I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)
I'll also remove as-is from
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:44:33 -0700
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:10:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:59:14 -0300
Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:13:53 + (UTC)
Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
net-fs/openafs/openafs-1.6.1-r1.ebuild:
~amd64-fbsd(default/bsd/fbsd/amd64/9.0) ['sys-libs/pam']
please stop breaking the tree, kthxbye
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:49:13 +0200
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
It is not hard by itself to inherit an eclass. There is just the
limitation, that occurs with an eclass, e.g.:
-the one from mgorny only does it for autotools based ebuilds only and
even there only for libraries,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is anything holding this back to be reviewed by the council in the
near future?
Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on this
now/soon?
mgorny?
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on this
now/soon?
Well we can't really compare it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote
Both would needed an dedicated maintainer to overcome these build
failure bugs. Feel free to unmask once fixed and after you have included
yourself in the metadata.xml. Just because they are semi-popular does
not help if nobody is contributing to them.
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said
On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Do we
On 25/09/2012 04:04, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have
games-roguelike/falconseye has been masked since 2006 and it's been
dead upstream for possibly longer.
Probably should have punted it awhile ago, but it's gone now.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:10:56 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of thing, I
have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal. So I'd be
extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've been able to
On 09/25/2012 05:36 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 13:04 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-COMPATIBLE and @OSI-APPROVED again,
as soon as all packages in the system set have been fixed (only
net-misc/openssh and sys-apps/man-pages). It shouldn't have been added
to these groups, in the first
On 25-09-2012 17:43:46 +0200, hasufell wrote:
That doesn't prevent him from talking from past experiences and giving
his opinion. Council is free to ignore his request also.
Yeah, I thank him for that, but the time for user opinions has passed. I
am asking what is preventing the _council_
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ? The
proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has to switch the
useflags that are IUSE_RUNTIME in his installed packages db after
installing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 05:57 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
I guess nothing is preventing them from reviewing it. However,
it's just a waste of time if you're just asking those guys to
review the GLEP, isn't it?
That's what the GLEP workflow states, no?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/09/12 12:00 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ?
The proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ? The
proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:39 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Really? I thought it was pretty clearly. Yes, you need an
implementation beforehand.
Maybe you should read:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:19:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
a) How do we provide a good user interface for it? It took an awful
lot of experimenting to get the exheres-0 suggestions user
interface to be good, and it requires quite
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:20:06 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Who is we? I believe REQUIRED_USE is one of the features which will be
available thanks to staying compatible with USE flags instead of
reinventing the wheel.
Yes, but the REQUIRED_USE wheel is square, and gives a *very*
On Tuesday 25 September 2012 07:43:44 Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:13:53 + (UTC)
Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
net-fs/openafs/openafs-1.6.1-r1.ebuild:
~amd64-fbsd(default/bsd/fbsd/amd64/9.0) ['sys-libs/pam']
please stop breaking the tree,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/09/12 12:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:19:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
a) How do we provide a good user interface for it? It took an
awful lot of experimenting to get the exheres-0 suggestions
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
If as-is will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible
license should I use instead for such packages?
HPND as long as the license meets the description within the file. If
you've been applying the
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:37:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tuesday 25 September 2012 07:43:44 Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:13:53 + (UTC)
Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
net-fs/openafs/openafs-1.6.1-r1.ebuild:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Since hasufell brought it up, and as I believe he's going to ask Council
to approve it before moving forward with this proposal towards including
it in an EAPI, I wanted to clarify some of the points mentioned:
- --- Quote, GLEP-62 ---
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/09/12 02:03 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Since hasufell brought it up, and as I believe he's going to ask
Council to approve it before moving forward with this proposal
towards including it in an EAPI, I wanted to clarify some of the
points
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:03:36 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Since hasufell brought it up, and as I believe he's going to ask Council
to approve it before moving forward with this proposal towards including
it in an EAPI, I
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation would also
need to change. I expect, for instance, that the PM's
metadata-handling would need to occur as normal even though none of
the package's phase
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation would also
need to change. I expect, for instance, that the PM's
metadata-handling would
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:09:49AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
Hello,
Since my previous idea of DYNAMIC_SLOTS proved too complex to design
and implement, I would like to offer an another idea, based partially
on what Ciaran mentioned. Before I start getting into details, I'd like
to know
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:37:57PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:41:24 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello
This comes from:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260536
In that one, we try to use the following:
has vala ${IUSE//+/}
Pardon the delay; got busy with work, plus to actually address your
claims re: labels (or refute, as I intend to do)... data was
necessary.
So I went and got the data. :)
Analysis was done roughly 09/17 or so; just looping back and
commenting now however.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 05:59:21PM
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:19:09PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
Hello,
The current dependency syntax:
[VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME [-
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:19 +0100 as excerpted:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:20:06 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Who is we? I believe REQUIRED_USE is one of the features which will be
available thanks to staying compatible with USE flags instead of
reinventing
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:17:03 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (25 Sep 2012)
# Multiple build failures: #435394, #423991 and #425806
# Other bugs: #270830, #368409
# Unmasking would require addressing the build failure bugs
# Removal in
---
man/ebuild.5 | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/man/ebuild.5 b/man/ebuild.5
index 3c2200c..2652f89 100644
--- a/man/ebuild.5
+++ b/man/ebuild.5
@@ -344,6 +344,8 @@ For EAPIs that support \fBHDEPEND\fR (experimental \fBEAPI
5-hdepend\fR),
list the \fItarget\fR
Hello!
Here come a few patches to improve the HDEPEND documentation:
* Minor formatting change
* Description of behaviour without --root-deps
* Description of targetroot useflag
Best regards,
Dennis
43 matches
Mail list logo
