Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

> On May 22, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > W dniu sob, 19.05.2018 o godzinie 18∶53 +0300, użytkownik Consus > napisał: >> Okay, this >> >>https://github.com/mgorny/portage-mgorny/issues/15 >> >> is a goddamn piece of sanity that Portage requires for a long

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

W dniu sob, 19.05.2018 o godzinie 18∶53 +0300, użytkownik Consus napisał: > Okay, this > > https://github.com/mgorny/portage-mgorny/issues/15 > > is a goddamn piece of sanity that Portage requires for a long time and > and it worth some $20 donations. Where to send moneyz? > Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

Okay, this https://github.com/mgorny/portage-mgorny/issues/15 is a goddamn piece of sanity that Portage requires for a long time and and it worth some $20 donations. Where to send moneyz?

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/26/2018 09:48 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2018-03-23 18:44, Patrick McLean wrote: >> At my (and zmedico's) employer we use Gentoo heavily (all of our servers >> run it), and have a few large internal overlays and hundreds of internal >> profiles. There are packages in upstream Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 2018-03-23 18:44, Patrick McLean wrote: > At my (and zmedico's) employer we use Gentoo heavily (all of our servers > run it), and have a few large internal overlays and hundreds of internal > profiles. There are packages in upstream Gentoo that we maintain an > internal fork of, and it would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/25/2018 02:02 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:43:41 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> But if the majority demographic is as you describe, then they shouldn't >> be using anything having dependencies that require package.unmask or ** >> keywords changes. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

Well, in *my* opinion, in turn, having possibility to {R,}DEPEND on package from exact repo is much and much more needed functionality. Say, I have pkg2 in my repo, that depends on pkg1, which is in my repo too. Then, I (or user) add other repo having pkg1 too. Or, say, gentoo maintainers bump

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:43:41 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > But if the majority demographic is as you describe, then they shouldn't > be using anything having dependencies that require package.unmask or ** > keywords changes. Again, they *dont*, the problem is portage makes the

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/24/2018 07:26 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:44:49 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> That only happens when dependency satisfaction fails by normal means. > > And when that happens, it is better to bail and go "Uh oh, something bad", > not "oh, right,

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:44:49 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > That only happens when dependency satisfaction fails by normal means. And when that happens, it is better to bail and go "Uh oh, something bad", not "oh, right, lets install something that will likely make things worse

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/24/2018 01:33 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:27:20 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> The defaults certainly do not work perfectly in all situations. However, >> there are a vast number of situations where using --autounmask-continue >> will make

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:27:20 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > The defaults certainly do not work perfectly in all situations. However, > there are a vast number of situations where using --autounmask-continue > will make appropriate package.mask changes without the need for any user

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/24/2018 02:01 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:02:20 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> ...except that it is also used to say 'this is experimental version, >> unmask at will' and Portage wants to unmask stuff for you anyway. Well, >> I mean the default

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 5:01 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:02:20 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> ...except that it is also used to say 'this is experimental version, >> unmask at will' and Portage wants to unmask stuff for you anyway.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:02:20 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > ...except that it is also used to say 'this is experimental version, > unmask at will' and Portage wants to unmask stuff for you anyway. Well, > I mean the default configuration of Portage, not mine. Yeah, that default

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

W dniu sob, 24.03.2018 o godzinie 20∶02 +1300, użytkownik Kent Fredric napisał: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:53:40 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > Still, masking is the wrong way to express such preferences. If you > > package.mask sys-devel/gcc then you say that something is

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:53:40 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Still, masking is the wrong way to express such preferences. If you > package.mask sys-devel/gcc then you say that something is wrong with > that package. Which I believe is not what you want to express here. I might

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 16:23 +, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > This wouldn't help the maintainers of overlays, though, and puts > the burden on the user. One scenario where masks maintained in > overlays would be useful is the musl overlay, which carries > patches to various packages to have them

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 2018-03-23 06:27 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Roy Bamford wrote: >> >>> games-emulation/sdlmame is masked. I have a higher version in my >>> overlay than the one in the tree and it gets masked

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:25:12PM +0100, Arve Barsnes wrote: > On 23 March 2018 at 14:27, Rich Freeman wrote: > > It sounds to me that one of the intended behaviors is to tell portage > > that for a particular package we want to ignore a particular > > repository entirely.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

