Re: [gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2009-10-25 23h59 UTC

2009-10-26 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2009-10-25 23h59 UTC. Removals: [snip] x11-themes/gtk-engines-kde4             2009-10-19 16:48:05    

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread AllenJB
Maciej Mrozowski wrote: Hi there! Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking place 22 Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon), having Gentoo GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead with splitting desktop profile to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Samuli Suominen
AllenJB wrote: * Why is the developer profile even shown on eselect profile? Wouldn't it be better to keep unsupported profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo devs can cope with setting their profile manually in favor of a little sanity preservation for the rest of us? It's not only for Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Support for multiple ABIs for amd64 (64bit,32bit) in multilib overlay

2009-10-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 22 October 2009 11:26:58 Thomas Sachau wrote: Mike Frysinger schrieb: On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:46:07 Thomas Sachau wrote: Mike Frysinger schrieb: how do you control whether the multilib headers are needed ? it'll probably make sense in general, but there are def some

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multilib and the compatibility to singlelib

2009-10-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 07:34:18 Michael Haubenwallner wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 20 October 2009 09:06:29 Michael Haubenwallner wrote: As I'm building the toolchain myself too, I configure it with the 32bit host triplet on each platform, usually disabling multilib.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread AllenJB
Samuli Suominen wrote: AllenJB wrote: * Why is the developer profile even shown on eselect profile? Wouldn't it be better to keep unsupported profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo devs can cope with setting their profile manually in favor of a little sanity preservation for the rest of us?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is?

2009-10-26 Thread Ladislav Laska
This is awesome! It really like the idea, but (there is always but, right?) it doesn't work. I have googled for it for a while and haven't found any reference how to do it exactly. I have created mentioned file and run emerge, but I've got $ sudo emerge -av @critical !!! '@critical' is not a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Saturday 24 October 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking place 22 Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon), having Gentoo GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead with splitting desktop

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Joshua Saddler
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:11:38 +0200 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: AllenJB wrote: * Why is the developer profile even shown on eselect profile? Wouldn't it be better to keep unsupported profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo devs can cope with setting their profile manually in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2009-10-25 23h59 UTC

2009-10-26 Thread Samuli Suominen
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2009-10-25 23h59 UTC. Removals: [snip] x11-themes/gtk-engines-kde4

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Zeerak Waseem
Having recently installed gentoo, I can see hwo it could get confusing with DE specific profiles. Especially as a number of users that are new to linux might very well have no idea what DE they're going to use. And the same can be said for users who decided to run ubuntu to try linux and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Alex Alexander
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 21:42, Zeerak Waseem zeera...@gmail.com wrote: having to choose a profile, gives less time for the wavering user Why all the fuss? No-one said we're removing the plain desktop profile, we're simply adding *more* options. If you want generic DE options pre-enabled, choose

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: KDE3 applications with bugs and KDE4 replacements.

2009-10-26 Thread Hanno Böck
Am Sonntag 25 Oktober 2009 schrieb Samuli Suominen: # Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (25 Oct 2009) # Replaced by: # # =media-gfx/digikam-0.10 # kde-base/gwenview # =media-gfx/kphotoalbum-4 # =media-plugins/kipi-plugins-0.6 # # Masked for removal in 30 days. media-libs/libkdcraw

Re: [gentoo-dev] make install without die (gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/hardlink, app-arch/duff )

2009-10-26 Thread Heath N. Caldwell
On 2009-10-23 09:28, Torsten Veller wrote: An imprecise search (/make .*install$/) revealed another 200 packages: http://dev.gentoo.org/~tove/files/makeinstallwithoutdie.txt Fixed app-admin/tenshi. -- Heath Caldwell - hncaldw...@gentoo.org pgpClKv2i8vwN.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Rémi Cardona
Le 24/10/2009 15:42, Maciej Mrozowski a écrit : If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list. IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with. I've always considered Gentoo to be an

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Dale
Alex Alexander wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 21:42, Zeerak Waseem zeera...@gmail.com wrote: having to choose a profile, gives less time for the wavering user Why all the fuss? No-one said we're removing the plain desktop profile, we're simply adding *more* options. If you want

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Maciej Mrozowski
On Monday 26 of October 2009 21:06:04 Rémi Cardona wrote: IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with. I've always considered Gentoo to be an opt-in distro where after a successful install, you end up with a bash prompt and a _means_ of installing new packages.

