Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

> > > > * Mainly, less stuff to memorize. I'll be throwing a party on the day when > > the last EAPI=0 ebuild is gone. (In the retirement home, probably.) > > This is the argument made by others about the cognitive overhead of > remembering all the EAPI differences. If the packages are untouched

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-db/maxscale - Last rites

On 03/06/2018 05:55 PM, Geaaru wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not sure that comment of the issue is yet correct with last version. > I think that depends of mariadb libraries and maybe it works also with > mysql but I will investigate on it. > > Here (not last version but at least v.2.x): > >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage perfoemance again ...

On 03/06/2018 02:10 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > .. using portage 2.3.24 on our embedded target(ppc329 It takes forever, > 10 > mins) to just do the > dependencies for emerge -aNDuv world > Here is what strace says, one can see portage is rereading the profile over > and over again. > At this

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-db/maxscale - Last rites

Hi, I'm not sure that comment of the issue is yet correct with last version. I think that depends of mariadb libraries and maybe it works also with mysql but I will investigate on it. Here (not last version but at least v.2.x):

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel > wrote: > >> > >> Is it worth the effort? Yes, see below. > >> Is it a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel > wrote: >> >> Is it worth the effort? Yes, see below. >> Is it a high priority task? No. >> > > It sounds like all that has been done is to log a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag, 6. März 2018, 02:52:54 CET schrieb Matt Turner: >> EAPI 2 removal bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/648050 >> >> It seems like tons of churn to update old stable ebuilds to a new >> EAPI, just for its own

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Matt Turner wrote: >> >> In the end we might get to delete some code from portage or an eclass? >> Does this seem worth it? > > > To add to some of the points Kent made,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:52:54 -0800 > And with Perl packages at least, incrementing EAPI results in actual > changes driven by the eclass: > > - Changes the names of various control variables > - Makes perl tests on by

[gentoo-portage-dev] portage perfoemance again ...

.. using portage 2.3.24 on our embedded target(ppc329 It takes forever, > 10 mins) to just do the dependencies for emerge -aNDuv world Here is what strace says, one can see portage is rereading the profile over and over again. At this point I am prepared to try anything to eliminate the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Is it worth the effort? Yes, see below. > Is it a high priority task? No. > It sounds like all that has been done is to log a tracker and create some bugs. That is hardly a major burden on anybody. If it nudges

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

Am Dienstag, 6. März 2018, 02:52:54 CET schrieb Matt Turner: > EAPI 2 removal bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/648050 > > It seems like tons of churn to update old stable ebuilds to a new > EAPI, just for its own sake. Take https://bugs.gentoo.org/648154 for > example. New ebuild added with EAPI 6

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/6] eapi7-ver.eclass: Explicitly indicate that EAPI 7+ includes it

On 03/06/2018 12:25 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > --- > eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass b/eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass > index 7eb070c68171..6117124a90a5 100644 > --- a/eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass > +++

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/6] epatch.eclass: Deprecate in EAPI 6

> On Tue, 06 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu wto, 06.03.2018 o godzinie 18∶41 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller > napisał: >> > > > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: >> > + 6) >> > + # for eqawarn >> > + [[ -z ${_EUTILS_ECLASS} ]] && inherit eutils >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/6] epatch.eclass: Deprecate in EAPI 6

W dniu wto, 06.03.2018 o godzinie 18∶41 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > + 6) > > + # for eqawarn > > + [[ -z ${_EUTILS_ECLASS} ]] && inherit eutils > > ;; > > NACK. With this you defeat the whole

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/6] epatch.eclass: Deprecate in EAPI 6

> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > + 6) > + # for eqawarn > + [[ -z ${_EUTILS_ECLASS} ]] && inherit eutils > ;; NACK. With this you defeat the whole purpose of splitting things off from eutils. In turn, eutils inherits a dozen of other

[gentoo-dev] dev-db/maxscale - Last rites

# Brian Evans (06 Mar 2018) # MariaDB MaxScale 1.x depends on the deprecated libmysqld # Newer versions bundle software that require git access # and modify system libraries for their own purposes making # it extremely difficult to package. # Bug 649764 Removal in 30 days.

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 6/6] versionator.eclass: Ban in EAPI 7 (in favor of built-in funcs)

--- eclass/versionator.eclass | 7 +++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/eclass/versionator.eclass b/eclass/versionator.eclass index 54d77a30b015..bf3f6a2a77b6 100644 --- a/eclass/versionator.eclass +++ b/eclass/versionator.eclass @@ -28,6 +28,13 @@ if [[ -z

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 5/6] ltprune.eclass: Deprecate it verbosely

--- eclass/ltprune.eclass | 7 +++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/eclass/ltprune.eclass b/eclass/ltprune.eclass index a8bb4c842bc0..f1dd795aea2a 100644 --- a/eclass/ltprune.eclass +++ b/eclass/ltprune.eclass @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ if [[ -z ${_LTPRUNE_ECLASS} ]]; then case

