Re: [gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory

2013-02-11 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/02/13 05:27, Peter Stuge wrote: I, as another user, prefer not to have a whole bunch of firmware installed if I only want one or two of them. +1. Also licences. It's a mess. Not suggesting that *I* have the magic-unicorn-land-perfect

Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Luca Barbato
On 11/02/13 03:01, Alexis Ballier wrote: Sorry, I was away this week end... Not a problem, I should be reachable anytime today. This is only because libav people do not care at all about what FFmpeg defines, while FFmpeg seems to care more about its consumers and users by trying to provide a

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:25:36 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 11/02/13 03:01, Alexis Ballier wrote: Sorry, I was away this week end... Not a problem, I should be reachable anytime today. Will ping you. This is only because libav people do not care at all about what

[gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Maxim Kammerer
Hi, virtual/libusb:0 has: RDEPEND=|| ( =dev-libs/libusb-compat-0.1.4 =dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12-r7:0 =sys-freebsd/freebsd-lib-8.0[usb] ) However, after building a system from stage3, I still ended with dev-libs/libusb:0 instead of dev-libs/libusb-compat (whereas stage3 has no libusb at all): #

Re: [gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory

2013-02-11 Thread Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/10/2013 11:27 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: J. Roeleveld wrote: I, as a user, prefer not to have to hunt for firmware for devices supported vy the kernel. I would either install all of them or filter out the firmwares for devices I am unlikely to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory

2013-02-11 Thread Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/11/2013 04:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: On 11/02/13 05:27, Peter Stuge wrote: I, as another user, prefer not to have a whole bunch of firmware installed if I only want one or two of them. +1. Also licences. It's a mess. Not suggesting

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Peter Stuge
Maxim Kammerer wrote: * These packages depend on libusb: One stands out: app-crypt/ccid-1.4.8 (usb ? virtual/libusb:1) app-crypt/gnupg-2.0.19 (usb ? virtual/libusb:0) dev-libs/openobex-1.5 (usb ? virtual/libusb:0) media-libs/libmtp-1.1.5 (virtual/libusb:1) net-libs/libpcap-1.3.0-r1

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 11/02/2013 16:17, Peter Stuge wrote: Any idea on what's going on? BFS instead of DFS search when satisfying ||? Seems a good explanation.. Can you try swapping the two in the virtual? Or not. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: On the good usage of subslots

2013-02-11 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/02/13 07:52 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:35 +1100 Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: I even noticed some maintainers adding subslots dependencies on libraries that do not yet define subslots. This too

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/11/2013 06:18 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: Any idea on what's going on? BFS instead of DFS search when satisfying ||? It searches from left to right. If you can reproduce the problem, then please create a debug logs as follows, and attach it to a bug on bugs.gentoo.org: emerge [args]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Maxim Kammerer
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: net-libs/libpcap-1.3.0-r1 (canusb ? virtual/libusb) This one has no slotted dependency. Does that matter? In any case it doesn't seem completely correct, since the two APIs are not compatible. It doesn't matter in this case,

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/11/2013 07:42 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: net-libs/libpcap-1.3.0-r1 (canusb ? virtual/libusb) This one has no slotted dependency. Does that matter? In any case it doesn't seem completely correct, since the two APIs are not

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Maxim Kammerer
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: If you can reproduce the problem, then please create a debug logs as follows, and attach it to a bug on bugs.gentoo.org: Can't reproduce with stage3 + emerge -upvDN. :/ I will look out for this issue in full system builds in

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Peter Stuge
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Can you try swapping the two in the virtual? Or not. I guess that you assumed that I suggested to test this in-tree, so I guess I should clarify that I would expect it to be tested in PORTDIR_OVERLAY. If my guess is correct then you are really way too eager to

