Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Ancient x11-drivers/*

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Richard Bradfield wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:24:24PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: >> >> Very few if any users. They break occasionally with new xserver >> versions, and then I have to do the leg work to fix them, make the >> upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Ancient x11-drivers/*

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:24:24PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: >> Very few if any users. They break occasionally with new xserver >> versions, and then I have to do the leg work to fix them, make the >> upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Or uber minimal, can't get much smaller still 5.20s > https://travis-ci.org/Obsidian-StudiosInc/asspr#L165 > https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/asspr/blob/master/configure.ac Consider AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([foreign no-define no-installinfo no-installman]) foreign

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Or uber minimal, can't get much smaller still 5.20s > https://travis-ci.org/Obsidian-StudiosInc/asspr#L165 > https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/asspr/blob/master/configure.ac That takes 2.0s here, on quite old hardware, though with primed cache. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 00:20:38 + Peter Stuge wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > I cannot understand why systems get faster, yet configure seems to > > take the same amount of time and is super slow. > > The generated configure scripts can be fork intensive, which is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > I cannot understand why systems get faster, yet configure seems to > take the same amount of time and is super slow. The generated configure scripts can be fork intensive, which is still fairly expensive. But I think the problem is more with poorly written

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cmake + ninja vs autotools

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:36:07 + Peter Stuge wrote: > > It's arguably a bug that a projects gets huge. Sometimes huge projects are split into many internally. Imagine this was using autotools. I doubt it could use a master configure for all sub projects, but maybe.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Ancient x11-drivers/*

Richard Bradfield wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:24:24PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: >> Very few if any users. They break occasionally with new xserver >> versions, and then I have to do the leg work to fix them, make the >> upstream releases, and then push them into Gentoo. Again, for between

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] desktop.eclass: Split off desktop, menu, and icon functions from eutils.

Split off functions make_desktop_entry, make_session_desktop, domenu, newmenu, doicon, and newicon from eutils.eclass into a dedicated desktop.eclass. These functions are independent of the rest of eutils, therefore moving them into their own eclass will help clarifying eclass inheritance in

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] eutils.eclass: Remove validate_desktop_entries function.

This function is no longer used in the tree. It was deprecated more than 8 months ago in commit 650a1ebe8f63d3750908142e2117b24a8efc9403. --- eclass/eutils.eclass | 30 -- 1 file changed, 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/eutils.eclass b/eclass/eutils.eclass index

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] eutils.eclass: Remove check_license function.

This is an inoperative stub since 2011, and no longer used in the tree. --- eclass/eutils.eclass | 4 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/eutils.eclass b/eclass/eutils.eclass index f35fa5980d7a..7fd4b847a649 100644 --- a/eclass/eutils.eclass +++ b/eclass/eutils.eclass @@

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Further cleanup of eutils.eclass

We already had a first round of cleanup in March of this year, where some of the functions (epatch being the most prominent of them) were moved to their own dedicated eclasses. The following series of patches removes two deprecated functions, and splits others off into their own dedicated eclass.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-misc/ocsync

Le Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:31:35 +0100 Bernard Cafarelli a écrit: > # Bernard Cafarelli (24 Nov 2017) > # Upstream removed tarball, no separate release in 3 years > # Merged in net-misc/owncloud-client since > # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #501228 >

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-misc/ocsync

# Bernard Cafarelli (24 Nov 2017) # Upstream removed tarball, no separate release in 3 years # Merged in net-misc/owncloud-client since # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #501228 net-misc/ocsync -- Bernard Cafarelli (Voyageur) Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Ancient x11-drivers/*

> > x11-drivers/xf86-video-modesetting > > Please keep this one for the generic KMS case. It's been useful. For now, it ships inside xorg-server since at least few versions already...

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: www-apps/eyeos

# Bernard Cafarelli (24 Nov 2017) # Dead upstream, source not available anymore # Last open-source update in 2011 # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #638670 www-apps/eyeos -- Bernard Cafarelli (Voyageur) Gentoo developer