Re: [gentoo-dev] New USE flags documentation
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:10:58 +0100 Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the idea is really great [...] now this needs to be [...] made mandatory for all ebuilds. Uh, what? Why? If the idea is that great, then why does it need to be mandatory? This is one more way the maintainer can document the functionality of the ebuild. IMHO this documentation is so usefull that every ebuild should provide it. see the recent blogpost by nichoj http://technicalpickles.com/posts/pidgin-idle-time which supports this reasoning. regards Thilo Kind regards, JeR signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] New USE flags documentation
On Nov 24, 2007 4:19 PM, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jose Luis Rivero wrote: I'm not asking for an extra overhead of 'bureaucracy' (write specs, mailling @dev, send to the council, etc.) but a bit more of communication would be appreciated: All the above is completely unnecessary and I would be happy to discuss details with you off list. I'm not against the changes in metadata but I felt a bit angry when the changes were made bypassing established processes and skipping the feedback-rethinking cycle (as other people pointer out... ignoring the community). So, I agree with people asking for freezing the use of the new features until a GLEP is proposed, discussed and approved. Regards, Santiago -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Current html version available here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. I'd suggest -vc (version controlled) or -vcs instead. (...not that it matters much, of course.) -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpnfRvZpove4.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
Hello, Attaching the GLEP source. Current html version available here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński GLEP: 54 Title: scm package version suffix Version: $Revision: $ Last-Modified: $Date: $ Author: Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 09-Dec-2007 Post-History: 09-Dec-2007 Abstract This GLEP proposes addition of a new special package version suffix - ``scm`` - for ebuilds checking out source directly from a source code management system. Motivation == Currently there is no standard way of marking SCM ebuilds. Using as the version is pretty common, but it is handled like any other ebuild and hence portage cannot provide any additional features for packages with such a version. Another way is adding separate package with -cvs suffix in its name, but that forces to use ``|| ( cat/pkg cat/pkg-cvs )`` dependencies. The closest to what is proposed in this GLEP is the ``cvs`` version part, but its implementation is of very limited use. It has strange comparison rules, no documentation, has never been used in the tree and has a misleading name. The possibility for package managers to recognise SCM ebuilds would allow them to add features dedicated specially to said ebuilds. One such feature could be automatic re-installation of SCM packages once a day or week, but that's beyond this GLEP. Specification = ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just like revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0-scm-r3`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm-r2`` * ``cat/pkg-scm`` These package atoms are sorted in ascending order (see `Version Comparison`_). Version Comparison == The addition of the scm suffix yields changes in version comparison: * When comparing version components from left to right the scm component has the highest priority. * Current suffixes with no number part no longer default to zero if they are followed by an scm suffix. If that's the case the number part is considered to be of a maximum value. Hence ``1_alpha2-scm 1_alpha-scm``, but still ``1_alpha == 1_alpha0``. Example parsing: * ``cat/pkg-scm cat/pkg-1`` When parsing from left to right the first difference is ``scm`` and ``1``. ``cat/pkg-scm`` wins. * ``cat/pkg-1-scm cat/pkg-1.0-scm`` When parsing from left to right the first difference is ``scm`` and ``0``. ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` wins. * ``cat/pkg-1_alpha-scm cat/pkg-1_alpha1-scm`` In the first package version ``alpha`` doesn't have a number part *and* is followed by an ``scm`` suffix, hence it is considered to have a maximum value as the number part. When parsing from left to right the first difference is the number part of the ``alpha`` suffix. Maximum value yielded by the following ``scm`` suffix wins with ``1``. List of version specs in ascending order: * ``1`` * ``1.1-scm`` * ``1.2_alpha-scm`` * ``1.2_beta_p`` * ``1.2_beta_p0-scm`` * ``1.2_beta_p1-scm`` * ``1.2_beta_p-scm`` * ``1.2_beta1_p-scm`` * ``1.2_beta10`` * ``1.2_beta10_p1-scm`` * ``1.2_beta10-scm`` * ``1.2_beta-scm`` * ``1.2`` * ``1.2-scm`` * ``1.2-scm-r1`` * ``1-scm`` * ``10`` * ``scm`` * ``scm-r3`` Backwards Compatibility === Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes and die during various tasks making portage hard or impossible to use. Later versions just ignore them displaying warnings. Hence use of ``scm`` suffixes in gentoo-x86 tree will probably have to wait till 2008.0 release or later. Copyright = This document has been placed in the public domain. .. vim: set tw=80 fileencoding=utf-8 spell spelllang=en et :
