> > Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > > I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing
> > > EAPI 1 would be a better ide
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:28:20 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing
> > EAPI 1 would be a better idea.
>
> I'm not for forced EAPI bumps anytime soon, but I expect EAPI 0 to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing
> EAPI 1 would be a better idea.
I'm not for forced EAPI bumps anytime soon, but I expect EAPI 0 to be
gone from tree in 3-5 years once the EAPI=0 requirement is lifted.
Cur
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:53:15 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> The EAPI=0 requirement comes from having to provide an update path for
> systems with a package manager without EAPI support. By now we are
> talking about really ancient systems and it's questionable if there is
> any merit in supporti
36 matches
Mail list logo
