| 1 |
On Saturday 18 April 2009 13:08:24 Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 12:55 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 16 April 2009 19:05:46 Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 10:50 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:59:58 Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > > > Maybe another with -rX parsing. |
| 8 |
> > > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > > if you're thinking of the open bug, that's an eprefix specific |
| 10 |
> > > > > extension. they turned the X in -rX into a floating point #. which |
| 11 |
> > > > > isnt supported currently. |
| 12 |
> > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > I don't think that was it. But I can't recall well enough off the top |
| 14 |
> > > > of my head the problem that somebody pointed out to me one day on irc |
| 15 |
> > > > while I was probably too busy. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > The error was pointed out to me again today on irc by jmbsvicetto and |
| 18 |
> > > hoffie, which reminded me of what I had forgot before in this thread. |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > The problem was/is that qpkg is not handling -rX extensions properly. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > you'll have to be more specific. like i said, -rX extensions are a |
| 23 |
> > prefix extension and not part of the standard tree and/or spec. i'm not |
| 24 |
> > going to implement every random thing that someone feels like adding. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Heh. I don't think you understand the problem yet. Not a feature |
| 27 |
> request.. It's a real bug/regression. See the bug# that jmbsvicetto |
| 28 |
> filed this morn about it. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/266646 |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
yes, that is the "more information" that i required. that certainly looks |
| 33 |
bad. i'm guessing 0.1.29 works but 0.2 fails ? |
| 34 |
-mike |
Archives