Re: [gentoo-dev] New eshowkw
On 28/10/10 02:33, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: Ok i finished my separation as i said yesterday in some of the mails so here is the 0.5.0 version with self install script and so on :) New features: * sorting based on user decision, version or keywords can be on top * filtering archs Implementing additional functions should be really simple now :) The package: http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/eshowkw-0.5.0.tar.xz Please test and let me know how you like it ~/tree/sys-devel/gcc $ eshowkw Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/eshowkw, line 9, in module emain(sys.argv) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/eshowkw/__init__.py, line 95, in main map(lambda x: process_display(x, keywords, portdir), package) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/eshowkw/__init__.py, line 95, in lambda map(lambda x: process_display(x, keywords, portdir), package) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/eshowkw/__init__.py, line 18, in process_display portdata = keywords_content(package, keywords.keywords, portdir, use_overlays, ignore_slots, order, bold, topper) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/eshowkw/keywords_content.py, line 264, in __init__ porttree = port.db[portage_root]['porttree'].dbapi KeyError: '/home/justin/tree' signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha1/cvs/Linux x86_64)
1.16 net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Index: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.15 -r1.16
--- aggregate-1.6.ebuild 17 Oct 2010 04:46:37 - 1.15
+++ aggregate-1.6.ebuild 28 Oct 2010 09:25:23 - 1.16
@@ -1,26 +1,33 @@
# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
1.15 2010/10/17 04:46:37 leio Exp $
+# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
1.16 2010/10/28 09:25:23 ssuominen Exp $
-inherit eutils
+EAPI=2
+inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=aggregate takes a list of prefixes in conventional format on
stdin, and performs two optimisations to reduce the length of the prefix
list.
HOMEPAGE=http://dist.automagic.org/;
SRC_URI=${HOMEPAGE}/${P}.tar.gz
+
LICENSE=as-is
SLOT=0
KEYWORDS=alpha amd64 hppa ia64 ~mips ppc sparc x86
IUSE=
-DEPEND=
+
RDEPEND=dev-lang/perl
+DEPEND=
-src_unpack() {
- unpack ${A}
+src_prepare() {
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-build-fixup.patch
}
+src_configure() {
+ tc-export CC
+ econf
+}
+
src_install() {
- dobin aggregate aggregate-ios
- doman aggregate.1 aggregate-ios.1
- dodoc LICENSE HISTORY
+ dobin aggregate aggregate-ios || die
+ doman aggregate{,-ios}.1
+ dodoc HISTORY
}
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Fabian Groffen posted on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:30:55 +0200 as excerpted: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. ++ I noticed an equally impenetrable two-letter qa changelog entry on another package recently. Please at /least/ list a bug number, or what sort of changes were made (in general). Some of us Gentoo users take the admin part of the job seriously, you know, and get frustrated when the log is as opaque as that one was. Here, a simple: QA: cleanup, EAPI change ... would have been reasonable enough detail, from /my/ admin perspective, at least. Thanks. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/blogtk: blogtk-1.0.ebuild
Le jeudi 28 octobre 2010 à 12:32 +, Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) a écrit : ssuominen10/10/28 12:32:21 Modified: blogtk-1.0.ebuild Log: header (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha1/cvs/Linux x86_64) Revision ChangesPath 1.7 net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild?rev=1.7view=markup plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild?rev=1.7content-type=text/plain diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild?r1=1.6r2=1.7 Index: blogtk-1.0.ebuild === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- blogtk-1.0.ebuild 26 Jul 2008 22:48:58 - 1.6 +++ blogtk-1.0.ebuild 28 Oct 2010 12:32:21 - 1.7 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ -# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation +# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 -# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild,v 1.6 2008/07/26 22:48:58 eva Exp $ +# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild,v 1.7 2010/10/28 12:32:21 ssuominen Exp $ inherit eutils what's this change for ? blogtk-2 stabilization will come soon anyway... -- Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org Gentoo
