Re: [gentoo-dev] And thanks for all the fish...

2009-03-21 Thread Timothy Redaelli
On Friday 20 March 2009 09:29:49 Markus Rothe wrote: Hello, it's a classical subject for a classical reason: I don't have time to contribute work to Gentoo anymore. So please retire me [1]. It was fun to work with all of you and it is a great experience to work in such a big project. You

[gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Markos Chandras
Hello folks, Qt-creator[1] program can support perforce[2] software configuration manager. My concern is the perforce license. According to their site[3] there is a dual(?) license. There is the standard commercial license[4] and one for free software development[4]. Should I add

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Saturday 21 March 2009, Markos Chandras wrote: Doing some research I found out that perforce-cli was in the portage back in 2006 but not anymore. Can somebody recall the reason why it is not there anymore? If it wasn't a license issue , I want to bring it back ( at least the client

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Markos Chandras
On Saturday 21 March 2009 14:50:08 Robert Buchholz wrote: On Saturday 21 March 2009, Markos Chandras wrote: Doing some research I found out that perforce-cli was in the portage back in 2006 but not anymore. Can somebody recall the reason why it is not there anymore? If it wasn't a

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Markos Chandras wrote: Hello folks, Qt-creator[1] program can support perforce[2] software configuration manager. My concern is the perforce license. According to their site[3] there is a dual(?) license. There is the standard commercial license[4] and one for free software

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I took a look on EAPI2 specifications but couldn't find how mirrors behave with arrows. It's supposed to say this: In EAPIs supporting arrows, if an arrow is used, the filename used when saving to \t{DISTDIR} shall

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Markos Chandras
On Saturday 21 March 2009 15:46:19 Sebastian Pipping wrote: Markos Chandras wrote: Hello folks, Qt-creator[1] program can support perforce[2] software configuration manager. My concern is the perforce license. According to their site[3] there is a dual(?) license. There is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Markos Chandras wrote: Sebastian, Why would I want to do that? The license files should stay untouched. There is nothing wrong of having both licenses on ebuild since this is the upstream policy. I forgot that the license files upstream might change so I agree you need a copy

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I took a look on EAPI2 specifications but couldn't find how mirrors behave with arrows. It's supposed to say this: In EAPIs

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. Be more specific, what actual problems have you

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Markos Chandras
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:41:39 Alec Warner wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I took a look on EAPI2 specifications but couldn't find how mirrors

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
Alec Warner schrieb am 21.03.2009 20:45: Be more specific, what actual problems have you encountered? What are some other ways we could mitigate these issues (it seems like tool improvements could be a big one here)? Regarding the depreciation of EAPI's I think eclasses will probably

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point in the future. Uh. Why? Introducing a policy

[gentoo-dev] pybugz

2009-03-21 Thread William Hubbs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 All, if you are following pybugz, we have moved development from google code (which is subversion) to github. The url for the page there is http://www.github.com/ColdWind/pybugz Thanks, - -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Markos Chandras
On Saturday 21 March 2009 19:37:12 Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alexey Shvetsov
Alec Warner wrote: I am interested in the number of ebuilds at specific APIs in the tree, do you have those numbers? Basically, how much work is this (raw ebuild count)? Total ebuilds 26209 EAPI0 ebuilds 22880 EAPI1 ebuilds 1855 EAPI2 ebuilds 1474 this numbers based on regexps =) --

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:21:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until EAPI0 can be obsoleted at

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, so we don't have to rewrite tons of things. So? When people do new things, they

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Alexey Shvetsov wrote: Alec Warner wrote: I am interested in the number of ebuilds at specific APIs in the tree, do you have those numbers? Basically, how much work is this (raw ebuild count)? Total ebuilds 26209 EAPI0 ebuilds 22880 EAPI1 ebuilds 1855 EAPI2 ebuilds 1474 this numbers

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, so we don't have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:02:54 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: So? When people do new things, they can move the EAPI forward. That's not a reason to modify existing things. The added complexity of having a dozen eapis does not offer any benefits to the average developer. There

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which eapi has which

Re: [gentoo-dev] perforce client proper license

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:41:39 Alec Warner wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0200 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point in the future. I would set the start of deprecation

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote: Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. Making 1 or 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting existing things? That's just an

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:51:11 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: The same kind that always happens when lots of ebuilds get changed. ... lots of new features and a few bugs that get fixed the next day? Hey, that sounds quite bad. And maybe some new herd testers? How

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote: Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. Making 1 or 2 the default

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread AllenJB
Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some

Re: [gentoo-dev] And thanks for all the fish...

2009-03-21 Thread Daniel Black
And thankyou for all the fish you've given. http://cia.vc/stats/author/corsair You've done a pretty good job of making Gentoo great especially for ppc64. Good luck with whatever you do next.