Re: [gentoo-dev] fixing dev-libs/icu c++11 bustage, testers wanted

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 14/11/2012 21:02, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> My _limited_ testing seems to indicate it's "working". But if you people
> can just do your tests, that would be most welcome. Please report back
> either success or failure.

What kind of testing are you thinking of? Execution or build? And I
assume this is still under the idea that C++11 support is kept
_disabled_ for now.

Anyway I'll run an icu tinderbox soon as the current one is done (libav-9).

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[gentoo-dev] fixing dev-libs/icu c++11 bustage, testers wanted

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

tl;dr - please test dev-libs/icu-50.1-r2 and report if it works for you
or not; if it doesn't, please try dev-libs/icu-50.1-r1 and also report

I've done two version bumps of dev-libs/icu related to the c++11 bug
 (feel free to add the
package to the chromium herd btw).

My _limited_ testing seems to indicate it's "working". But if you people
can just do your tests, that would be most welcome. Please report back
either success or failure.

I hope you like those little "drive-by" icu fixes I've done here. :)
Feedback welcome, and I'm willing to fix any breakage resulting from my
changes.

Paweł



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 11/14/2012 06:17 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> so unless you are willing to go that far as introducing yourself at the 
>> xfce devel mailing list and accepting the mantle of upstream of them, we 
>> are really stuck at this distribution level patching just like others
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If you (not you specifically, the generic
> 'you') have patches then you push them upstream.
> 
> 0 distribution patches would only be unrealistic because of some
> refusal to work with upstream.
> 
> If you are doing some patching of XFCE then I think there is no
> difference as far as the code goes between doing it in a gentoo
> repository and doing it in the upstream repository.
> 

I think you're reading past what he said. He needs help submitting
things upstream, so that they can be added to portage.

There are a lot of xfce extras which in reality are unmaintained. Other
distributions have patches for them to make them forward-compatible. The
right thing to do, as you pointed out, is submit these upstream. Samuli
wants help doing that.

Once they're upstream (at least in git/bugzilla), those patches can be
added to portage. Or if anyone takes over maintenance of the package,
merged upstream.

Having someone maintain the extras would of course be preferable, but
this is better than rolling our own patches independent of the other
distros.

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

[Peter Stuge]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> so unless you are willing to go that far as introducing yourself at the 
> xfce devel mailing list and accepting the mantle of upstream of them, we 
> are really stuck at this distribution level patching just like others

That makes no sense to me. If you (not you specifically, the generic
'you') have patches then you push them upstream.

0 distribution patches would only be unrealistic because of some
refusal to work with upstream.

If you are doing some patching of XFCE then I think there is no
difference as far as the code goes between doing it in a gentoo
repository and doing it in the upstream repository.

I'm both upstream and user (but neither for XFCE). It is really f-ing
annoying as upstream to have to go hunting for patches in
distributions. If noone else has an interest in a given plugin and
you are patching it, then guess what; you are already de facto
upstream.

If others in other distributions also share the interest in the
plugin then there is clearly a community of contributors.

An other arrangement than that such community works together in
a canonical (not the company) upstream repository seems like fail.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

[Samuli Suominen]

On 14/11/12 12:36, Peter Stuge wrote:

It also means that if I had strong interest in XFCE then I would work
on getting patches from other distribution upstream, so that Gentoo
did not need to have any patches at all.


I also want to clarify that *everything* we have for XFCE in gentoo-x86 
now *are submitted to the Xfce bugzilla* and often improved by 
collective of distribution maintainers (Gentoo, Debian, Fedora, NetBSD, 
...) for doing things right


Futhermore this has been the status quo of Xfce plugins since 4.2.x 
times, for years, so it's not I'm suggesting anything new or crazy


- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

[Samuli Suominen]

On 14/11/12 12:36, Peter Stuge wrote:

Samuli Suominen wrote:

I'm just afraid our XFCE port gets lagged behind because of this as
compared to other distros ...


I am, as you know, a strong proponent of doing things right, rather
than doing them fast.

In this case that means that it is not the end of the world if Gentoo
ebuilds do not have every single patch found in other distributions.

It also means that if I had strong interest in XFCE then I would work
on getting patches from other distribution upstream, so that Gentoo
did not need to have any patches at all.


unrealistic as all the plugins listed here have no upstream, as in, bugs 
get filed at bugzilla.xfce.org and plugins are not marked as obsolete in 
git...
but they still have next to nobody looking after them. only translations 
get submitted through automated process


so unless you are willing to go that far as introducing yourself at the 
xfce devel mailing list and accepting the mantle of upstream of them, we 
are really stuck at this distribution level patching just like others


Xfce 4.12 is on it's way and does not have libxfcegui4, as in, 
pre-releases are for nearly every core component of pre-4.12 are out


- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

[Peter Stuge]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I'm just afraid our XFCE port gets lagged behind because of this as 
> compared to other distros ...

I am, as you know, a strong proponent of doing things right, rather
than doing them fast.

In this case that means that it is not the end of the world if Gentoo
ebuilds do not have every single patch found in other distributions.

It also means that if I had strong interest in XFCE then I would work
on getting patches from other distribution upstream, so that Gentoo
did not need to have any patches at all.


//Peter

[gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

[Samuli Suominen]

Everything printed by ...

http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/genrdeps/rindex/xfce-base/libxfcegui4

... if not fixed already by an ~arch version needs a patch that ports it 
from libxfcegui4 to libxfce4ui


These patches are available mainly at ...

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/ (anything submitted to Portage *MUST* be also 
here, so you might as well open a account for yourself now.)


If they aren't directly from ...

http://git.xfce.org/

Then there are un-upstreamed patches that must be upstreamized and 
submitted to Portage at:


- Fedora (git)
- PLD Linux (a lot of unsubmitted patches here!)

Also please don't invent new syntax for the ebuilds, everything you need 
to know is already as an example in other Xfce ebuilds and the eclass.


I'm saying this because it's just me and angelos, and lately not that 
much of me because of health crap


I'm just afraid our XFCE port gets lagged behind because of this as 
compared to other distros ...


Thanks

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Ben de Groot]

On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau  wrote:

> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> > - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake,
> >   etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only
> >   E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder.
> >
>
> Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the USE_EXPANDed
> var is exposed to and may be used by the user, so i dont see a high risk
> of people mixing them. Maybe some other people can also comment on this?
>


I agree that E_* is more confusing than it needs to be. Please use
something that is unmistakeably clearer.
-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin