2011/9/8 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org:
Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll
commit this today.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields one for AUTHOR and one for MAINTAINER,
Also in the code do not use the autotols-utils...
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:52:02 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
2011/9/8 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org:
Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll
commit this today.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields
Hello,
Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking
about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself.
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather
one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is using that
scheme to rename installed
Dne 1.9.2011 14:48, Michał Górny napsal(a):
Hello,
Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking
about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself.
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather
one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of
On 09/01/2011 07:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking
about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself.
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather
one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:56:42 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches
rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is
using that scheme to rename installed file.
Furthermore, it uses two eclass
Dne 1.9.2011 15:15, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:56:42 +0200
Tomáš Chvátalscarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches
rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is
using that scheme to rename installed file.
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
I think the way to go would be to reimplement it completely. Maybe
just put dobashcomp() and newbashcomp() functions in eutils (to not
collide) and deprecate bash-completion.eclass?
I'd rather keep this in a separate bash-completion-2.eclass.
We
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:27:12 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
I think the way to go would be to reimplement it completely. Maybe
just put dobashcomp() and newbashcomp() functions in eutils (to not
collide) and deprecate
On 15:20 Thu 01 Sep , Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne 1.9.2011 15:15, Michał Górny napsal(a):
We can either go with a new func and retroactively replace the
eclass, or retroactively fix all uses and fix the old funcs.
As even if you fix main tree you can't ensure that you won't mess with
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
So, here it goes. However, I'm not sure if that even deserves
a dedicated function as the destination is pretty constant.
# @BLURB: A few quick functions to install bash-completion files
# @DESCRIPTION:
# A few simple functions to help installing
11 matches
Mail list logo