[gentoo-dev] qemu/kvm image with prepared multilib setup for testing

2009-10-26 Thread Thomas Sachau
Hi, for those, who are lazy or not able to setup a system with multilib-portage, i created a qemu/kvm image, which is basicly a default amd64 autobuild tarball with added multilib-portage and default enabled 32bit libs for almost all packages. You can find the image at your local mirror in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Josh Sled
Maciej Mrozowski reave...@gmail.com writes: And I fail to see *any* point in forcing users to learn Gentoo internals (sic! like USE flags). What else? Ebuild syntax so that they're able to get to know what particular global USE flag is responsible for, when someone forgot (or decided not

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Duncan
Maciej Mrozowski posted on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:40:17 +0100 as excerpted: And I fail to see *any* point in forcing users to learn Gentoo internals (sic! like USE flags). What else? Ebuild syntax so that they're able to get to know what particular global USE flag is responsible for, when

Re: [gentoo-dev] gdata-build eclass proposal

2009-10-26 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:06:09AM -0400, Kyle Cavin wrote: snip # @ECLASS: gdata-build.eclass # @BLURB: Eclass for gdata API ebuilds. # @DESCRIPTION: # This eclass contains various functions that are used when building gdata APIs. EAPI=2 EAPI can be tested for in eclasses, but

[gentoo-dev] Re: New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is?

2009-10-26 Thread Duncan
Ladislav Laska posted on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:55:51 +0100 as excerpted: I have created mentioned file and run emerge, but I've got $ sudo emerge -av @critical !!! '@critical' is not a valid package atom. !!! Please check ebuild(5) for full details And I have no idea why. Also, I'm using

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Richard Freeman
Duncan wrote: Actually, yes. Gentoo has never been a hand-holding distribution. We try to provide documentation and reasonable defaults for any apps the user chooses to install, and let the user configure what they will. Gentoo is about choice. Well, except for the choice to not have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Rémi Cardona
Le 26/10/2009 22:58, Richard Freeman a écrit : Gentoo is about choice. No it isn't. Gentoo is about empowering users, giving them the ability and tools to _change_ the distro to _their_ needs. Gentoo does _not_ cater to all the possible needs. This is somewhat off-topic, but it irks me

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Zeerak Waseem
When it all comes down, I just fail to see how the handbook doesn't provide the pointers. I've always been about getting my system up and running, and then learn whatever needs learning, this means that whilst I didn't have more than a basic knowledge and understanding of useflags when

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Dawid Węgliński
On Monday 26 October 2009 21:06:04 Rémi Cardona wrote: Le 24/10/2009 15:42, Maciej Mrozowski a écrit : If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list. IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Zeerak Waseem
But instead of just giving the user the answer, wouldn't it be more appropriate, as far as understanding useflags and their uses goes, to give users lists of useflags and what they do. Ie a list of base use flags for say, kde, and also what basic useflags to disable, and a suggestion to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Jesús Guerrero
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:52:04 +0200, Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 21:42, Zeerak Waseem zeera...@gmail.com wrote: having to choose a profile, gives less time for the wavering user Why all the fuss? No-one said we're removing the plain desktop profile, we're

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Dawid Węgliński
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:26:38 Zeerak Waseem wrote: But instead of just giving the user the answer, wouldn't it be more appropriate, as far as understanding useflags and their uses goes, to give users lists of useflags and what they do. Ie a list of base use flags for say, kde, and also

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Dawid Węgliński
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 01:34:55 Dawid Węgliński wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:26:38 Zeerak Waseem wrote: But instead of just giving the user the answer, wouldn't it be more appropriate, as far as understanding useflags and their uses goes, to give users lists of useflags and what

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 25 October 2009 03:41:10 Jesús Guerrero wrote: I fail to see how this is simpler and/or more versatile than simply using USE=kde gnome, USE=-kde gnome, USE=-gnome kde or USE=-gnome -kde. What exactly are we going to gain by adding yet another level of complexity where two simple USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup

2009-10-26 Thread James Cloos
Petteri == Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org writes: Petteri Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to Petteri EAPI 2. If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we Petteri want to keep live ebuilds for them around? What possible benefit could be had from dropping

[gentoo-dev] Re: Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2009-10-25 23h59 UTC

2009-10-26 Thread Jonathan Callen
Samuli Suominen wrote: Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2009-10-25 23h59 UTC. Removals: [snip]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options

2009-10-26 Thread Arthur D.
I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that again. Paul, there's good option to filter _only_ safe options from

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options

2009-10-26 Thread Paul Varner
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 20:04 +0200, Arthur D. wrote: I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that again. Paul, there's good