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 17:18:08 Josh Sled wrote: Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Current html version available here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. I'd suggest -vc (version controlled) or -vcs instead. $ wtf vc vc: nothing appropriate $ wtf vcs vcs (4) - virtual console memory $ wtf scm SCM: software configuration management source code management scm wins :) -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes doesn't -- don't signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 18:52:22 Petteri Räty wrote: Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes doesn't -- don't thanks, fixed. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
Specification = ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just like revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0-scm-r3`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm-r2`` * ``cat/pkg-scm`` These package atoms are sorted in ascending order (see `Version Comparison`_). What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? From the logical POV, scm is a special decorator saying this is a special tarball that can change in time and we don't know its version when parsing ebuild, we'd have to ask the repository. Surely I can think of uses for *revision* specification (as in revision of the ebuild), but why to support full version for scm packages? Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] scm package version suffix
� wrote: Specification = ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just like revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0-scm-r3`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm-r2`` * ``cat/pkg-scm`` These package atoms are sorted in ascending order (see `Version Comparison`_). What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? From the logical POV, scm is a special decorator saying this is a special tarball that can change in time and we don't know its version when parsing ebuild, we'd have to ask the repository. Surely I can think of uses for *revision* specification (as in revision of the ebuild), but why to support full version for scm packages? for example: sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm-r1 would be GCC 4.2 branch prerelease with the 20071127 patchset and one ebuild revision. or more generally, why go through the /extra/ trouble of /not/ allowing normal version specifiers? -- looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees this latitude weakens my knees EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2007-12-09 23h59 UTC
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2007-12-09 23h59 UTC. Removals: games-arcade/ultrastar-songs2007-12-03 21:20:49 tupone dev-java/sun-jaf-bin2007-12-05 01:51:12 betelgeuse Additions: x11-themes/qtcurve-qt4 2007-12-03 09:43:08 nelchael media-plugins/vdr-joystick 2007-12-03 20:47:01 hd_brummy games-arcade/ultrastar-songs2007-12-03 21:08:34 tupone dev-perl/TextToHTML 2007-12-03 22:56:46 hd_brummy rox-base/zeroinstall-injector 2007-12-04 17:02:45 lack net-www/diamondx2007-12-05 02:06:59 jer x11-themes/xxv-skins2007-12-05 20:35:24 hd_brummy dev-php/PEAR-HTML_QuickForm_advmultiselect 2007-12-06 00:11:49 jokey sys-fs/owfs 2007-12-06 15:00:50 wschlich sys-apps/dtc2007-12-07 02:20:32 lu_zero dev-python/pyfltk 2007-12-07 11:24:11 bicatali dev-embedded/gnome-avrdude 2007-12-09 16:39:43 calchan -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 Removed Packages: games-arcade/ultrastar-songs,removed,tupone,2007-12-03 21:20:49 dev-java/sun-jaf-bin,removed,betelgeuse,2007-12-05 01:51:12 Added Packages: x11-themes/qtcurve-qt4,added,nelchael,2007-12-03 09:43:08 media-plugins/vdr-joystick,added,hd_brummy,2007-12-03 20:47:01 games-arcade/ultrastar-songs,added,tupone,2007-12-03 21:08:34 dev-perl/TextToHTML,added,hd_brummy,2007-12-03 22:56:46 rox-base/zeroinstall-injector,added,lack,2007-12-04 17:02:45 net-www/diamondx,added,jer,2007-12-05 02:06:59 x11-themes/xxv-skins,added,hd_brummy,2007-12-05 20:35:24 dev-php/PEAR-HTML_QuickForm_advmultiselect,added,jokey,2007-12-06 00:11:49 sys-fs/owfs,added,wschlich,2007-12-06 15:00:50 sys-apps/dtc,added,lu_zero,2007-12-07 02:20:32 dev-python/pyfltk,added,bicatali,2007-12-07 11:24:11 dev-embedded/gnome-avrdude,added,calchan,2007-12-09 16:39:43 Done.
