Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flags "upower and "udisks" (split from "udev" in some cases)

2014-07-18 Thread Samuli Suominen

On 18/07/14 23:58, Georg Rudoy wrote:
> 2014-07-19 0:19 GMT+04:00 Samuli Suominen :
>> So, I propose:
>>
>> upower with short generic description of "Support for power management"
>> udisks with short generic description of "Support for storage management"
> Being a proxy maint of lc-vrooby, I support this proposal.
>
> Also, have you considered udisks2? For example, lc-vrooby can use any
> of udisks:0 and udisks:2, but the rdeps that get pulled and the
> backends that get compiled are controlled by the flags.
>

There should be no separate USE flags for udisks:0 and udisks:2. They can
be installed *and* ran at the same time.
If both are supported, and it's a compile time option, :2 should be forced
If both are supported, and they can be automatically detected at
runtime, || ( sys-fs/udisks:2 sys-fs/udisks:0 ) syntax
should be used
We have a Tracker open for migrating to udisks:2 and adding udisks:0
support is a bug (regression)



Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flags "upower and "udisks" (split from "udev" in some cases)

2014-07-18 Thread Georg Rudoy
2014-07-19 0:19 GMT+04:00 Samuli Suominen :
> So, I propose:
>
> upower with short generic description of "Support for power management"
> udisks with short generic description of "Support for storage management"

Being a proxy maint of lc-vrooby, I support this proposal.

Also, have you considered udisks2? For example, lc-vrooby can use any
of udisks:0 and udisks:2, but the rdeps that get pulled and the
backends that get compiled are controlled by the flags.

-- 
  Georg Rudoy



[gentoo-dev] New global USE flags "upower and "udisks" (split from "udev" in some cases)

2014-07-18 Thread Samuli Suominen
Some history first:

When sys-fs/udisks and sys-power/upower was introduced to Portage, they
only had handful of consumers,
and there was no sys-apps/systemd in Portage
They were non problematic packages and could be considered as wrappers
that linked desktops to udev -related
functionality
But, now, upower upstream writes code only with systemd in mind, dropped
hibernate/suspend without any
consideration to non-systemd users
And, Portage doesn't understand || ( ) dependencies anymore wrt
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=515230
And, people started using local USE flags "udisks" and "upower" despite
being advised against it
And, more people are requesting sys-fs/udisks and sys-power/upower to be
moved away from USE="udev" to
these 2 separate flags, like http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516380
These 2 flags are already enabled by default in the desktop profile
target, just like USE="udev" is

So, I propose:

upower with short generic description of "Support for power management"
udisks with short generic description of "Support for storage management"

These packages use them already, but a lot more will follow:

[+  D   ] upower
kde-base/kdelibs: Use upower for power management
[+ B] (4/4.12) 4.12.5 [gentoo]
[+ B] (4/4.13) 4.13.0 [gentoo]

[+  D   ] upower
kde-misc/synaptiks: Handle mouse devices correctly across suspend and
resume with upower
[+ B] (4) 0.8.1-r2 [gentoo]
[+ B] (4) 0.8.1-r4 [gentoo]

[+  D   ] upower
lxde-base/lxsession: Pull in sys-power/upower for hibernate/suspend
support
[+  ] 0.4.6.1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 0.4.9.2 [gentoo]
[+  ] 0.4.9.2-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 0.4.9.2-r2 [gentoo]
[+  ] 0.4.9.2-r3 [gentoo]

[+  D   ] upower
net-im/telepathy-mission-control: Use sys-power/upower to detect
suspend and resume
[+ B] 5.14.0-r1 [gentoo]
[+ B] 5.14.1 [gentoo]
  5.16.1 [gentoo]