Hi guys, sys-devel/gcc::repos is only an example but from my side it is a real example. Currently, Sabayon use our gcc ebuild so it is needed mask gentoo version for rebuild sabayon-stage3 and now it is only possible (like other packages) through file (from sabayon side):

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 23 March 2018 at 14:27, Rich Freeman wrote: > It sounds to me that one of the intended behaviors is to tell portage > that for a particular package we want to ignore a particular > repository entirely. Suppose for example an overlay contains > misc/foo-3, and the main repo

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Roy Bamford wrote: > >> games-emulation/sdlmame is masked. I have a higher version in my >> overlay than the one in the tree and it gets masked too. >> Its not a problem to me as I know how to

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 23:06 Thu 22 Mar, Michał Górny wrote: > No. Just a few general ideas. It's Portage, so I don't expect anything > major to be able to happen. Is it possible to slowly migrate parts of sys-apps/portage to portage-utils? I really like portage-utils's approach to make things easier and modular.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Roy Bamford wrote: > games-emulation/sdlmame is masked. I have a higher version in my > overlay than the one in the tree and it gets masked too. > Its not a problem to me as I know how to manage it. Its just untidy. You still don't need a repository specific mask

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Francesco Riosa wrote: > Il 23/03/2018 10:48, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto: >> Conceptually that makes no sense. sys-devel/gcc is the name of an >> upstream package, so what does it even mean to mask it in one >> repository but not in another? If it's the same package,

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 2018.03.23 09:48, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Geaaru wrote: > > > for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add > > an extension to PMS for define inside profiles or targets masking of > > packages of a particular repslository. Currently PMS

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

The dlang repository offers a gcc ebuild that adds the patchset to build the gdc. It's behind a USE-Flag. Still it is exactly the same as sys-devel/gcc::gentoo besides the additional feature. But I don't think the dlang repo should mask gcc::gentoo. 2018-03-23 12:18 GMT+02:00 Francesco Riosa

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

Il 23/03/2018 10:48, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto: >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Geaaru wrote: >> for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add >> an extension to PMS for define inside profiles or targets masking of >> packages of a particular repslository. Currently PMS

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Geaaru wrote: > for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add > an extension to PMS for define inside profiles or targets masking of > packages of a particular repslository. Currently PMS doesn't permit > this but have this feature could be help

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

W dniu czw, 22.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶52 +, użytkownik Geaaru napisał: > Hi, > > a bit out of topic (sorry in advance) but connect to eventually new portage > feature... > > for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add an > extension to PMS for define inside profiles

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

W dniu pią, 23.03.2018 o godzinie 01∶01 +, użytkownik Herb Miller Jr. napisał: > On 03/22/2018 04:17 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:03:46 +0100 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/22/2018 04:17 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:03:46 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) >> I have finally decided to fork Portage. My little fork uses technical >> name of

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/22/2018 03:52 PM, Geaaru wrote: > Hi, > > a bit out of topic (sorry in advance) but connect to eventually new > portage feature... > > for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add an > extension to PMS for define inside profiles or targets masking of > packages of a

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

Hi, a bit out of topic (sorry in advance) but connect to eventually new portage feature... for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add an extension to PMS for define inside profiles or targets masking of packages of a particular repslository. Currently PMS doesn't permit

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

W dniu pią, 23.03.2018 o godzinie 00∶47 +0300, użytkownik Consus napisał: > On 20:03 Thu 22 Mar, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) > > I have finally decided to fork Portage. My little fork uses technical > > name

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 20:03 Thu 22 Mar, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) > I have finally decided to fork Portage. My little fork uses technical > name of 'portage[mgorny]' [1] (to distinguish it from mainline Portage), > and aims to

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On 03/22/2018 01:17 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:03:46 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) >> I have finally decided to fork Portage. My little fork uses technical >> name of

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

W dniu czw, 22.03.2018 o godzinie 20∶17 +, użytkownik James Le Cuirot napisał: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:03:46 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) > > I have finally decided to fork Portage. My little fork

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:03:46 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) > I have finally decided to fork Portage. My little fork uses technical > name of 'portage[mgorny]' [1] (to distinguish it from mainline Portage), >

[gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

Hello, everyone. After 2+ years of repeating disagreements with Portage maintainer(s) I have finally decided to fork Portage. My little fork uses technical name of 'portage[mgorny]' [1] (to distinguish it from mainline Portage), and aims to focus on cleaning up code and adding useful features