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/6] epatch.eclass: Deprecate in EAPI 6

--- eclass/epatch.eclass | 10 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/epatch.eclass b/eclass/epatch.eclass index 8e03478c26ce..e3178ff40020 100644 --- a/eclass/epatch.eclass +++ b/eclass/epatch.eclass @@ -12,7 +12,11 @@ if [[ -z ${_EPATCH_ECLASS} ]]; then

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 4/6] ltprune.eclass: Ban discouraged eclass in EAPI 7

--- eclass/ltprune.eclass | 7 +++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/eclass/ltprune.eclass b/eclass/ltprune.eclass index 6b3e93921d96..a8bb4c842bc0 100644 --- a/eclass/ltprune.eclass +++ b/eclass/ltprune.eclass @@ -15,6 +15,13 @@ if [[ -z ${_LTPRUNE_ECLASS} ]]; then +case

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/6] epatch.eclass: Ban in EAPI 7 (in favor of eapply)

--- eclass/epatch.eclass | 9 - 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/epatch.eclass b/eclass/epatch.eclass index 905f68f8ef22..8e03478c26ce 100644 --- a/eclass/epatch.eclass +++ b/eclass/epatch.eclass @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Copyright 1999-2017 Gentoo Foundation

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/6] eapi7-ver.eclass: Explicitly indicate that EAPI 7+ includes it

--- eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass b/eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass index 7eb070c68171..6117124a90a5 100644 --- a/eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass +++ b/eclass/eapi7-ver.eclass @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ case ${EAPI:-0} in 6)

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/6] EAPI 7 eclass deprecations

Hi, Here's a short batch of patches that explicitly update EAPI checks for eclass that are going to be banned in EAPI 7, and add some verbose deprecation notices whenever stuff was deprecated already. -- Best regards, Michał Górny Michał Górny (6): eapi7-ver.eclass: Explicitly indicate that

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 6/6] Do not export PORTDIR & ECLASSDIR in EAPI 7

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/373349 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/373351 --- bin/eapi.sh| 4 bin/phase-functions.sh | 6 -- pym/portage/eapi.py| 11 +++ pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py | 14 ++ 4

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 4/6] Add EAPI 7 version comparison & manipulation functions

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/482170 --- bin/eapi.sh | 4 + bin/eapi7-ver-funcs.sh| 191 bin/phase-helpers.sh | 4 + pym/portage/tests/bin/test_eapi7_ver_funcs.py | 240

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 5/6] Support ENV_UNSET for EAPI 7

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/499288 --- bin/eapi.sh| 4 bin/ebuild.sh | 5 + pym/_emerge/actions.py | 4 ++-- pym/portage/const.py | 3

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/6] nonfatal: Implement fallback executable for EAPI 7

EAPI 7 specifies that nonfatal has to be implemented both as a bash function and a fallback executable, so that it can be used e.g. via find/xargs. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/622894 --- bin/eapi.sh | 4 bin/ebuild-helpers/nonfatal | 14 ++ 2 files changed, 18

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/6] EAPI 7, part II

Hi, everyone. Here's a second batch of patches for EAPI 7 functions. This set mostly focuses on shell-side features, and once again should be unlikely to break stuff for existing EAPIs. Please review. I've included tests for version functions (copied from the eapi7-ver eclass test suite).

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/6] Add sandbox directory removal functions for EAPI 7

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/630422 --- bin/eapi.sh| 4 bin/ebuild.sh | 17 + bin/save-ebuild-env.sh | 1 + 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+) diff --git a/bin/eapi.sh b/bin/eapi.sh index 67563bed8..5d77c8daf 100644 --- a/bin/eapi.sh +++ b/bin/eapi.sh

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/6] Allow package.*, use.* directories in EAPI 7

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/282296 --- pym/portage/eapi.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pym/portage/eapi.py b/pym/portage/eapi.py index 075f7a59c..092780ded 100644 --- a/pym/portage/eapi.py +++ b/pym/portage/eapi.py @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ def

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

W dniu pon, 05.03.2018 o godzinie 17∶52 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner napisał: > EAPI 2 removal bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/648050 > > It seems like tons of churn to update old stable ebuilds to a new > EAPI, just for its own sake. Take https://bugs.gentoo.org/648154 for > example. New ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > In the end we might get to delete some code from portage or an eclass? > Does this seem worth it? > To add to some of the points Kent made, I think so, yes: this means freeing us from the cognitive overhead of thinking

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: dev-libs/libtar

Dear all, The following packages are up for grabs: dev-libs/libtar after retirement of the proxied maintainer. https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/dev-libs/libtar libtar is a C library for manipulating tar archives. Todo: please migrate from 'autotools-utils' (no replacement) -- Best,

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-editors/bluefish

Dear all, The following packages are up for grabs: app-editors/bluefish after retirement of the proxied maintainer. https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/app-editors/bluefish The editor is quite famous and it would be nice to keep the ebuild in a good state. Todo: please migrate from