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 11/02/2013 17:44, Peter Stuge wrote: If my guess is correct then you are really way too eager to misunderstand what people intend to transmit, given a less than unambiguous message. No, it's because of what Maxim already said: it's not an LTR/RTL issue. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Peter Stuge
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: it's because of what Maxim already said: it's not an LTR/RTL issue. Do you have an idea about what the issue is? //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 11/02/2013 17:54, Peter Stuge wrote: Do you have an idea about what the issue is? No, but I'm pretty certain that it's not that, because the preference is and has been for a very long time LTR. Which happens to be one of the things the quizzes are there to ensure people know. -- Diego Elio

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/11/2013 08:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: it's because of what Maxim already said: it's not an LTR/RTL issue. Do you have an idea about what the issue is? My guess is that there were one or more ebuilds that inappropriately specified dev-libs/libusb:0 instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Peter Stuge
Zac Medico wrote: My guess is that there were one or more ebuilds that inappropriately specified dev-libs/libusb:0 instead of virtual/libusb:0, and they have since been fixed. I believe they were all changed some months ago, but it's of course still possible if either the snapshot was old or

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Maxim Kammerer
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: My guess is that there were one or more ebuilds that inappropriately specified dev-libs/libusb:0 instead of virtual/libusb:0, and they have since been fixed. I did the full build yesterday, with most recent stage3 and

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:22:16 +0100 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Alexis, Alexis Ballier wrote: All of this because ~10 people cannot work together, well, really, thank you :) Do you have experience from being in a similar situation? You are being quite judgemental. There are

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-ruby/rails:3.0

2013-02-11 Thread Hans de Graaff
# Hans de Graaff h...@degraaff.org (11 Feb 2013) # No longer supported upstream even for security bugs. # Port your application to another version of Rails. # The Rails 3.0 version in the tree has security issues # and no new 3.0 versions will be released anymore. dev-ruby/rails:3.0

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Peter Stuge
Alexis - thanks a lot for the awesome response! Alexis Ballier wrote: 'those who are right' (Just a note that I am in no way invested in libav/ffmpeg, I merely speak from experience with another fork.) However, as I said, maybe with an incorrect tone, I do not think libav ignoring what

Re: [gentoo-dev] On the good usage of subslots

2013-02-11 Thread James Cloos
AB == Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org writes: AB Well, if we have to advertise the usage of this option that basically AB disables subslot rebuilds, it only means we are doing something AB seriously wrong with subslots :=) So far, I've found the sub slots to be more of a pain in the ass than

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Luca Barbato
Your whole email is derailing a bit from discussing the code at hand and it is going deep down on the people, I'd rather not get there since it gets totally unrelated the question at hand. On 11/02/13 14:49, Alexis Ballier wrote: All of this because ~10 people cannot work together, well, really,

Re: [gentoo-dev] On the good usage of subslots

2013-02-11 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
On 2013-02-11, at 3:53 PM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: AB == Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org writes: AB Well, if we have to advertise the usage of this option that basically AB disables subslot rebuilds, it only means we are doing something AB seriously wrong with subslots :=)

Re: [gentoo-dev] On the good usage of subslots

2013-02-11 Thread Zac Medico
On 02/11/2013 12:53 PM, James Cloos wrote: AB == Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org writes: AB Well, if we have to advertise the usage of this option that basically AB disables subslot rebuilds, it only means we are doing something AB seriously wrong with subslots :=) So far, I've found

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Peter Stuge
Luca Barbato wrote: May I point you that ~10 people were the majority of what was FFmpeg, thus 10 people were enough to demote democratically the so called Leader and that guy got the name from Fabrice as his personal decision? There was probably a reason for Fabrice to do that, and majority

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:04:43 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Your whole email is derailing a bit from discussing the code at hand and it is going deep down on the people, I'd rather not get there since it gets totally unrelated the question at hand. I'm not sure if you read my

[gentoo-dev] [RFC/PATCH] A cleaner API for virtualx.eclass

2013-02-11 Thread Michał Górny
Hello, fellow developers, The current virtualx.eclass API is a bit insane. It seems a bit like stacking of a few next APIs, mostly designed to quickly run 'make check', then extended to general functions. For example running a function 'run_tests' with parameter '--foo' would look like:

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH virtualx.eclass 1/5] Introduce a cleaner alternative to VIRTUALX_COMMAND= virtualmake.

