Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the >>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would

Re: [gentoo-dev] example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Brian Harring wrote: > 1) 746 hits in the tree for COMMON_DEPEND; that's 2%, and the usages > I'm aware of have been for literally, what it sounds like- depends > that are both DEPEND and RDEPEND. CDEPEND is pretty common as well. I could 466 files with CDEPEND.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly manner, > and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice to explain > the idea here, here's some more details on the DEPENDENCIES proposal. I like this. It seems we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make connman a global USE flag

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Several packages are using it with the same sense (support connman), > maybe we should move it from local to global USEs, what do you think? Off-topic question, but how is connman related to NetworkManager? Is it an alternative, or is it usefu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP draf for cross-compile support in multilib profiles

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Matt Turner schrieb: >> I suppose that's just for ease of implementation? Not having to >> special-case packages that don't install binaries. > > I dont follow. Did you think about only having additional ABI fl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP draf for cross-compile support in multilib profiles

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Matt Turner schrieb: >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> >> >> I'm interested in this because I'm regularly annoyed with the emul- >> packages and also because mult

Re: GLEP draf for cross-compile support in multilib profiles (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5))

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > I'm interested in this because I'm regularly annoyed with the emul- packages and also because multilib is pretty important for mips. > If a package has dependencies, then those dependencies are required to have > at least the same targets

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 >> Pacho Ramos wrote: >> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the >> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote: > I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git > Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems > and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's > good enough for you. > -- > Aru

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > 2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS) Please don't go to this trouble for the ability to commit to portage on *really* slow systems.

Re: [gentoo-dev] latest commits to dev-lang/go

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:07 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:37:39PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >> >> I know my latest commits to dev-lang/go haven't updated the ChangeLog. >> >> I got into the habbit of using repoman commit -[Mm] to do that, but for >> some reason t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible lastrite of sys-fs/rar2fs (waiting for upstream reaction)

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > # Samuli Suominen (05 May 2012) > # Broken with unrar-4.2.1 wrt upstream ticket of: > # http://code.google.com/p/rar2fs/issues/detail?id=10 > # Either waiting for fixed release, or the package will > # be removed in 30 days > <=sys-fs/rar2f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in www-plugins/adobe-flash: metadata.xml adobe-flash-11.2.202.228.ebuild ChangeLog

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote: > On 04/26/12 at 06:00PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:04:08 -0600 >> Ryan Hill wrote: >> >> > Arg, no.  Please just print the warning if the host doesn't do SSE2. >> > There's no reason to have a USE flag here (an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote: >> doing it wrong.  I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark, >> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source >> and distribute a favored binary-only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in www-plugins/adobe-flash: metadata.xml adobe-flash-11.2.202.228.ebuild ChangeLog

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > wouldnt adding a sse2 useflag and putting it in REQUIRED_USE solve the > problem ? > > afaik portage wont even try to upgrade if people have -sse2 If that works, which I think it will, that does sound like the best thing to do.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in www-plugins/adobe-flash: metadata.xml adobe-flash-11.2.202.228.ebuild ChangeLog

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote: > I haven't followed the prev. conversation but what's wrong with a USE flag for > SSE2? We already have SSE2 flags, even global.. That's not it. The flash binary uses SSE2 instructions without checking for their presence, which causes bad

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: A tiny news item for migrating to libjpeg-turbo

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > What is the plan for platforms that are not supported by libturbo? It's not that they're not supported, just that libjpeg-turbo doesn't have optimized routines for them. It'll still run fine. (Check the keywords, you'll see that it's stabilize

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ocamlopt unmask on arm

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM, wrote: > Dear All, > > I have just emerged ocaml-3.12.0[ocamlopt] on arm and used it to compile > mldonkey[ocamlopt]. It seems to work well. > > it was masked on Apr 18, 2010, > , > | /usr/portage/profiles$ grep -n -B3 ocamlopt ./arch/arm/use.mask > | 31-# Ra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 03/30/12 17:15, Joshua Kinard wrote: >> Maybe it's time for Gentoo-2.0? > > I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we > declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I think > claiming 2.0 would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] About suggesting to create a separate partition for portage tree in handbook

