Re: [gentoo-dev] Six month major project on Gentoo

2011-12-18 Thread Petteri Räty
On 14.12.2011 13:06, Gaurav Saxena wrote: Hello all, I am interested in doing my final year computer scence project on gentoo. I would be having a duration of six months to work on the project. Could you please suggest me some good project ideas that would be helpful to me as well as gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Six month major project on Gentoo

2011-12-18 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 12/18/11 6:02 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: There are parallel computing aspects in libbash for metadata generation, data structures in AST building for bash and it's quite low level. By the way, I've always wondered why libbash is separate from the upstream bash. Have you considered contributing

[gentoo-dev] libbash licensing

2011-12-18 Thread Petteri Räty
On 18.12.2011 19:13, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 12/18/11 6:02 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: There are parallel computing aspects in libbash for metadata generation, data structures in AST building for bash and it's quite low level. By the way, I've always wondered why libbash is separate from the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Six month major project on Gentoo

2011-12-18 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:13:42 +0100 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: On 12/18/11 6:02 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: There are parallel computing aspects in libbash for metadata generation, data structures in AST building for bash and it's quite low level. By the way, I've always

[gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
At the moment, Gentoo documentation is supposed to be installed in /usr/share/doc/$PF. Given the existence of slots, this directory scheme makes little sense; versioning documentation directories with $PF seems nearly as silly as would be e.g. appending $PVR to the filenames of installed man

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Michał Górny
I basically agree, it's quite a great idea. Just a few comments though. On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:49:38 -0500 Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote: * The package's documentation may be designed primarily for tools and viewers which expect to load documentation files from a different

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Alexandre Rostovtsev schrieb: Answers to anticipated questions: Q8: SLOT can change after the package was installed. How to handle this case? Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Ulrich Mueller
[Why are there different Reply-To: headers in -dev and in -pms MLs? Following up to both lists.] On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: At the moment, Gentoo documentation is supposed to be installed in /usr/share/doc/$PF. [...] I propose the following changes, and will write them

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2011-12-18 23h59 UTC

2011-12-18 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2011-12-18 23h59 UTC. Removals: dev-php/roadsend-php2011-12-12 10:08:11 olemarkus dev-php5/ezc-Archive2011-12-14

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 23:07 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Alexandre Rostovtsev schrieb: Answers to anticipated questions: Q8: SLOT can change after the package was installed. How to handle this case? I think the slotmove should happen without renaming the documentation

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 01:08 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: [Why are there different Reply-To: headers in -dev and in -pms MLs? Following up to both lists.] I apologize for the mess; I had intended to bring the question up before a wider audience, but failed to think through the consequences of

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:26:08 -0500 Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: What if 'foo' has slot named 'bar', and there is unslotted 'foo-bar' package? :P There are no such examples in the tree. The only ebuilds I could find

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: Can we please avoid the bloat of another directory level here? ${CATEGORY}/${PN} will be even longer than ${PF} in most cases. The problem is that ($PN, $CATEGORY) pairs are not unique. Think of x11-terms/terminal:0 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Dale
Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: Can we please avoid the bloat of another directory level here? ${CATEGORY}/${PN} will be even longer than ${PF} in most cases. The problem is that ($PN, $CATEGORY) pairs are not unique. Think of x11-terms/terminal:0 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF

2011-12-18 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 03:41 +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: For completeness, could you post a list of packages that would benefit from your proposed changes? It's a little thing called scope. :) I cannot provide you the full list; for that I would have to rebuild the full tree with USE=doc