[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Superseded packages
From: |
Leo Famulari |
Subject: |
Re: Superseded packages |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:58:55 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:44:26AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> skribis:
> > So the attached patch moves attic after borg and supersedes it. Is it
> > expected that we have to shuffle the package definition around like
> > this?
>
> Yes, because ‘properties’ are evaluated eagerly.
>
> We could change the ‘superseded’ property to always be a promise, as
> Efraim suggests; we’ll see later if that’s really necessary.
>
> The patch LGTM.
Okay, pushed. Thanks for the details!
- Re: Superseded packages, (continued)
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/10
- Re: Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/11
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/11
- Re: Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/11
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/20
- Re: Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/23
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/25
- Re: Superseded packages, Efraim Flashner, 2016/09/26
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/27
- Re: Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/28
- Re: Superseded packages,
Leo Famulari <=