[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Dinner@FOSDEM 2017

2017-01-24 Thread Xavier Miller
/erratum/ Le 24/01/17 à 20:30, Xavier Miller a écrit : > Hi! > > The traditional Gentoo Dinner @ FOSDEM 2017 comes back! > If you are interested, please edit the Wiki page[1]. > > I see some "possible" or "maybe", can you please confirm to "yes" or > "no" as soon as possible? > > Like the

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo Dinner@FOSDEM 2017

2017-01-24 Thread Xavier Miller
Hi! The traditional Gentoo Dinner @ FOSDEM 2017 comes back! If you are interested, please edit the Wiki page[1]. I see some "possible" or "maybe", can you please confirm to "yes" or "no" as soon as possible? Like the previous years, I will take contact with "Wok and Roll" [2], budget is really

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-misc/x11rdp and net-misc/xrdp

2017-01-24 Thread Matt Turner
# Matt Turner (24 Jan 2017) # Depends on xorg-server-1.16, which is going away. Unresolved security bug # #602764. Maintainer no longer interested in package. Masked for removal in 30 # days. net-misc/x11rdp net-misc/xrdp signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

2017-01-24 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 24/01/17 17:20, Jason Zaman wrote: > This is awesome! thanks for working on it, ive wanted it for a while > now. > > The main issue I see with it is ordering. For the hardened and selinux > profiles, the order matters a lot. eg hardened defaults the jit useflag > off and the desktop profile

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

2017-01-24 Thread Jason Zaman
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:23:35AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic infrastructure > for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to keep it simple, > and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able to start

Re: [gentoo-dev] About ALLARCHES

2017-01-24 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Currently this seems to be resulting in broken deptrees for arches that > don't have a stable profile. arm64 in particular. Last I checked, "ekeyword all foo.ebuild" will skip arches that have no stable profiles. Ago must

Re: [gentoo-dev] About ALLARCHES

2017-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/2017 11:11 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > Currently this seems to be resulting in broken deptrees for arches that > don't have a stable profile. arm64 in particular. ALLARCHES should not include the unstable ones unless they are specifically in CC, and of course you should be running

Re: [gentoo-dev] About ALLARCHES

2017-01-24 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 24.01.2017 kell 09:55, kirjutas Matthew Thode: > So, to be clear, we need to wait for an AT to mark stable for one > arch > on an ALLARCHES package.  Once that is done any dev can mark the rest > of > the arches stable. Currently this seems to be resulting in broken deptrees

Re: [gentoo-dev] About ALLARCHES

2017-01-24 Thread Matthew Thode
On 01/24/2017 07:54 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > We are working to provide some tools for the stabilization process. > > > > > > Unfortunately, there isn't atm something able to manage the requests > with the ALLARCHES keyword, > > > > So, *everyone* with the commit access can keyword

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

2017-01-24 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:04:37 -0600 Matthias Maier wrote: > > well then 'ihateudev' masking udev, 'ihateeudev' masking eudev and > > 'ihatesystemd' masking systemd; what are the blockers here? > > You make three profiles, 'udev', 'eudev', 'systemd' and put them in > one

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 6/6] perl-functions.eclass: add perl_domodule

2017-01-24 Thread kentnl
From: Kent Fredric --- eclass/perl-functions.eclass | 75 +++- 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/perl-functions.eclass b/eclass/perl-functions.eclass index 1652ceaa10..9eed888f75 100644 ---

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 5/6] perl-functions.eclass: add perl_get_vendorlib

2017-01-24 Thread kentnl
From: Kent Fredric --- eclass/perl-functions.eclass | 19 +++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) diff --git a/eclass/perl-functions.eclass b/eclass/perl-functions.eclass index 3f73ac87c7..1652ceaa10 100644 --- a/eclass/perl-functions.eclass +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 4/6] perl-functions.eclass: add perl_get_raw_vendorlib

2017-01-24 Thread kentnl
From: Kent Fredric --- eclass/perl-functions.eclass | 18 ++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/eclass/perl-functions.eclass b/eclass/perl-functions.eclass index 027cb0cf7e..3f73ac87c7 100644 --- a/eclass/perl-functions.eclass +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/6] perl-functions.eclass: add perl_get_module_version

2017-01-24 Thread kentnl
From: Kent Fredric This utility provides informational data describing the given module names state of installation, either as a version, or as an error message describing the grade of failure incurred in module loading. It has the side effect that it most load the module

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/6] perl-functions.eclass: add perl_has_module_version

2017-01-24 Thread kentnl
From: Kent Fredric This is a utility for runtime checking if a module of a given version is installed from the perspective of Perl, whos opinion could be different than portage in the event of perl-core/* dual life effects shortly after a major Perl upgrade. Use this only if

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/6] perl-functions.eclass: Add perl_has_module

2017-01-24 Thread kentnl
From: Kent Fredric This is an incredibly fast way to check if Perl considers a module of the given name installed in any capacity, including broken. As long as "Foo.pm" is somewhere in @INC, `perl_has_module Foo` will return true. Even `perl_has_module threads` will return

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/6] perl-functions.eclass: new utility functions

2017-01-24 Thread kentnl
From: Kent Fredric Greetings, Following are a series of suggested utilities I want to add to perl-functions.eclass and additional eyes and feedback are desired before I finally commit them. Included are 3 utilities for varying levels of detail in querying the status of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

2017-01-24 Thread Matthias Maier
> well then 'ihateudev' masking udev, 'ihateeudev' masking eudev and > 'ihatesystemd' masking systemd; what are the blockers here? You make three profiles, 'udev', 'eudev', 'systemd' and put them in one group and let them block said group.

[gentoo-dev] About ALLARCHES

2017-01-24 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
We are working to provide some tools for the stabilization process. Unfortunately, there isn't atm something able to manage the requests with the ALLARCHES keyword, So, *everyone* with the commit access can keyword for all after a stabilization/keyword happened at least for one arch.

[gentoo-dev] Re: Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

2017-01-24 Thread Duncan
Alexis Ballier posted on Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:27:06 +0100 as excerpted: > well then 'ihateudev' masking udev, 'ihateeudev' masking eudev and > 'ihatesystemd' masking systemd; what are the blockers here? Should be solvable with the "ilovestaticdev" mixin, but of course throwing in the