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/blogtk: blogtk-1.0.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 03:55 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: Le jeudi 28 octobre 2010 à 12:32 +, Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) a écrit : ssuominen10/10/28 12:32:21 Modified: blogtk-1.0.ebuild Log: header (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha1/cvs/Linux x86_64) Revision ChangesPath 1.7 net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild?rev=1.7view=markup plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild?rev=1.7content-type=text/plain diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild?r1=1.6r2=1.7 Index: blogtk-1.0.ebuild === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- blogtk-1.0.ebuild26 Jul 2008 22:48:58 - 1.6 +++ blogtk-1.0.ebuild28 Oct 2010 12:32:21 - 1.7 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ -# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation +# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 -# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild,v 1.6 2008/07/26 22:48:58 eva Exp $ +# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/blogtk/blogtk-1.0.ebuild,v 1.7 2010/10/28 12:32:21 ssuominen Exp $ inherit eutils what's this change for ? blogtk-2 stabilization will come soon anyway... kind of obvious, isn't it? someone edited the ebuild without updating ebuild header to 2010, repoman bitched about it. :)
[gentoo-dev] util-linux cramfs use flag
Hi, It is possible to cancle the cramfs support in util-linux. Why there is no cramfs use flag for it? Regards, Kfir
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/mpfc/files: mpfc-1.3.7-INT_MAX.patch
On Tuesday 26 October 2010 12:11:50 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday, October 25, 2010 18:17:21 Alexis Ballier wrote: On Monday 25 October 2010 19:06:45 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the linux headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... Upstream seem not to care about fixing that; we used to have a patch to fix linux-headers, but Mike dropped it with 2.6.35 to stay as close to upstream as possible. so now we prefer poor workarounds in dozens of packages to fixing the real bug in a single one in order to stay as close as possible to an unresponsive upstream? nice you're free to argue the merits on lkml like anyone else. I thought this was maintainer's job... this package is going to be broken in pretty much every distro out there, so pushing limits.h to whichever package's upstream would be useful too. I'm sorry, I'm used to push patches I, _at least_, believe to be correct. In any case, there's nothing to argue on my side: you seem very well aware that because you're being lazy to fix the bugs and argue with upstream you are pushing stupid workarounds on others because said package happens to be widely used. Fortunately I never had to face such an issue, even though if I happen to, don't expect me to do anything else than forwarding the bug to the headers maintainers with a rant. A.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
wont be happening
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha1/cvs/Linux x86_64)
1.16 net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Index: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.15 -r1.16
--- aggregate-1.6.ebuild 17 Oct 2010 04:46:37 - 1.15
+++ aggregate-1.6.ebuild 28 Oct 2010 09:25:23 - 1.16
@@ -1,26 +1,33 @@
# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v 1.15
2010/10/17 04:46:37 leio Exp $
+# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v 1.16
2010/10/28 09:25:23 ssuominen Exp $
-inherit eutils
+EAPI=2
+inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=aggregate takes a list of prefixes in conventional format on
stdin, and performs two optimisations to reduce the length of the prefix
list.
