2008/9/23 Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just want to
>> avoid adding odd Goboisms if other options exist.
>
> I think that's a wise principle (even though I failed to follow it in the
> past).
>
Trying to avoid Goboisms
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to
> avoid adding odd Goboisms if other options exist.
I think that's a wise principle (even though I failed to follow it in the past).
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Benjamin Bruheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
I would rather like this to be explicit rather than implicit. Having
access to all versions at the same time is something I won't miss, but
knowing the option is there is nice. Then another automatic mechanism
by recipes could be added without much interference anyway.
Also, wouldn't the non-Curre
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It has been pointed out that zsh has very powerful tab completion and we could
> probably reconfigure it to ignore those executables unless you actually
> entered the - yourself, if it turned out to be a real problem.
I
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Jonas Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If versioned executables is only used by our tools that is an option,
> but are they? Can't a user want to run a specific version of an
> application?
>
Specify a full path? But at that point they could just access it
2008/9/21 Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sunday 21 September 2008 19:09:19 Carlo Calica wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all
>> > the time. I like consistency and r
On Sunday 21 September 2008 19:09:19 Carlo Calica wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all
> > the time. I like consistency and reliability.
> I don't mind /S/L/E getting cluttered
2008/9/21 Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all the
>> time. I like consistency and reliability.
>>
>
> I don't mind /S/L/E getting cluttered up. I
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all the
> time. I like consistency and reliability.
>
I don't mind /S/L/E getting cluttered up. I do mind tab completion
being weird but could probably
On Sunday 21 September 2008 18:18:39 Carlo Calica wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > What I do think may cause an issue is signing of programs/packages. As
> > versioned binaries should be a user option packages should not contain
> > them but t
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree that the cost for versioned binaries are much less then the
> benefit that comes from it.
>
agreed.
> What I do think may cause an issue is signing of programs/packages. As
> versioned binaries should be a user
2008/9/19 Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> VersionExecutables
>>> creates hard links to the executables within a program, named with the
>>> versio
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm also not sure about the behavior of hardlinks when you
>> pack a tarball for a binary package (I'm guessing they duplicate by
>> default, keep that i
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> VersionExecutables
>> creates hard links to the executables within a program, named with the
>> version of the program they belong to.
>> I would like to
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Me again,
> A couple of days ago I committed two new tools that Jonas and I had
> kicked around on #gobolinux on and off for while now:
> VersionExecutables and UnversionExecutables. VersionExecutables
> creates hard links
Me again,
A couple of days ago I committed two new tools that Jonas and I had
kicked around on #gobolinux on and off for while now:
VersionExecutables and UnversionExecutables. VersionExecutables
creates hard links to the executables within a program, named with the
version of the program they belo
16 matches
Mail list logo
