[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] multilib-strict: disable recursion into subdirectories (bug 424423)

Disable recursion into subdirectories, in order to avoid false-positives. The MULTILIB_STRICT_EXEMPT variable only served to filter false-positives that were triggered by recursion, so it will no longer be needed. X-Gentoo-bug: 424423 X-Gentoo-bug-url:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:55:05 -0400 as excerpted: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner >>> wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner > wrote: >> >> >> Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has >> 2 repos instead of 1. >> >> 1) Rolling. >> 2) Stable. >> >> Rolling

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 > > repos instead of 1. > > > > 1) Rolling. > > 2) Stable. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On pon, 2017-07-31 at 10:52 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel < > > > >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge --getbinpkg: https support for If-Modified-Since

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:11:09 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> When https certificate and hostname verification is enabled for >> stdlib http clients (PEP 476), use python for If-Modified-Since >> header

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 > repos instead of 1. > > 1) Rolling. > 2) Stable. > > Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they > want; they can't

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge --getbinpkg: https support for If-Modified-Since

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:11:09 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > When https certificate and hostname verification is enabled for > stdlib http clients (PEP 476), use python for If-Modified-Since > header support. When python lacks PEP 476 support, continue to > use FETCHCOMMAND for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:56:18 +1000 Sam Jorna wrote: > > Sorry, I thought this thread was about whether to keep or discontinue > the separation between stable and testing branches. Yes and it was others that said lack of stable would effect enterprise/professional usage. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel < > dilfri...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 10:43 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:59:25 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > > Am Montag, 31. Juli 2017, 04:44:58 CEST schrieb William L. Thomson > > Jr.: > > > > > > How about no foundation. Not even a legal

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:59:25 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Am Montag, 31. Juli 2017, 04:44:58 CEST schrieb William L. Thomson > Jr.: > > > > How about no foundation. Not even a legal entity. No certifications > > from vendors, nor for employees. No one to hire for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Am Montag, 31. Juli 2017, 04:44:58 CEST schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: > > How about no foundation. Not even a legal entity. No certifications > from vendors, nor for employees. No one to hire for official support. > There are so many things far beyond anything having to do with a stable > tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

Hi Nicolas, below just some remarks from me. On Mo, 31 Jul 09:23:51 +0200 Nicolas Bock wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: Hi, I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as an alternative and not a replacement

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On 31-07-2017 04:55:58 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 17-07-31 09:11:19, Nicolas Bock wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant > > as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt > > package. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Nick > > > >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] make.globals: Enable FEATURES=multilib-strict by default

Dnia 31 lipca 2017 10:17:56 CEST, Zac Medico napisał(a): >On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Michał Górny >wrote: >> On śro, 2017-07-26 at 11:29 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >>> You might think that, but I just checked our profiles and the only >one >>> that

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On 17-07-31 09:11:19, Nicolas Bock wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant > as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt > package. > > Thanks, > > Nick > > -- > Nicolas Bock It was my understanding that

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

Hi Nicolas See my comments inline. Monday 31 Jul 2017 09:23:51, Nicolas Bock wrote : > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as > >an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] make.globals: Enable FEATURES=multilib-strict by default

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On śro, 2017-07-26 at 11:29 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> You might think that, but I just checked our profiles and the only one >> that currently has it enabled is profiles/arch/sparc/make.defaults. In >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:44:55AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 31 lipca 2017 09:11:19 CEST, Nicolas Bock napisał(a): Hi, I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

Dnia 31 lipca 2017 09:11:19 CEST, Nicolas Bock napisał(a): >Hi, > >I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant >as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt >package. Aren't you looking for gentoo-proxy-maint ml? > >Thanks, >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: Hi, I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package. I should have inlined the patch. Sorry. From 63f5d569aec514d67645b1c2e891e51810bb7ab5

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge --getbinpkg: https support for If-Modified-Since

When https certificate and hostname verification is enabled for stdlib http clients (PEP 476), use python for If-Modified-Since header support. When python lacks PEP 476 support, continue to use FETCHCOMMAND for https certificate and hostname verification (see security bug 469888). X-Gentoo-bug:

[gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

Hi, I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package. Thanks, Nick -- Nicolas Bock From 63f5d569aec514d67645b1c2e891e51810bb7ab5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Bock

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

It seems like there has been a lot of discussion here that indicates people are happy with the way it is. There seems to be differences in how packages are updated based on their purpose - desktop packages move very fast, a lot of server infrastructure moves more slowly. It seems like the "best"