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible >>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are hi

[gentoo-dev] Change USE flags when compiling with FEATURES=test

So you run set FEATURES=test to run a package's test suite during keywording. Later, you emerge -vuNDa ... and portage wants to reemerge that package with USE=-test. Can't we avoid this somehow? I presume in the vast majority of cases emerging with FEATURES/USE=test doesn't actually affect what's

Re: [gentoo-dev] lurking *.ebuild'less packages

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > slep noticed and reported an odd thing: > > $ euse -i kate > ... > ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-perl-*: > No such file or directory > ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kde

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About gcc-4.6 unmasking

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near >> stabilization)? >> >> I have read hardmask message b

Re: [gentoo-dev] profiles/features/64bit-native/package.use.mask contents redundancy

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > some mips profiles are scary too: >    http://dev.gentoo.org/~slyfox/profiles_mips.png Weird. I'll take a look at that.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The following USE changes are necessary to proceed - Why?

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM, ross smith wrote: > The line above is not prompting you to turn on the nettle use flag, which > appears to already be on.  It's prompting you to add the gmp use flag for > dev-libs/nettle. Which looks like it's on as well. In either case -- this isn't gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/minitunes

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > # Markos Chandras (21 Jan 2012) > # Package renamed to media-sound/musique > # http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes-renamed-to-musique > # Removal in 30 days > media-sound/minitunes Is it normal to wipe out the ChangeLog when renaming the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-libs/glibc: glibc-2.14.1-r2.ebuild glibc-2.12.2.ebuild glibc-9999.ebuild glibc-2.15.ebuild glibc-2.10.1-r1.ebuild glibc-2.14.1-r1.ebuild

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:00:52 -0500 as excerpted: > >> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 21:42:14 Michael Weber wrote: >>> Um, what happend to the policy to not f*** around with stable ebuilds? >> >> take a chi

Re: [gentoo-dev] crossdrev & mingw 64 bit

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Dmitrij K wrote: > Maciej Mrozowski wrote: >> On Tuesday 10 of January 2012 03:34:06 Dmitrij K wrote: >> > Dear developers of crossdev. >> > >> > Can you realize --target mingw64 (for creating windows app 64 bit) (like >> > mingw-w64.sourceforge.net)? >> > >> > And

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag "neon" for ARM NEON optimization(s)

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:03:41 +0200 as excerpted: > >> i'll add USE=neon to use.desc and punt the local descriptions if nobody >> objects >> >> media-libs/libpng: support ARM NEON cpu instruction set >> me

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-libs/zlib: punt from system in profiles

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > we have USE=zlib already which should cover automatically pulling in zlib when > necessary, and we have that by default in make.conf.  so there's no need to > explicitly list zlib as part of the system target.  so time to drop it. > -mike I

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mié, 26-10-2011 a las 19:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió: >> On 26-10-2011 19:11:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:06:07 +0200 >> > Fabian Groffen wrote: >> > >> > > > 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeL

Re: [gentoo-dev] python.eclass EAPI 4 support, this gets really annoying

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Matthew Summers wrote: > Its being worked on currently. There are many fairly difficult issues > to be worked through here. That's kind of the question though. What's are the issues?

Re: [gentoo-dev] python.eclass EAPI 4 support, this gets really annoying

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > OK, so what are the _blocking_ reasons for no EAPI 4 support in > python.eclass yet? > > I understand you have some complicated patches in flight etc etc, but > are they _required_ for the eclass not to break with EAPI 4? > > My point is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >> Mike Frysinger schrieb: The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. >>> >>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning.  having qutecom in the tree >>> with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC upgrades, FUD and gentoo documentation

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto: >> > - The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now part of the toolchain >> > eclass, so >> > >> >   doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: >> Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are you to start >> masking other people's packages? >> > It seems you don't even bother to read the masking message or my > comments on the bug. I said "Talk to QA and CC me if you want to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code > duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find > when rm is more than enough, ... I haven't looked, but if we don't already, a little style guide wou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > I am not in QA fwiw just trying to keep a basic QA level in portage tree. Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are you to start masking other people's packages?