2013-02-11 Thread Michał Górny
Let's get this straight: VIRTUALX_COMMAND=foo virtualmake --bar --baz is just ugly. Instead, introduce a function which can be used as: virtualx foo --bar -baz --- gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass | 45 - 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+),

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH virtualx.eclass 4/5] Deprecate virtualmake in favor of the new syntax.

2013-02-11 Thread Michał Górny
--- gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass | 7 --- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass b/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass index 096c37a..f576335 100644 --- a/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass +++ b/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass @@ -172,12 +172,13 @@

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH virtualx.eclass 5/5] (Optionally) deprecate all X* wrappers.

2013-02-11 Thread Michał Górny
The new syntax seems simple enough that we can think of deprecating all those short-hand forms. --- gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass | 14 -- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass b/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass index f576335..9d5045d

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH virtualx.eclass 2/5] Use eqawarn from eutils.eclass.

2013-02-11 Thread Michał Górny
Instead of ewarn QA: ... --- gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass | 24 +--- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass b/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass index 47116fd..0da3066 100644 --- a/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH virtualx.eclass 3/5] Convert X* functions to the new API.

2013-02-11 Thread Michał Górny
--- gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass b/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass index 0da3066..096c37a 100644 --- a/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass +++ b/gx86/eclass/virtualx.eclass @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ Xmake() {

Gentoo email address in VCS. Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-ruby/rails:3.0

2013-02-11 Thread Michael Weber
On 02/11/2013 09:39 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote: # Hans de Graaff h...@degraaff.org (11 Feb 2013) What about using your gentoo email address? One mapping less, please. -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/PATCH] A cleaner API for virtualx.eclass

2013-02-11 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
I'd say, Go for it! But on the other hand I wonder if it might make sense to have something more generic, so that one only has to call something in a way such as virtualx_setup run_tests --foo virtualx_cleanup The reason why I'm wondering this is that we need some more virtual environments for

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Luca Barbato
On 11/02/13 22:33, Peter Stuge wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: May I point you that ~10 people were the majority of what was FFmpeg, thus 10 people were enough to demote democratically the so called Leader and that guy got the name from Fabrice as his personal decision? There was probably a

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Peter Stuge
Luca Barbato wrote: Users will never be satisfied. But I guess you agree that API compatibility will certainly avoid extra problems for users. It is not related to users, I was trying to come back on topic. :) is related to me being called as swine a traitor and having death threats.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/PATCH] A cleaner API for virtualx.eclass

2013-02-11 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Montag, 11. Februar 2013, 23:14:38 schrieb Michał Górny: What are your thoughts? Same as Diego I like the general idea, but an even more generic framework might make sense. Say test dbus session, say setting up some test file structure, ... Oh, and one more thing... please before you

Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?

2013-02-11 Thread Maxim Kammerer
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Maxim Kammerer m...@dee.su wrote: I will try another full build tomorrow, and if the issue persists, try to uncover the culprit (naturally, my build script is somewhat more complex than emerge -upvDN @world I tried above, so hopefully the issue is

Re: Gentoo email address in VCS. Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-ruby/rails:3.0

2013-02-11 Thread Hans de Graaff
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 23:30 +0100, Michael Weber wrote: On 02/11/2013 09:39 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote: # Hans de Graaff h...@degraaff.org (11 Feb 2013) What about using your gentoo email address? One mapping less, please. Too much autopilot, it seems. Fixed. Hans

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-11 Thread Ian Whyman
Guys, Can we not just have a developer wide vote or something? This instance clearly not going to resole itself. Sometimes it seems that endless mailing list threads are the Gentoo way, its a surprise we get anything done! Ian