[gentoo-dev] OT: Whitespace in paths (was: Patch applying function for EAPI 6)
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: [Whitespace in paths] Not that it's anywhere near supported most of the place. Many upstream build systems fail with it. Make and autotools are not able to handle whitespace reasonable. However, this does not mean that gentoo cannot: Build systems usually use relative paths to their build/source dirs (except for linking to libraries or installing which is both a different issue). And even if they do, it would be sufficient that PORTAGE_TMPDIR contains no whitespace. All other portage directories have nothing to do with upstream build systems.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:28:24 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed systems are totally unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when a mixed system is detected. Mixing stable and testing is precisely what arch teams (hopefully) do in testing and stabilising: building and running new software on a known to be stable platform in order to merge the new software into the stable branch (or not). Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise that the new software is likely to be merged into the stable branch (before the platform changes too much). Mixing stable and testing is what triggers users to file useful bug reports about incompatibilities between new software and stable (reverse) dependencies. Cases where reporting bugs about mixing stable and testing is (likely) invalid is when unmasking one package in the unstable branch causes (reverse) dependency resolution issues with another package in the stable branch (since users should know how to resolve those - there is generally no bug for maintainers to fix). There is a lot more to it than this, of course. I'm just pointing out some of the obvious scenarios in which mixing stable and testing should be encouraged. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Jeroen Roovers schrieb: Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise that the new software is likely to be merged into the stable branch (before the platform changes too much). At least for x11 maintained packages, we don't support mixing of stable and unstable parts of X in the way that you suggest. We don't mind however whether the rest of the system is stable or not. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer features in portage: cgroup, network-sandbox, ipc-sandbox
Le mardi 20 août 2013 à 12:26 +0200, Michał Górny a écrit : 3. FEATURES=ipc-sandbox Requires: CONFIG_NAMESPACES, CONFIG_IPC_NS Applies to: src_* This one separates the ebuild's *nix IPC stuff from host. This includes semaphores, shared memory etc. Similarly to network-sandbox, this could prevent ebuilds from communicating with some production servers. But honestly, I have no idea if anything really does it or relies on it. I doubt this could break something but it's worth testing. This could impact ebuilds using the virtualx eclass, depending on how the launched xvfb/xorg server is launched. It'd be interesting to test the impact. Other than that, it looks like really sweet stuff. Cheers, Rémi
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] Add CPU model name to output of getportageversion as fifth element
On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:00:57 Fabian Groffen wrote: e.g. it seems to me only on Linux it gives fancy model output. Note that the first and second system were running a 64-bit Python as well as kernel. output from the uname() syscall/C lib func is bare. the `uname` program in Gentoo contains a patch to get useful information. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
