Re: [gentoo-dev] The importance of test suites

2010-02-21 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 2/21/10 5:08 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: I have one simple request. When you make a non-trivial change to an ebuild - a patch, a version bump, anything that can effect the behaviour of the package - please run the test suite. Yeah, on my dev box I just run with FEATURES=test all the time. Then

Re: [gentoo-dev] The importance of test suites

2010-02-21 Thread Thilo Bangert
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org said: On 2/21/10 5:08 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: I have one simple request. When you make a non-trivial change to an ebuild - a patch, a version bump, anything that can effect the behaviour of the package - please run the test suite. Yeah, on my dev box

Re: [gentoo-dev] The importance of test suites

2010-02-21 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 2/21/10 10:40 AM, Thilo Bangert wrote: Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org said: The concern here may be that it's papering over the real problem, but the good side is that it'd make running with FEATURES=test much easier. which is a good thing, since more tests will be run.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The importance of test suites

2010-02-21 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, Ryan Hill wrote: [... Please use the test suites, you're making lives easier. ...] Also, if the test failure is portable, you don't waste the time of N arch maintainers that run into the same problem on wy slower machines than yours. Thanks, Tobias

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: MySQL 5.1 bump

2010-02-21 Thread Richard Freeman
On 02/20/2010 09:23 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: The MySQL 5.1 news item with all updates is now commited, and 5.1.x have been unblocked in package.mask. It looks like that news item is visible to users running stable as well. When 5.1 eventually goes stable we might want to re-announce it

Re: [gentoo-dev] The importance of test suites

2010-02-21 Thread Petteri Räty
On 21.2.2010 1.11, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: Is it acceptable for another dev to jump in and add RESTRICT=test to an ebuild if the maintainer does not respond to a bug report in a timely manner? Preference order: 1. Fix the tests 2. Disable just the failing test 3. RESTRICT=test Regards,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Petteri Räty
On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: Hi, Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us to avoid using PROPERTIES=interactive in cases when it is due to check_license alone, since anything with a

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-libs/gtk+extra

2010-02-21 Thread Pacho Ramos
# Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org (21 Feb 2010) # Upstream is dead since years, doesn't compile against # gtk+-2.18 and nobody want to maintain it (#292211) # Masked for removal in 60 days x11-libs/gtk+extra Best regards signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente

[gentoo-dev] Build system output verbosity, e.g. cmake

2010-02-21 Thread Fabian Groffen
Hi all, Inspired by the recent poppler move from autoconf to cmake for its build system, the following. Given that poppler didn't compile on at least two arches, I found that cmake is pretty much terse in its output, especially when errors are encountered. Often it is important to know how the

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: kde-misc/kopete-cryptography

2010-02-21 Thread Samuli Suominen
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (21 Feb 2010) # libkleo doesn't install required include files anymore, # because they are meant only for internal usage. this means # kopete-cryptography won't compile anymore, and as such, # will be removed from portage. bug 306199 and bug 306115. # masked

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo Mozilla Team meeting decisions

2010-02-21 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Feb 21st, Sunday, the Gentoo Mozilla Team had an informal meeting to discuss some of the recent changes which have a large-ish impact on users. Below is a list of them and the decisions that were taken. After the list is a description of each decision. - SQLite with Firefox: Firefox will use

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Mozilla Team meeting decisions

2010-02-21 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: - Revival of #gentoo-mozilla @ FreeNode: The mozilla team has expanded in recent times, and with that we have decided to revive the ages-old #gentoo-mozilla irc channel. Users are welcome to idle, discuss, and ask for

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: Hi, Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us to avoid using PROPERTIES=interactive in cases when it is due to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Mozilla Team meeting decisions

2010-02-21 Thread volkmar
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 02:31:25AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: - Ebuilds for Extensions in-tree: The Gentoo Mozilla team will not ship ebuilds for extensions such as noscript and weave anymore. We will only have ebuilds for extensions which are linux-specific and compiled; such as enigmail.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Petteri Räty
On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: Hi, Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us to avoid using

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: Hi, Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Petteri Räty
On 21.2.2010 14.49, Zac Medico wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: Hi, Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we can think about

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/21/2010 03:00 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 21.2.2010 14.49, Zac Medico wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: Hi, Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now,

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2010-02-21 23h59 UTC

2010-02-21 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2010-02-21 23h59 UTC. Removals: x11-misc/icebgset 2010-02-17 09:09:44 phosphan x11-misc/icecc 2010-02-17 09:09:45 phosphan

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Petteri Räty
On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote: Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior. Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has accepted the appropriate license(s) via

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license

2010-02-21 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/21/2010 04:35 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote: Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior. Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has