[+  D   ] udisks
app-emulation/wine: Support dynamic storage devices using
sys-fs/udisks
  1.2.3 [gentoo]
  1.3.28 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.4 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.4.1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.0 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.2 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.3 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.4 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.5 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.6 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.7 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.8 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.9 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.10-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.11-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.12-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.13-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.14-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.15-r2 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.16-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.17 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.18 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.19 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.20 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.21 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.22 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.23-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.24 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.25 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.26 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.27 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.28 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.29 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.30 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.5.31 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.6 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.6.1 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.6.2 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.0 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.3 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.4 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.8 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.9 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.10 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.11 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.12 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.13 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.14 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.15 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.16 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.17 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.7.18 [gentoo]
[+ B]  [gentoo]

[+  D   ] udisks
app-leechcraft/lc-vrooby: Use sys-fs/udisks:0 for block device access
(e.g., automounting)
[+  ] 0.6.60 [gentoo]
[+  ] 0.6.65 [gentoo]
[+  ]  [gentoo]

[+  D   ] udisks
app-text/calibre: Add run-time dependency on sys-fs/udisks in order
to mount and unmount reading devices.
[+ B] 1.2 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.20 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.25 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.29 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.35 [gentoo]

[+  D   ] udisks
gnome-base/gvfs: Enable volume monitoring using sys-fs/udisks
[+  ] 1.18.3 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.18.3-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] 1.20.1 [gentoo]

[+  D   ] udisks
kde-base/kdelibs: Use udisks for block device access (e.g.,
automounting)
[+ B] (4/4.12) 4.12.5 [gentoo]
[+ B] (4/4.13) 4.13.0 [gentoo]

[+  D   ] udisks
x11-libs/libfm: Use libfm's udisks-based volume monitor
implementation instead of using the one from gvfs
  0.1.17-r1 [gentoo]
[+  ] (0/4.7.1) 1.1.4 [gentoo]
[+  ] (0/4.0.0) 1.2.0 [gentoo]
[+  ] (0/4.0.0)  [gentoo]

[+  D   ] udisks
xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager: Pull in sys-fs/udisks for spindown
support
[+ B] 1.2.0-r2 [gentoo]
[+ B] 1.2.0_p20140511 [gentoo]




Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent to need to change all keywords at the same time

2014-07-18 Thread Samuli Suominen

On 17/07/14 21:56, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> I guess we'll have to wait until vapier's back to get it done, tho..
>
>

imlib2 is basically normal autotools based package, there is no need to
tie it to this specific
eclass

it should be extremely trivial to revision bump it to use normal eutils,
autotools, econf, emake
and so forth

the only reason it's tied to this specific eclass is historical reasons

i really can't see anyone objecting the conversion at this time

- samuli





Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent to need to change all keywords at the same time

2014-07-18 Thread Pacho Ramos
El jue, 17-07-2014 a las 23:14 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > I recently noticed this:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=502836
> > 
> > imlib2 ebuild can only be stabilized in one round for all arches as
> > KEYWORDS are set in eclass depending on E_STATE="release". That has an
> > important drawback as forces all arches to be done at the same time and,
> > since some are much slower than others, forces all to wait for them.
> > And, as that can depend on even more stabilizations (like it's the case)
> > all that bugs blocking the stabilization need to also be done for *all*
> > arches before.
> > 
> > I am not sure if any policy exists for this, but I would forbid to make
> > this due this issue. I would instead move to use KEYWORDS en ebuild as
> > done usually.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> You know that a KEYWORDS variable set in the ebuild after the inherit
> line does overwrite anything set by the eclass?
> So i dont really see, what the issue here actually should be.
> 

Should we start setting KEWORDS in imlib2 ebuild then? (for example for
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=502836 ) In that case, what is
the advantage for setting it in eclass too?




[gentoo-dev] Last rites: virtual/ruby-test-unit

2014-07-18 Thread Hans de Graaff
# Hans de Graaff  (18 Jul 2014)
# Mask for removal in 30 days for bug 380711.
# This virtual always was a no-op and can be removed from
# ebuilds without consequences.
virtual/ruby-test-unit