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC upgrades, FUD and gentoo documentation

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:35 PM, James Cloos wrote: >>>>>> "MT" == Matt Turner writes: > > MT> Is that a problem with the ABI, or just that gcc-4.6 is more strict? > MT> I think it's the latter. > > The failure occurs at the linking stage, n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > Watch your language. This is not your $home playroom And it's not your mailing list. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's tired of your Let Me Insert Myself Into Everything syndrome just because you're on QA. QA's a joke that's only used a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 10/08/11 22:45, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras >> wrote: >>> On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote: &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] integrity of stage files

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 02:45:02PM -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> I checked >> >> and the Handbook only mentions validating MD5 checksums. >> >> There are two poss

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC upgrades, FUD and gentoo documentation

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:57 PM, James Cloos wrote: >> "SV" == Sven Vermeulen writes: > > SV> - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds > SV>   from that version onwards should not be needed > > That is not generally true. > > I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but mostl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen >> wrote: >>> # Samuli Suominen (08 Oct 2011) # Fails to >>> compile against system libpng15, bug 356127 #

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > # Samuli Suominen (08 Oct 2011) > # Fails to compile against system libpng15, bug 356127 > # Removal in 14 days 14 days? > media-gfx/pngcrush

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: various outdated dev-texlive/* packages

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > # Moved to dev-texlive/texlive-langarabic after TeX Live 2009 > dev-texlive/texlive-langarab Can this not just be a pkg move?

Re: [gentoo-dev] zlib breakage

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > I believe something needs to be done with the zlib-1.2.5.1-r1 and -r2 > packages currently in the tree.  The maintainer of zlib pushed those > revisions with a patch that alters macro identifiers, making Gentoo's zlib > incompatible with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 09/15/2011 09:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Matt Turner wrote: >>> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify >>> the X11 libraries' proto package

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > The first is more correct, I think, but it's also much more annoying. > Mesa winds up having x11-proto/inputproto in DEPEND for some long > forgotten reason, for instance. > > Why is it annoying? Because the proto will have to be added as a d

[gentoo-dev] Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify > the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11 > library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not > reall

[gentoo-dev] How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?

Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11 library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not really that the X11 library depends on this at run-time, so the protocol packages aren't sp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: euscan proof of concept (like debian's uscan)

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Corentin Chary wrote: > Hi again, Found a little problem: it's not finding a newer version of wireless-regdb, which uses a date-based versioning system. If euscan tried to view/parse the directory index where the distfiles are located, it would find this new file.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > The point I was addressing is the suggestion that the above should be > possible and the idea that any single developer is "entitled" to do so. It's a moot point, because no one (that I see) claimed or is claiming to be entitled

Re: [gentoo-dev] mesa r600 gallium news item

2011/8/25 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn : > Hello, > > Please see the attached news item for review. The news item should be > published before mesa-7.11 goes stable. > Corresponding bug report: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377349 > > > Best regards, > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn Looks

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sys-boot/arcboot

# Matt Turner (25 Aug 2011) # Masked for removal in 30 days. Use arcload instead. sys-boot/arcboot

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc: dropping cld workaround

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > so... is this something where I should suddenly in a moment of clarity shout > "ah, that cld workaround" ?! > > On Samstag 20 August 2011 20:03:04 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> we added the cld workaround to gcc-4.3.0+ in early 2008 until pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] subprofiles for ARM architecture

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 01:50:42PM +0200, Raúl Porcel wrote: >> With subprofiles we could keyword such packages, mask them globally on >> arm and unmask it on the subprofile of the subarchitecture that supports it. > I suggest you go and l

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/yacc

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > now that yacc is no longer part of system, and we have multiple providers of > yacc, we need a virtual.  so unless there are any complaints, i'll be adding > virtual/yacc which has "|| ( sys-devel/bison dev-util/yacc )". > > once that settle

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-libs/libots

# Matt Turner

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wr

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Remove USE=fortran in default profile

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:17 AM, justin wrote: > HI, > > with the addition of the fortran-2.eclass, it is possible to remove the > USE=fortran from the default profiles. Any objections? > > justin Nope, I actually suggested this back in December, and no one bothered to respond. Sounds good to me

