Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI versioning of files in profiles
On 11/01/2010 10:06 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
I would like to suggest improvement in handling of EAPI in profiles:
Some files could optionally end with :${EAPI}, which would be used to
specify, which EAPI
should be used for parsing of given file. It would concern at least the
following files:
package.mask
package.use
use.force
use.mask
package.use.force
package.use.mask
And maybe also use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable.
Examples:
profiles/package.mask:5 could be used to mask dependency atoms with -scm
or -live suffix
(if EAPI=5 supports this suffix).
profiles/base/use.mask:4 could be used to mask USE flags (which use
EAPI=4-specific syntax)
on all profiles inheriting from base profile.
Without support for EAPI-versioned files, such actions from above examples
might require copying
of whole tree of profiles, adding eapi file to new profiles etc.
eapi files would still be used to specify EAPI for EAPI-unversioned files in
given profiles.
When you need to use a new EAPI, why not just create a sub-profile that
uses the existing 'eapi' file support? For example, you could create
10.1 profiles that inherit from the 10.0 profiles, and put anything
requiring the new EAPI in the 10.1 sub-profiles.
--
Thanks,
Zac
[gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
Moin, is anybody interested to maintain the following packages? | app-admin/config_confd | app-portage/flagedit | app-portage/profuse | dev-util/libconf If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=app-admin/config_confd,app-portage/flagedit,app-portage/profuse,dev-util/libconf -- Regards
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100 Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org wrote: If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week. If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period as I'm currently working on a replacement script, called flaggie [1]. Although it can be considered working already, I'd like to polish it a little and implement the basic feature set before the first release. [1] http://github.com/mgorny/flaggie -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 3.11.2010 14:48, Michał Górny napsal(a): On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100 Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org wrote: If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week. If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period as I'm currently working on a replacement script, called flaggie [1]. Although it can be considered working already, I'd like to polish it a little and implement the basic feature set before the first release. [1] http://github.com/mgorny/flaggie And why the heck you are not working on making it part of gentoolkit + equery (the same way i incorporated eshowkw). Tom -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzRcdYACgkQHB6c3gNBRYeLZQCePKRFIlD38FToDMksV9VQj2MI VkoAmwRSusErWENORwPNObr34xbKmJES =T2yQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:29:42 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote: And why the heck you are not working on making it part of gentoolkit + equery (the same way i incorporated eshowkw). Because I dislike the all-in-one packaging idea. Separate development allows me to use git and make releases whenever it is necessary, without re-releasing all the unchanged tools. In other words, why the heck we are not working on replacing split X11 ebuilds into one large xf86 or why the heck we are working on monolithic KDE ebuilds? - -- Best regards, Michał Górny -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkzRc0oACgkQnGSe5QXeB7u51wCgnOCaBHWIhvvMICDIPQ3fMBgP bc8AoN0plN5sSvMMlfCjETESQQCA9o9Q =I6ij -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
Just wondering, why did you abuse classes that badly and hack way through optparse? If it limits your needs you might want to take a look at argparse. Domen On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 14:48 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100 Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org wrote: If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week. If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period as I'm currently working on a replacement script, called flaggie [1]. Although it can be considered working already, I'd like to polish it a little and implement the basic feature set before the first release. [1] http://github.com/mgorny/flaggie signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:41:46 +0100 Domen Kožar do...@dev.si wrote: Just wondering, why did you abuse classes that badly and hack way through optparse? If it limits your needs you might want to take a look at argparse. With classes, I hope to clean that up a little soon. My ideas changed a little during the project development (especially that it was started some time ago already and left unmaintained for a while) and first I'd like to make everything working and then start cleaning up what will remain unclean. And for argparse, I wasn't aware of it when the option parsing code was written. And right now, I still don't see a reason to use it. Especially that I would need to care about additional dependencies for python:2.6. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for Lua related packages
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08:09 Tue 02 Nov , Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 11/2/10 4:24 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins wrote: I think that a first step should be create a new category, maybe called dev-lua, for all the Lua related stuff. Just checking: how many packages would be in the new category? In case anyone was wondering, I wanted to check how many packages typically showed up in a category. Here's a histogram of the distribution. The number of packages are in column 1, and the number of categories having that many packages are in column 2 (bin size 10, number shown ±5). To summarize, half the categories have 10-50 packages, then there are a number of huge ones. If you can get at least 15 packages, it's a reasonable starting point for a new category. 5 5 15 19 25 15 35 21 45 14 55 9 65 7 75 10 85 9 95 2 105 7 115 1 125 4 135 4 145 1 165 1 185 4 195 1 205 1 215 1 225 1 245 2 255 1 265 3 295 2 345 2 355 2 375 1 485 1 545 1 985 1 Hi Donnie, thanks for the stats. I'm just wondering if it's worth add the packages now, before create the new category, and have more packages to fix when creating the new category. Best regards, -- Rafael Goncalves Martins Gentoo Linux developer http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/
Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for Lua related packages
To summarize, half the categories have 10-50 packages, then there are a number of huge ones. If you can get at least 15 packages, it's a reasonable starting point for a new category. I wouldn't have a limit like 15 on it. My first thought for checking Lua is looking in /usr/portage/dev-lua It is a behavior exactly as people would expect. I would go for it Include my +1 ;-) Kfir
[gentoo-dev] Re: New category for Lua related packages
Il giorno mer, 03/11/2010 alle 18.46 -0200, Rafael Goncalves Martins ha scritto: I'm just wondering if it's worth add the packages now, before create the new category, and have more packages to fix when creating the new category. Create the category before adding the packages. pkgmoves are expensive operations especially for those of us who use binary packages :) -- Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
