Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra

2014-02-22 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Samstag, 22. Februar 2014, 19:02:54 schrieb Tom Wijsman: > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:33:57 + (UTC) > > > (Or do we want a consistent 'mate-base' / 'mate-extra' approach?) If there is a clear distinction between a core set of packages and extra stuff (as in e.g. kde4), the combination mate-b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-22 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 15:59 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 15:50:17 -0600 > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500 > > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > > > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by versio

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-22 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 15:50:17 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500 > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by > > > charset and debug/release. If we h

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-22 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by > > charset and debug/release. If we had to use different SLOTs rather than > > USE flags we would need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-22 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by charset > and debug/release. If we had to use different SLOTs rather than USE flags we > would need eight of them for 2.8 alone. And I don't know how we would name > the >

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-22 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 05:16:55 -0500 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > The other unfortunate aspect of the gtk3 flag is that it encourages > using flags instead of slotting for libraries that can support both gtk > and gtk3, resulting in needless rebuilds of when one of the flags is > switched on/off.

Re: [gentoo-dev] first steps in gentoo devolment

2014-02-22 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 2/19/14, 8:05 AM, Roelof Wobben wrote: > Am I right I have to make a local repo to test if it's build. Yeah, I suggest just using /usr/local/portage and adding it to PORTDIR_OVERLAY in make.conf. > And does ebuild x.ebuild manifest also builds the package or do I have > to use emerge x for th

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-22 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:26:18 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Bye bye distribution level consistency :-( The last time we had distribution level consistency was the moment between the first and second packages getting committed to the tree. -- Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk

[gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra

2014-02-22 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 02/23/2014 05:02 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:33:57 + (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > >> Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:08:24 +0100 as excerpted: >> That seems a little on the small side? Can we just do a single category for all of it,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra

2014-02-22 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > While still inconsistent with what already exists, that indeed sounds > sane towards the user, +1; does someone object 'mate-desktop'? I was thinking mate-de, but -desktop seems okay, too. Anyway, you should probably give people some time to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra

2014-02-22 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:33:57 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:08:24 +0100 as excerpted: > > >> That seems a little on the small side? Can we just do a single > >> category for all of it, instead? People can go bikeshed on the > >> name.

[gentoo-dev] Re: New categories: mate-base and mate-extra

2014-02-22 Thread Duncan
Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:08:24 +0100 as excerpted: >> That seems a little on the small side? Can we just do a single category >> for all of it, instead? People can go bikeshed on the name. > > TL;DR: Yes, we could try that; but what would be a consistent name? mate-desktop ? (T

Re: [gentoo-dev] New categories: mate-base and mate-extra

2014-02-22 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:16:11 +0100 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Tom Wijsman > wrote: > > Currently, the MATE overlay has 14 meta-base packages and 16 > > mate-extra packages; this might slightly change when reconsidering > > if their location is alright, however it

Re: [gentoo-dev] New categories: mate-base and mate-extra

2014-02-22 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Currently, the MATE overlay has 14 meta-base packages and 16 mate-extra > packages; this might slightly change when reconsidering if their > location is alright, however it is near the average (~15) per category > so that should be fit. That

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grab

2014-02-22 Thread Marc Schiffbauer
* Christian Ruppert schrieb am 22.02.14 um 14:57 Uhr: Hi, I don't use the listed packages anymore so feel free to take those: net-analyzer/mk-livestatus net-misc/igmpproxy x11-misc/tint2 x11-misc/tintwizard net-misc/cfengine - I'll just keep maintaining Cfengine 2.x for now since we/Infra still

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grab

2014-02-22 Thread Christian Ruppert
Hi, I don't use the listed packages anymore so feel free to take those: net-analyzer/mk-livestatus net-misc/igmpproxy x11-misc/tint2 x11-misc/tintwizard net-misc/cfengine - I'll just keep maintaining Cfengine 2.x for now since we/Infra still use it. -- Regards, Christian Ruppert Gentoo Linux de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: mbox -- looks sort of interesting

2014-02-22 Thread Александр Берсенев
Hello, I've updated the autodep and testing it now. I've fixed a problem with the integration of autodep in the newest version of Portage, but I think I did it in a hackish way. I want to ask if it is possble to solve it better. First, some words about the architecture of autodep. Autodep consis