Re: [gentoo-dev] profiles/ChangeLog is too large

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > The profiles/ChangeLog file has grown to more than 700 kbytes. Would > it make sense to remove ancient (say, pre-2010) entries from it? > > Maybe it would also help if we added separate ChangeLog files for each > subdirectory? Some subdirecto

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 05:27:27 Patrick Lauer wrote: >> So you say that you want to follow the rules but accidentally forgot it? > > no idea what you're talking about.  the new policy has 0 relevance to actions > performed before said po

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reducing glibc's default locale.gen

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:40 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 6/7/11 9:53 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> Building 400~ locales is not fun on mips when building stages. > > Do you have some data to quantify "not fun"? How long does it take? To build glibc -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: >> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small pa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's >> far too wide. However, if you go back

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote: >>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said: vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild   Log:

[gentoo-dev] Reducing glibc's default locale.gen

Hi, Building 400~ locales is not fun on mips when building stages. No user has a need for more than some small subset of the total available locales. I filed bug [1] to request the ability to select locales in catalyst spec files, but no responses after six months -- which is totally typical of

Re: [gentoo-dev] MULTI_ABI support addition to main tree portage

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 06/02/2011 03:04 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> For this problem, I think some kind of per-ebuild ABI_DEPENDENT flag >> should be used to recognize which packages ABI dependencies should >> apply to. Without thinking about

Re: [gentoo-dev] MULTI_ABI support addition to main tree portage

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:06 AM, justin wrote: > Hi, > > after testing this, and I have to say it mostly works smooth and fine, I > hit a huge problem. > > I wanted to emerge a package which just depends on glibc provided libs > for the oposite ABI my main ABI is. This specific package has an > op

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > To be clear I support the goal to move our tree to git. > However, I'd like to point out that simply moving to git will leave us > in the same state. Assuming everyone agrees that git is far more useful > than cvs to check for cha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

2011/5/9 Alexis Ballier : > maybe your answer is in the readme :) > http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README > > some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly > drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm all for >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

2011/4/29 Matt Turner : > 2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier : >> As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, heh, >> some fixes and improvements I'm using..." > > So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few > patches

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > sources.gentoo.org is for that.   ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is > not useful information to them So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier : > As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, heh, > some fixes and improvements I'm using..." So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few patches on top? So, the freedesktop version is actually... upstream? We patch plenty

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote: >> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said: >>> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31 >>> >>>   Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild >>>   Log: >>>   drop old, broken with stable libnotify >>> >>>  

Re: [gentoo-dev] git-2.eclass final review

2011/3/31 Tomáš Chvátal : > Dne 31.3.2011 06:55, Jeroen Roovers napsal(a): >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:42:51 +0100 >> Tomáš Chvátal wrote: >> >>> Again the diff is: http://tinyurl.com/62eb88b >> >> Why not attach it? What the hell does that URL lead me to? > > Because our git webservice allows us to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please enhance your USE descriptions!

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:24 PM, justin wrote: > Hi, > > the descriptions of USE flags should explain what the USE is good for. > In my opinion some thing like > > Enables foo intergration > or > Enables support for foo > > if it isn't totally clear what "foo" is, sucks!! There are many, many > de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: FEATURES=test, sys-devel/gcc ignored test failures

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:09 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I'm trying to understand the problem better - do you know what causes > those test failures? I don't expect a "complete" answer because that'd > probably be a half of actually fixing the failures. They both have huge test suites cover

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending removal(?) of media-libs/pdflib

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >> Dne 22.2.2011 19:20, Mike Frysinger napsal(a): > Last time (many moons ago) I've checked cairo did not generated > pdf it did generated raster images and wrapped them in a thin pdf

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: package.keywords-compatible snippets when stabilizing multiple packages

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > I don't think making a list for each arch is going to make anything any > easier for maintainers requesting stabilization, which means those list > we need more time to generate before being released. You just move the > problem to an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: libpng-1.5 smooth upgrade

