Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed.
Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we're failing on them, perhaps we can
say obsolete instead of deprecated?
Can we put this back to being a warning? It
Mark Loeser wrote:
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed.
Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we're failing on them, perhaps we can
say obsolete instead of deprecated?
Can we put this back to
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 06:06:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor
how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:34:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11
| | will make this drag out for years, and
Jason Stubbs wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor how
a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if a
repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' ride,
I'm personally all for it.
By broken I mean
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor
how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if
a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor
how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if
a repoman check will hasten package porting
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
DEPEND=x11-base/xorg-x11 # wrong
DEPEND=virtual/x11# wrong
DEPEND=|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )# wrong
DEPEND=|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 ) # right
There's a small
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
DEPEND=x11-base/xorg-x11 # wrong
DEPEND=virtual/x11# wrong
DEPEND=|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )# wrong
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:46, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
DEPEND=x11-base/xorg-x11 # wrong
DEPEND=virtual/x11#
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:18:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:46, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:47, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:18:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
There's no other way to do it given repoman's state and the requirements.
I was talking long term. One time kludges suck (but occur), would like to
see something a bit
Jason Stubbs wrote:
I've implemented and tested the check locally but haven't committed it yet.
Repoman isn't really structured to allow for tests against a set of ebuilds
so the checks are done on every version. There is also definitely one false
positive (virtual/x11-6.8) so, for this and
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them
in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and
We have? No wonder it's been taking me so fscking long to get all of
the games stuff done.
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them
in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and
We have? No wonder it's been taking me so fscking long to get
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them
in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and
We have? No wonder it's been taking me so
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 12:36 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
As you're really more of a package maintainer for the games you're
porting, you will probably want to stick with the way you're doing things.
Yeah, there's very few things in games-* that have an actual maintainer
listed, as we tend to
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Anyway, I do appreciate any work that you're doing on any games ebuilds.
I just hope we don't end up in the exact same situation a (few?) month
or so down the line when this stuff goes stable as we are in now.
What I expect is that many of the newly ported apps will go
On Thursday 26 January 2006 16:08, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
It prints about 10X of crap like this:
virtual/libc !virtual/xemacs berkdb? ( =sys-libs/db-1*
=sys-libs/gdbm-1.8.0 ) =sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 =dev-libs/openssl-0.9.6
=media-libs/audiofile-0.2.3 gpm? ( =sys-libs/gpm-1.19.6 ) postgres? (
Jason Stubbs wrote:
That's a standard repoman thing. Details are only printed if there are less
than 12 occurrences of a specific warning unless repoman full is run. Not
sure why it wasn't being displayed if there was only one occurrence.
As it turns out, there were exactly 12.
The patch
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
and would like to help
I'm up for being a volunteer here.
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:38 +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 23:06 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Earlier tonight, I discussed with halcy0n our differing opinions of the
need for modular X to enter ~arch and break trees for some ~arch users.
In my opinion, this is acceptable and beneficial, as ~arch users should
already be those
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
pull in
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:25 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
The problem with that is that it removes all motivation to ever port the
packages. They'll just stay that way forever, where forever means until
I threaten to remove that from the virtual, in which case we'll be in
the same scenario we
Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I did some rough calculations and we are porting about 29 pkgs/day.
At this rate it will take roughly 30 days to have all packages ported to
ModX.
spyderous wants it tomorrow,
HalycOn wants it when all is ported.
I didn't say all of it ported. It seems
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
We should aim for when it will be done in a way that minimizes the
breakage for all of our users. Yes, breakage will happen, but we can wait
until its down to a more reasonable value.
And we probably should announce somewhere that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
Yes, some packages are going to break. But I intend to keep this to a
minimum on packages people care about, as measured by the existence of
an open porting
Mike Doty wrote:
I think before you go forward with something like this you should give a
suitable period of warning, it's going to create a lot of bug work for
all of us.
Have you seen my daily emails for the past week and a half? =)
I have the feeling that it will create the most work for
Mark Loeser wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages are
On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 13:32 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mark Loeser wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:32:00 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Loeser wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported
ebuild pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
So here's my plan: Before modular X enters ~arch, I will ensure that all
porting bugs blocking #112675 are closed. As new bugs are filed, I will
ensure that they are closed within 2 days, giving their
Alec Warner wrote:
Well IMHO, you can do what you want and if any arch team doesn't like it
they can always pmask it themselves in their arch profile. I will say I
disagree with putting it into ~arch in the current state, although I
agree with the rationale, and it IS your package(s), just as
maillog: 24/01/2006-12:25:01(-0500): Mark Loeser types
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
What's wrong with the
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
and would like to help
I'm up for being a volunteer here.
All devs who've
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:33:32 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported
| ebuild pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that
| some people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages are
| ported, but
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:35:07 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if there are archs that would rather not move to modular X, that's
their prerogative. The way I look at it is, sometimes change comes at
a price. I really hope they aren't any archs I use though, because I
take a
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:00:14 -0700 Joshua Baergen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| To be clear here: nothing will be broken. Xorg 7.0 will just not
| provide virtual/x11 (and in fact blocks it), so there will be issues
| with blocks showing up due to the upgrade path. Avoiding the upgrade
| (and
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:00:14 -0700 Joshua Baergen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| To be clear here: nothing will be broken. Xorg 7.0 will just not
| provide virtual/x11 (and in fact blocks it), so there will be issues
| with blocks showing up due to the upgrade path.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
* There is a clean upgrade solution available that will result in
non-ported packages merely pulling in a load of extra unnecessary
packages (that non-modular users have anyway).
* The clean solution visibly illustrates that a package is unported.
Users who are
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Possible, but we can't prove this one way or the other. Certainly very
few modular X users have encountered apps that are still unported, as
evidenced by very few remaining blockers on #112675. And there are a
fairly large number of
... people using modular X already,
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Please contact me if you'd like to be one of these volunteers. Requirements:
A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
and would like to help
I've decided to give it a wait for a few days
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11
| gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue
| and think Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pulled in here. I must have a
| package
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| * The clean solution is the solution originally proposed to this
| list, and the reason we are using new style virtuals.
|
| No, this is wrong. The
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11
| gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue
| and think Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pulled in
Jason Stubbs wrote:
Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom
virtual/x11 cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old
style virtuals.
Is that so? I guess this must be wrong, then:
/usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:# Only have this for
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks
| that isn't the case...
|
| Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The
| atom virtual/x11 cannot be limited to specific
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Where do they define lots? Many packages will legitimately pull in a
| large quantity of libs or apps that are not installed by someone
| emerging xorg-server, e.g.
Heck, add in a non-ported-package fake package hack if
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11 will
| make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me.
Why must it drag out for years? There's no difference in the speed of
porting
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom
virtual/x11 cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old
style virtuals.
Is that so? I guess this must be wrong, then:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed,
| right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just
| institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:34:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11
| | will make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me.
|
53 matches
Mail list logo