HOMEPAGE=http://dist.automagic.org/;
SRC_URI=${HOMEPAGE}/${P}.tar.gz
+
LICENSE=as-is
SLOT=0
KEYWORDS=alpha amd64 hppa ia64 ~mips ppc sparc x86
IUSE=
-DEPEND=
+
RDEPEND=dev-lang/perl
+DEPEND=
-src_unpack() {
-unpack ${A}
+src_prepare() {
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-build-fixup.patch
}
+src_configure() {
+tc-export CC
+econf
+}
+
src_install() {
-dobin aggregate aggregate-ios
-doman aggregate.1 aggregate-ios.1
-dodoc LICENSE HISTORY
+dobin aggregate aggregate-ios || die
+doman aggregate{,-ios}.1
+dodoc HISTORY
}
Re: [gentoo-dev] util-linux cramfs use flag
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 04:09:43PM +0200, Kfir Lavi wrote: Hi, It is possible to cancle the cramfs support in util-linux. Why there is no cramfs use flag for it? Regards, Kfir You should really need to open a bug for feature requests -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org Key ID: 441AC410 Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 pgpN9UtBfaOWd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] util-linux cramfs use flag
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 04:09:43PM +0200, Kfir Lavi wrote: Hi, It is possible to cancle the cramfs support in util-linux. Why there is no cramfs use flag for it? Regards, Kfir You should really need to open a bug for feature requests -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org Key ID: 441AC410 Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 Ok, I will open a bug. Tnx
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/blogtk: blogtk-1.0.ebuild
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:41 -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: Good luck if you want to fix these issues, I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of such warnings in the tree. You mean thousands? There is no real reason to fix these repoman warnings in the name of qa ;) Upon commit of an actual worthwhile change, the header will be updated automatically. No one needs to manually update the header when they commit, I guess that wasn't the case in the past because I see the blogtk header had an older date the eva's last commit to it. meh, commit stats ftw! % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2009 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 5449 % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2008 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 2776 % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 1471 % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2006 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 592 % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2005 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 313 % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 38 % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2003 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 0 % qgrep -H Copyright 1999-2002 Gentoo Foundation |wc -l 0
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
wont be happening
I just want to avoid that it becomes legal to change any random ebuild
to someone's liking, and then commit it without ChangeLog (so it is less
visible?) with the commit message qa.
Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have
something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you
didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions.
I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I
actually start looking into what you committed.
You, as a QA member, should extra carefully stick to the standing rules
(even though you don't like them, or find them too slow/bothersome),
because you can't tell others they don't do things you don't bother to
do yourself either, do you?
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/blogtk: blogtk-1.0.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 05:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Thursday 28 October 2010 10:02:35 Samuli Suominen wrote: --- blogtk-1.0.ebuild 26 Jul 2008 22:48:58 - 1.6 +++ blogtk-1.0.ebuild 28 Oct 2010 12:32:21 - 1.7 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ -# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation +# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation [..] inherit eutils what's this change for ? blogtk-2 stabilization will come soon anyway... kind of obvious, isn't it? someone edited the ebuild without updating ebuild header to 2010, repoman bitched about it. :) Good luck if you want to fix these issues, I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of such warnings in the tree. A. That's why I take it category by category basis to keep my sanity. Fact is there are none left in net-misc/ which can't be bad, can it?
Re: [gentoo-dev] New eshowkw
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:33:09 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote: http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/eshowkw-0.5.0.tar.xz Ebuild attached. You may want to make this slight change: $ eshowkw-ng --help [...] -P, --prefix Do not display prefix keywords in output. (default: False) -P, --prefix Display prefix keywords in output. jer eshowkw-0.5.0.ebuild Description: Binary data
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/mpfc/files: mpfc-1.3.7-INT_MAX.patch
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Tuesday 26 October 2010 12:11:50 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday, October 25, 2010 18:17:21 Alexis Ballier wrote: On Monday 25 October 2010 19:06:45 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the linux headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... Upstream seem not to care about fixing that; we used to have a patch to fix linux-headers, but Mike dropped it with 2.6.35 to stay as close to upstream as possible. so now we prefer poor workarounds in dozens of packages to fixing the real bug in a single one in order to stay as close as possible to an unresponsive upstream? nice you're free to argue the merits on lkml like anyone else. I thought this was maintainer's job... the maintainer already has done his due diligence and reviewed the field. at this point, it is *you* who disagrees with the situation thus it is *you* who needs to resolve *your* complaint. this package is going to be broken in pretty much every distro out there, so pushing limits.h to whichever package's upstream would be useful too. I'm sorry, I'm used to push patches I, _at least_, believe to be correct. In any case, there's nothing to argue on my side: you seem very well aware that because you're being lazy to fix the bugs and argue with upstream you are pushing stupid workarounds on others because said package happens to be widely used. Fortunately I never had to face such an issue, even though if I happen to, don't expect me to do anything else than forwarding the bug to the headers maintainers with a rant. you might want to look up some history before making stupid accusations -mike
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/mpfc/files: mpfc-1.3.7-INT_MAX.patch
On 10/28/10 7:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the linux headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... the maintainer already has done his due diligence and reviewed the field. at this point, it is *you* who disagrees with the situation thus it is *you* who needs to resolve *your* complaint. Just curious: what are the technical reasons for that? My understanding is that one header depends on another for proper compilation but doesn't #include it. Is that correct? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 07:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
wont be happening
I just want to avoid that it becomes legal to change any random ebuild
to someone's liking, and then commit it without ChangeLog (so it is less
visible?) with the commit message qa.
Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have
something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you
didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions.
ChangeLog is for users. The package content didn't change at all. There
was nothing to log in for.
At most, we avoided future bug or two about package not respecting CC or
package not installing anything but ebuild succeeding due to missing || die.
I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I
actually start looking into what you committed.
When I see someone skipping ChangeLog, I take it as something so minor,
not worth looking into at all. Quite the opposite.
You, as a QA member, should extra carefully stick to the standing rules
(even though you don't like them, or find them too slow/bothersome),
because you can't tell others they don't do things you don't bother to
do yourself either, do you?
Absolutely, you are right.
Afterall, the ebuild is fine, no? Why are we having this discussion? ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
come on man, all you have to say is clean up and update to EAPI 2.
that is infinitely better than a useless qa. people can easily
interpret QA stuff in a variety of significantly different ways.
-mike
agreed,
I wasn't saying it was a perfect commit message. my point is more why
are we having pointless discussion of commit messages in the first
place? ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
come on man, all you have to say is clean up and update to EAPI 2.
that is infinitely better than a useless qa. people can easily
interpret QA stuff in a variety of significantly different ways.
-mike
agreed,
I wasn't saying it was a perfect commit message. my point is more why
are we having pointless discussion of commit messages in the first
place? ;-)
Because it is not pointless. Useful commit messages save lots of time.
--
Mark Loeser
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web - http://www.halcy0n.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: app-emulation/vmware-dsp
+# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (28 Oct 2010) +# Fails to compile on x86_64 multilib, bug 150495 +# Fails to build properly with glibc-2.12, bug 341183 +# Fails to build with make-3.82, bug 343129 +# Only builds esound frontend now that arts have been removed from tree, +# and then fails to load it, bug 153141 +# Build system ignores most flags, bug 336556 +# +# Masked for removal in 30 days +app-emulation/vmware-dsp
Re: [gentoo-dev] New eshowkw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So now on the eshowkw is part of gentoolkit (in svn, and in next release). If you want to test it and suggest more features/report bugs you can use it as follows: eshowkw [something] equery keywords something Cheers Tomas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzJ7BUACgkQHB6c3gNBRYfGnwCcCbCOV2LKWMtHxrd/luicjLLr TDcAnj2xwouJjyxgh4Js6umTgeRrtIew =rseL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: sys-apps/devicekit-disks
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (29 Oct 2010) # Replaced by sys-fs/udisks # Masked for removal in about 30 days sys-apps/devicekit-disks devicekit-power soon to follow...
Re: [gentoo-dev] New eshowkw
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:33:09 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So now on the eshowkw is part of gentoolkit (in svn, and in next
release). If you want to test it and suggest more features/report
bugs you can use it as follows:
eshowkw [something]
equery keywords something
gentoo-x86/sci-visualization/gnuplot $ eshowkw
('%s%s', ('Ambiguous package name gnuplot.\n', Possibilities:
[u'dev-ruby/gnuplot', u'sci-visualization/gnuplot']))
And there's this:
gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird $ cvs up
j...@bastiaan gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird $ echo jerwashere
thunderbird-3.1.6.ebuild
j...@bastiaan gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird $ eshowkw
* Digest verification failed:
* gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird/thunderbird-3.1.6.ebuild
* Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
* Got: 7688
* Expected: 7677
Failed to obtain metadata
(paths abbreviated)
I can work around this problem by running repoman manifest or similar,
only I don't see why that should be required.
jer