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: >> >> you are seriously considering patching every single package using >> libpng like >> this instead of fixing those that fail??? (and i'm not talking about >> the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > You can't really expect me to take responsibility for a commit I can't > test. And I don't. Maybe you did this already, but it seems like the amount of time spent masking a package could have been spent poking whoever is supposed to be ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Antoni Grzymala wrote: > Samuli Suominen dixit (2011-02-01, 21:09): > >> # Samuli Suominen (01 Feb 2011) >> # Masked for QA because the package has not been installable for an year >> now. >> # See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302456 >> # Removal in 30 da

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation exceptions

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:31:20 +0100 > Christian Faulhammer wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as well) >> has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages >> stable themselves.  As

Re: [gentoo-dev] On hosting self-produced distfiles

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno mer, 19/01/2011 alle 21.44 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto: >> >> you really need to start off discussions as "here is the problem i >> perceive >> and here is a solution i think will address it".  shooting off e-mails >> from

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 118 bugs

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > By the way, we have a nice team of arch and herd testers - how about > encouraging them to wrangle some bugs? Yeah, I just came here to say this. One certainly doesn't need to have completed the developer quizzes to sort bugs. Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Move x86/amd64 CPU extensions USE flags to a new USE_EXPAND variable

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:57:58 +0100 > sse5 was a draft, it was never implemented. I don't think it's quite as simple as that. According to Wikipedia, AMD has significantly scaled back SSE5 so that it won't interfere with AVX, but it will be imple

Re: [gentoo-dev] Move x86/amd64 CPU extensions USE flags to a new USE_EXPAND variable

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: [snip] I agree that this could be better. To me, most of the problems with this are due to users not knowing which of these should be set for their particular CPU. Instead of having defaults set by a profile, I'd like to figure out a way we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel >> strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages' >> metadata.xml. >> > [snip]

[gentoo-dev] IUSE="minimal" seems like a bad idea

matts...@sempron /usr/portage $ egrep -l 'IUSE=.*minimal' `find -name '*.ebuild'` ^ shows lots of ebuilds with IUSE="minimal". Instead of having a minimal use flag for these packages, shouldn't we have, possibly local, use flags for whatever feature(s) the minimal flag turns off? Thanks, Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Restabilizing MIPS

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Do you blame people for raising questions and > providing tips? No, not at all. I rather appreciate it. :) > Maybe an alternative is to keep a stable base system in an overlay until you > can verify: that it is doable, the mips team can keep

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Restabilizing MIPS

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: > On 11:20 Mon 15 Nov     , Christian Faulhammer wrote: >>  I don't want to stop you, but you are relatively new to the "real" >> keywording business.  amd64 at a point had over 30 members and could >> not work on the backlog in a ti

Re: [gentoo-dev] Restabilizing MIPS

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > On 11/11/2010 05:00 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I'd like to begin stabilizing packages on MIPS. I've gotten acks from >> Redhatter, leio, and r0bertz, and Kumba doesn't really care. >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Restabilizing MIPS

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:37:51 -0500 > Matt Turner wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: >> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:00:00 -0500 >> > Matt Turner wrote: >> > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Restabilizing MIPS

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Stuart Longland wrote: >> STMicroelectronics MIPS systems (Lemote, Gdium, etc) are becoming more >> common, and we should definitely do a better job supporting them. (I >> should mention that I've been loaned a Yeelong by Daniel Clark, of >> freedomincluded.com, to

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreOffice project: request for contributors and mentoring

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Stuart Longland wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:40:03PM +0800, David Nelson wrote: >> A number of Linux distributions have announced their intention to ship >> LibreOffice with their future releases. We know that they frequently >> do re-branding work to integr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Restabilizing MIPS

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:00:00 -0500 > Matt Turner wrote: > >> Should we target package versions that aren't stabilized on other >> architectures yet, so that we'll have an extended testing period >> before th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Restabilizing MIPS

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 06:00:00PM -0500, Matt Turner wrote: >> I'd like to begin stabilizing packages on MIPS. I've gotten acks from >> Redhatter, leio, and r0bertz, and Kumba doesn't really care. > Out o

[gentoo-dev] Restabilizing MIPS

Hi, I'd like to begin stabilizing packages on MIPS. I've gotten acks from Redhatter, leio, and r0bertz, and Kumba doesn't really care. What's the best method to go about doing this? Stabilize the system packages, then remove ~mips from ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in the profiles? Should we target package vers

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >