On 07/01/2012 02:34 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Zac Medico schrieb:
>> On 07/01/2012 04:29 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Matt Turner schrieb:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm int
On 07/01/2012 02:39 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> 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
On 07/01/2012 04:29 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 multilib is pretty important for mips.
>>
>>> If a package has de
On 07/01/2012 12:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
> * Glibc's override is unfortunately broken in one specific case: binpkgs.
> The binpkg must have been built with the override (I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING=1
> or whatever) set, or it won't work.
You can always override environment variables (even for binary/inst
On 06/30/2012 11:33 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag 30 Juni 2012, 13:22:39 schrieb Zac Medico:
>> On 06/30/2012 04:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> I would like to discuss a bit more issues like:
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087
>>&
On 06/30/2012 12:42 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> That might be neat, but it would already help if you had to add
> --allow-downgrades or similar to emerge in case Portage wants to
> downgrade one or more packages.
> Besides preventing an accidental downgrade it would raise the
> awareness of the p
On 06/30/2012 04:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I would like to discuss a bit more issues like:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087
>
> Even if there are "a lot" of packages that can cause this breakage when
> downgraded, I think it should be prevented and package managers
> shouldn't tr
On 06/30/2012 01:46 AM, Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Ian Stakenvicius :
>> FYI, all the work subslotting the perl stuff doesn't work yet, so it's
>> probably best to wait a few days before trying it out.
>
> Perl modules have to be rebuilt if dev-lang/perl's useflags are changed.
>
> That would make
On 06/25/2012 06:03 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 23/06/12 08:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico
>>>> wrote:
>&
On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
>>> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2
On 06/16/2012 02:56 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Meanwhile, one coming solution to this, in portage 2.2 anyway, is sets.
> Since I've been working with kde4 since it was overlay-only and sets-
> only, no meta-packages, I've been using sets for quite awhile and it's
> now entirely integrated into how I wo
On 06/21/2012 11:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:32:34 +0100
> David Leverton wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> But in the current form, the spec doesn't allow passing
>>> IUSE_RUNTIME flags to has_version() so we're on the safe side :P.
>>
>> True. Do we want to keep it th
On 06/21/2012 02:32 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> But in the current form, the spec doesn't allow passing
>> IUSE_RUNTIME flags to has_version() so we're on the safe side :P.
>
> True. Do we want to keep it that restrictive?
Shouldn't has_version allow any atom that would be
On 06/16/2012 01:07 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Friday 15 June 2012 12:54:16 Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:44 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> It is a little confusing when
On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
>> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
>> dependency will be expres
On 06/09/2012 05:15 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:31:55 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the
>> Council to approve it.
>
> The last feature someone did that way was REQUIRED_USE, and we al
On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>&g
On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>&g
On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
>>> I'm perfectly fine w/ ABI_SLOT and SLOT (I proposed a similar thing
>>> in '06/'07); I
On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
>>&
On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on
glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases
On 06/07/2012 11:13 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:47:19 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:45:55 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>>> Can you explain how Exherbo is han
On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCre
On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular
>> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate
>> the common practice
On 06/06/2012 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:45:55 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Can you explain how Exherbo is handling dbus-glib rebuilds after
>> glib:2 updates?
>
> Badly, most likely.
And, I suspect that they'd be handling with ABI_SLO
On 06/06/2012 10:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple
>>> versions of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really
>>> couldn't d
On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
>>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>> Well, I think reading this thr
On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would
>> be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have an idea
>> about what should it do.
>
> There's a big lea
On 06/06/2012 02:59 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
>>> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with
>>> revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list
On 06/06/2012 10:19 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:32:08 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> We do? Please tell us. I was under the impression that we still
>>> didn't fully know what the problem was.
>>
>> Well, could you please let me know how to handle some issues already
>> men
On 06/06/2012 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:48:26 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> That looks nice, only two notes:
>> - Looks like would be more sense on distinguish between "SLOT" and
>> ABI_SLOT, for example:
>> * dbus-glib would rdepend on glib:2
>> * if glib
On 06/06/2012 02:48 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 02:17 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/06/2012 01:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>>>> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that
On 06/06/2012 02:10 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 01:54 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/06/2012 01:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>>>>> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wro
On 06/06/2012 01:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
>> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
>> unslotted packag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2012 01:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
>>> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with
>>>
On 06/05/2012 10:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:40 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
>> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
>> unslotted pac
On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with
> revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages
> with tests)?
I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like the
pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase sugg
On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
>> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild
>> the dependent packages.
>>
>> We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to
>> be rebuilt
On 06/04/2012 02:29 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> - Looks like there is no consensus about what to do and, then, this
> could probably be implemented on eapi... 7? While former could probably
> be implemented much sooner (probably even in eapi5)
Ciaran has been advocating "SLOT operator" dependencies
On 06/02/2012 10:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> # @FUNCTION: redirect_alloc_fd
> # @USAGE: [redirection]
> # @DESCRIPTION:
> # Find a free fd and redirect the specified file via it. Store the new
> # fd in the specified variable. Useful for the cases where we don't care
> # about the exact fd #
(re-send without enigmail screwing up the code formatting)
On 06/02/2012 10:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> # @FUNCTION: _multijob_fork
> # @INTERNAL
> # @DESCRIPTION:
> # Do the actual book keeping.
> _multijob_fork() {
> [[ $# -eq 1 ]] || die "incorrect number of arguments"
>
> local
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 10:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> # @FUNCTION: _multijob_fork # @INTERNAL # @DESCRIPTION: # Do the
> actual book keeping. _multijob_fork() { [[ $# -eq 1 ]] || die
> "incorrect number of arguments"
>
> local ret=0 [[ $1 == "pre" ]] && : $
On 06/03/2012 12:15 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:04:41 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> #!/usr/bin/env bash
>> named_pipe=$(mktemp -d)/fifo
>>
>> (
>> # hold the pipe open in read mode, so
>> # the writer doesn't b
On 06/02/2012 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 02 June 2012 19:59:02 Brian Harring wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:41:22PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> # @FUNCTION: multijob_post_fork
>>> # @DESCRIPTION:
>>> # You must call this in the parent process after forking a child proc
On 06/02/2012 08:52 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>> "ZM" == Zac Medico writes:
>
> Thanks for the quick reply and the reference to the bz.
>
> ZM> We had a bug about that [1] when we first deployed md5-cache, but it's
> ZM> supposed to have b
On 06/02/2012 06:04 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 04:47 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:50:06PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2012 02:31 PM, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:54:03 -0400
>>>> Mik
On 06/02/2012 04:47 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:50:06PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 02:31 PM, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:54:03 -0400
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> # @FUNCTION:
On 06/02/2012 05:32 PM, James Cloos wrote:
> What's up with md5-cache?
>
> Every syn has to pull the entire md5-cache hierarchy over again, as if
> some daemon re-creates every file every day, rather than only re-writing
> those files which need updates and adding/removing those which need that.
On 06/02/2012 02:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 02 June 2012 16:39:16 Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 12:54 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> if [[ ! -L /dev/fd/${fd} ]] ; then
>>> eval "exec
On 06/02/2012 02:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:54:03 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> # @FUNCTION: redirect_alloc_fd
>> # @USAGE: [redirection]
>> # @DESCRIPTION:
>
> (...and a lot of code)
>
> I may be wrong but wouldn't it be simpler to just stick with a named
> pipe
On 06/02/2012 12:54 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> # @FUNCTION: redirect_alloc_fd
> # @USAGE: [redirection]
> # @DESCRIPTION:
> # Find a free fd and redirect the specified file via it. Store the new
> # fd in the specified variable. Useful for the cases where we don't care
> # about the exact fd
On 05/29/2012 04:22 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 05/29/12 18:11, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 05/29/2012 02:47 PM, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
>>> On 29 May 2012 12:46, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>>> How about introducing e.g. FEATURES="nouserpriv", and make the cu
On 05/29/2012 02:47 PM, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> On 29 May 2012 12:46, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> How about introducing e.g. FEATURES="nouserpriv", and make the current
>> userpriv behavior the default?
>
> rootpriv instead of nouserpriv?
What's the use case for this? Can't we just enable userpri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/29/2012 07:57 AM, hasufell wrote:
> I am against too many defaults. It's documented and people can
> activate it. I'm already annoyed by pre-set stuff like "cups" in
> releases/make.defaults.
In the case of userpriv and usersync, I expect that
On 05/29/2012 07:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 02:05:08 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 05/29/2012 01:43 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>>> I'm using usersync since a long time, how about add it too?
>>
>> Yeah, I think that would b
On 05/29/2012 01:43 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> On Monday 28 May 2012 14:34:22 Zac Medico wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In case you aren't familiar with FEATURES=userpriv, here's the
>> description from the make.conf(5) man page:
>>
>> Allow portag
Hi,
In case you aren't familiar with FEATURES=userpriv, here's the
description from the make.conf(5) man page:
Allow portage to drop root privileges and compile packages as
portage:portage without a sandbox (unless usersandbox is also used).
The rationale for having the separate "usersandbox
On 05/28/2012 02:02 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 27-05-2012 a las 17:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 05/27/2012 11:12 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Fedora rawhide and ArchLinux switched to libusbx and followed suit in
>>> our virtual/libusb:1.
>>> D
On 05/27/2012 11:12 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Fedora rawhide and ArchLinux switched to libusbx and followed suit in
> our virtual/libusb:1.
> Debian is considering the switch also. We'll see...
>
> I've been in contact with the new maintainer, and he assured me the
> compability will be kept fo
On 05/24/2012 01:52 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 25 May 2012 08:28, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> I expect that reading and validating the cache is probably not going to
>> be much faster than just parsing the eclasses over again.
>> --
>
> Unless, you don't care
On 05/24/2012 01:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 24 May 2012 16:12:35 Kent Fredric wrote:
>> Were it me, I'd have a tool that scrapes the eclass files's
>> documentation and emits a .json file which repoman can then optionally
>> use for consistency checks.
>
> python provides its own p
On 05/23/2012 11:11 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:04:44 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> Looks like ebuilds not inheriting eutils directly even using epatch are
>> a lot as I have seen running:
>> grep inherit $(grep -r epatch */*/*.ebuild| cut -d: -f1) | grep -v
>> eutils
>>
>> Ma
On 05/22/2012 11:22 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 21-05-2012 a las 12:25 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 05/21/2012 12:04 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> Maybe they should be checked and a repoman warning should be added when
>>> an ebuild is using epatch without
On 05/21/2012 12:04 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 21-05-2012 a las 13:46 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
>> On May 20, autools.eclass was changed to no longer inherit eutils, see
>> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.133&r2=1.134
>>
>> Rely
On 05/17/2012 08:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:44:42 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> I'd like to commit this news item on 2012-05-21. See previous
>> discussion here:
>>
>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_7fe557809defad4faca2e
On 05/17/2012 03:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> Title: Portage's config-protect-if-modified feature is enabled by default
>
> The title must not be longer than 44 characters, see GLEP 42.
> (And eselec
I'd like to commit this news item on 2012-05-21. See previous discussion
here:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_7fe557809defad4faca2ee5c6e52d134.xml
--
Thanks,
Zac
Title: Portage's config-protect-if-modified feature is enabled by default
Author: Zac Medico
Content-Type:
On 05/15/2012 08:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
>> 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'
Hi,
In case you aren't familiar with it, here's the description from the
make.conf(5) man page:
This causes the CONFIG_PROTECT behavior to be skipped for files that
have not been modified since they were installed.
I think it would be a good idea to enable this by default, but I thought
I'd
On 05/13/2012 01:27 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> To make ebuilds utilizing python-distutils-ng.eclass usable
> "out-of-the-box", the python team would like to add the following to
> make.defaults in the base profile.
>
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"
>
> See also bug 415575 [1].
>
> Any objections?
>
On 05/10/2012 11:57 AM, David Leverton wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
>> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
>> stopping you
On 05/10/2012 04:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
>> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
On 05/07/2012 09:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:58:18 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 05/07/2012 08:50 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:41:33 -0700 Zac Medic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/07/2012 08:50 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:41:33 -0700 Zac Medico
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2012 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:24:31 -0700 Zac Medico
>>> wrote:
On 05/07/2012 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:24:31 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2012 12:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>
>>>> I propose:
>>>
On 05/07/2012 12:33 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> Isn't it the time to make a new EAPI which no longer has USE "flags" but
> USE "values" ? Many of the really weird USE flags combinations would be
> much more clearly expressed if the possible types for a USE variable
> were:
> 1) member-of: for choo
On 05/07/2012 12:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> I propose:
>
>> REQUIRED_USE="== ( qt webkit )"
>
> But this just means that the ebuild has redundant USE flags, so one of
> them shouldn't be in IUSE, in the first place.
It serves to conve
On 05/07/2012 11:26 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> REQUIRED_USE="webkit? ( gtk ) !webkit? ( !gtk ) gtk? ( webkit ) !gtk? (
>> !webkit )"
>
>> It's pretty awkward with the existing operators, but we could extend
>> the REQUIRED_USE syntax to support an equivalent operator in a
>> future EAPI.
>
> As
On 05/06/2012 05:47 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2012-05-06 02:34:26 hasufell napisał(a):
>> # grep :webkit use.local.desc | wc -l
>> 33
>>
>> I would vote to make this a global useflag:
>>
>> webkit - Adds support for the webkit library/module
>
> I suggest to use separate qt-
On 05/05/2012 12:49 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> On 04.05.2012 18:30, hasufell wrote:
>> # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE
>> # @DESCRIPTION:
>> # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation.
>>
>> By default this is deactivated which is inconvenient imo and results in
>> pastes having minimum
On 05/04/2012 08:20 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
>>>> From the first reply:
>>>>
>>>> "To clarify, the question is whethe
On 04/29/2012 09:45 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 15.04.2012 17:12, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> El dom, 15-04-2012 a las 16:02 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:59:50 +0200
>>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>
I am unsure about validate_desktop_entries() utility. It's currently
pro
On 04/29/2012 12:04 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 28/04/12 23:44, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I have already opened bugs for many of them. But the list will increase
>> in time, and we'll either move a lot of libraries to /lib* or decide to
>> go the other way.
>
> repeat after me EARLY BOOT, as in init
On 04/28/2012 02:17 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 27 April 2012 03:30:43 Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 04/26/2012 11:48 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 04/26/2012 11:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote:
>>&
On 04/27/2012 12:57 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> So, here's a description of the whole algorithm that I'd use:
>> [snip]
>
> I think the following is equivalent, but simpler and more general since
> it doesn't have to mention details like
On 04/27/2012 12:25 PM, Jonathan Callen wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 11:26 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> In order to be practical, I guess we'd have to add a constraint
>> which says that if KEYWORDS contains the stable variant of a
>> particular keyword, then it should also b
On 04/27/2012 11:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:01:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>>> Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
>>> feature,
On 04/27/2012 11:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
>> feature, I think it's worth the wait roll it into EAPI 5 and have a
>> clean solution
On 04/27/2012 07:20 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> We could finally decide it'll be a Portage internal feature, and modify
> epatch_user() to export some Portage-specific indication that user
> patches were applied.
Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a feature,
I think it's wo
On 04/27/2012 09:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:08:06 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> But there's no way the repoman check is going to give anything like
>>> reliable answers if you're involving eclasses...
>>
>> Okay, so peopl
On 04/27/2012 09:00 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:55:49 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> I suppose that we could do it both ways. The repoman check would be
>> for people who want a practical approach that doesn't require all
>> ebuilds to be convert
On 04/27/2012 08:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:41:35 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> In order to make it globally available, you put it in EAPI 5, and
>>> make the package mangler die at pretend time if the user has patches
>>> specifie
On 04/27/2012 07:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:15:35 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In ordered to make it globally available, it cannot simply be an
>> EAPI-5 thing, it must apply to all current ebuilds whether they (or
>> an inherited eclass) call ep
On 04/27/2012 06:49 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
* two new files in profile directories supported,
package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
* syntax is identical to package.use.mas
On 04/26/2012 11:48 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 11:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote:
>>> On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>> I'd like to suggest we introduce the following v
On 04/26/2012 11:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote:
>> On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful
>>> feature, as soon as possible (which likely means in the next
>>> EAPI?):
>>
On 04/26/2012 03:08 PM, Duncan wrote:
Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:21:02 -0700 as excerpted:
Also, don't forget to consider the possibility of interference between
FEATURES=userpatch and epatch_user (applying same patches twice).
The existing phaselock-file solution s
On 04/26/2012 11:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:18:32 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> My suggestion is therefore to do the simple thing, just apply any
>> patches found in the patches dir, and punt on the complicated
>> do-we-eautoreconf- or-not thing.
On 04/26/2012 02:55 AM, Duncan wrote:
Zac Medico posted on Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:26:24 -0700 as excerpted:
On 04/25/2012 11:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
IOW, let's quit letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and just
get on with it, already.
If that means settling on something that'
On 04/26/2012 01:03 AM, Corentin Chary wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 04/26/2012 12:30 AM, Corentin Chary wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:16:05 +0200
>>>> Cor
501 - 600 of 1193 matches
Mail list logo
