[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-dotnet/ant-dotnet

2010-10-07 Thread Pacho Ramos
# Pacho Ramos (7 Oct 2010) # Unmaintained since 2006 by upstream, no required by # any package in the tree (bug #340039) and most # distributions have already dropped it. # # Removal on 2010-11-07 dev-dotnet/ant-dotnet signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-07 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* David Leverton schrieb: > > And for Distros, it doesnt make sense to try to support anything imaginable. > > Not breaking things that already work would be a decent compromise. Any concerete example on what would break if .la files aren't installed anymore ? > > I'm now working in embedded

Re: [gentoo-dev] [enhancement proposal] Per-file Manifest GPG signatures

2010-10-07 Thread James Cloos
> "RHJ" == Robin H Johnson writes: >> Include the signing keyid in the filename to support both allowing >> multiple devs to sign a file and an easy indication of who signed it. RHJ> You can extract keyid from any signature trivially. But if it is not in the filename you cannot have multipl

[gentoo-dev] New eclass: scons-utils.eclass

2010-10-07 Thread Michał Górny
Hello devs, I've just committed a new eclass to gx86 -- it's called scons-utils and it's supposed to help creating clean ebuilds for packages using the SCons buildsystem. Right now, the eclass addresses the two following important issues: ${MAKEOPTS} cleaning Currently the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [enhancement proposal] Per-file Manifest GPG signatures

2010-10-07 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:17:01AM -0400, James Cloos wrote: > > "RHJ" == Robin H Johnson writes: > >> Include the signing keyid in the filename to support both allowing > >> multiple devs to sign a file and an easy indication of who signed it. > RHJ> You can extract keyid from any signature t

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: scons.eclass

2010-10-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 20:26 Wed 06 Oct , Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:52:33 -0500 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > local flag=${1} > > > local varname=${2:-${flag#!}} > > > > Could you explain how this works to me, please? It seems like you're > > reversing the logic when people use the !fl

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: scons.eclass

2010-10-07 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:08:30 -0500 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > So what happens if I want the !use syntax and say `use_scons !ssl > nossl`? ${2} is set then, and ${flag#!} isn't even evaluated. BTW I've changed that already to make $(use_scons !ssl) output nossl. This should be more logical. -- B