[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: December 2nd - 9th, 2007
Attached are the packages marked for removal this week. -- looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees this latitude weakens my knees EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662) www-apps/viewcvs Gunnar Wrobel [EMAIL PROTECTED]02 Jan 2008 app-emacs/md5 Ulrich Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04 Jan 2008 app-emacs/sha1 Ulrich Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04 Jan 2008 net-www/pears Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04 Jan 2008 app-accessibility/festival-gaim Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 gnustep-base/gnustep-env Bernard Cafarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08 Jan 2008 gnustep-libs/artresources Bernard Cafarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08 Jan 2008 net-im/gaim-bloggerOlivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 net-im/gaim-bnet Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 net-im/gaim-meanwhile Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 net-im/gaimOlivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 net-im/gaim-snpp Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/autoprofileOlivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/bangexec Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-assistant Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-encryptionOlivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-extprefs Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-galagoOlivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-hotkeys Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-latex Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaimosdOlivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-otr Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-rhythmbox Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-slashexec Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/gaim-xfire Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-plugins/ignorance Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 x11-themes/gaim-smileysOlivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]08 Jan 2008 table tr thPackage:/th thRemoval date:/th thContact:/th /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/www-apps/viewcvs;www-apps/viewcvs/uri/ti ti02 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gunnar Wrobel/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/app-emacs/md5;app-emacs/md5/uri/ti ti04 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Ulrich Mueller/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/app-emacs/sha1;app-emacs/sha1/uri/ti ti04 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Ulrich Mueller/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/net-www/pears;net-www/pears/uri/ti ti04 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Ryan Hill/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/app-accessibility/festival-gaim;app-accessibility/festival-gaim/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/gnustep-base/gnustep-env;gnustep-base/gnustep-env/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Bernard Cafarelli/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/gnustep-libs/artresources;gnustep-libs/artresources/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Bernard Cafarelli/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/net-im/gaim-blogger;net-im/gaim-blogger/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/net-im/gaim-bnet;net-im/gaim-bnet/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/net-im/gaim-meanwhile;net-im/gaim-meanwhile/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/net-im/gaim;net-im/gaim/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/net-im/gaim-snpp;net-im/gaim-snpp/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/x11-plugins/autoprofile;x11-plugins/autoprofile/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr tiuri link=http://packages.gentoo.org/package/x11-plugins/bangexec;x11-plugins/bangexec/uri/ti ti08 Jan 2008/ti timail link=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Olivier Crete/mail/ti /tr tr
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? Branches. How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead strings, which seems to grow increasingly more common as VCSs can handle it? Just give them arbitrary numbers? Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/xmltv: ChangeLog xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild
On 11:08 Sat 08 Dec , Matteo Azzali (mattepiu) wrote:
1.1 media-tv/xmltv/xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-tv/xmltv/xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-tv/xmltv/xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild?rev=1.1content-type=text/plain
make_config() {
# Never except default configuration
echo no
# Enable Australian
#use au echo yes || echo no
# Enable Agentina
use ar echo yes || echo no
# Enable Brazil
#use br echo yes || echo no
# Enable Brazil Cable
use brnet echo yes || echo no
... snip more ...
You could simplify this with the yesno() function that's in a number of
ebuilds around the tree, for example sys-apps/less.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? Branches. How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead strings, which seems to grow increasingly more common as VCSs can handle it? Just give them arbitrary numbers? Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate
packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature.
I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes
one to need a separate package. Infact, if a branch has a new feature
that I want to test against a lot of packages, having a separate
package means I have to either || ( sys-apps/package
sys-apps/package-branch ) for all packages that I want to test it
against, or make a virtual package sys-apps/package- which just
depends on sys-apps/package-branch. The former is too much work
sometimes, and the latter just brings us full circle.
Why not just have something like
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ?
It should be easy to parse since it'll always be after scm and will
be the last portion of the version string before -rN.
In case ${BRANCHNAME} itself ends in -rN (highly unlikely), the
entire version string could be made to end with -r0 to signify that
it's revision 0 and not revision N.
Also, releases are often tagged rather than being branched out, which
would have to be kept in mind as well.
--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
