On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
implemented a certain behavior,
On 6/17/2013 4:10 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
If we find that all known implementations of
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be
fixed.
How does that make any sense?
It makes perfect
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
The devmanual warns that calling die in a subshell does not work.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/error-handling/index.html
This warning has been obsolete for some time; modern versions of
Portage handle die in a subshell just fine.
In
On 15/06/2013 17:06, Mike Gilbert wrote:
Are there any objections to removing this warning from the devmanual?
Please, go for it.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote:
The devmanual warns that calling die in a subshell does not work.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/error-handling/index.html
This warning has been obsolete for some time; modern versions of
Portage handle die in a subshell just fine.
In
On 06/15/2013 06:16 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be
fixed.
How does that make any sense?
On 15/06/2013 17:19, hasufell wrote:
How does that make any sense?
It does not, but I don't remember anybody trying to assert that PMS
makes sense in quite a long time.
(Yes I still think that the PMS is 90% a waste of time)
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu —
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Are there any objections to removing this warning from the
devmanual?
PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
So the devmanual agrees with
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, hasufell wrote:
PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the eclasses need to be
fixed.
How does that make any sense?
It makes perfect sense.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:16:32 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote:
The devmanual warns that calling die in a subshell does not work.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/error-handling/index.html
This warning has been obsolete for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Why not fix the specs?
from council log
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120911.txt
Chainsaw Okay for EAPI 5. *Nothing* gets applied retroactively. *EVER*
So that means some
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:24:13 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
What does it take to change future specifications to guarantee this?
You can have it from EAPI 6 onwards.
What's holding this from becoming guaranteed? Why not fix the specs?
The specs accurately reflect Portage behaviour
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Why not fix the specs?
from council log
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120911.txt
Chainsaw Okay for EAPI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/2013 06:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Why not fix the specs?
from council log
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:45:05 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/15/2013 06:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Why not
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:24:13 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
What does it take to change future specifications to guarantee this?
You can have it from EAPI 6 onwards.
What's holding this from
On 06/15/2013 06:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS
to properly document the behavior seems reasonable.
Right, that's why my quote from the council log does not make
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS
to properly document the behavior seems reasonable.
Part of the point of EAPI stability
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS
Dnia 2013-06-15, o godz. 18:25:15
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, hasufell wrote:
PMS doesn't guarantee that die works correctly in a subshell:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-12800011.3.3
So the devmanual agrees with the spec, and the
21 matches
Mail list logo
