[gentoo-dev] PHP targets

2011-05-16 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
I just tried to update one of my systems, and the emerge -uavDN world failed due to the requirement of php_targets_php5-2. Now, I do have php installed on this box, but I had never set the targets so far. Perhaps a news item or some other notification for this kind of stuff wouldn't be out of

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/nspr: nspr-4.8.8.ebuild ChangeLog

2011-05-16 Thread Peter Volkov
В Птн, 13/05/2011 в 21:13 +, Jory Pratt (anarchy) пишет: plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/nspr/ChangeLog?rev=1.161content-type=text/plain src_configure() { cd ${S}/build echo ${T}/test.c $(tc-getCC) -c ${T}/test.c -o ${T}/test.o

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/nspr: nspr-4.8.8.ebuild ChangeLog

2011-05-16 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno lun, 16/05/2011 alle 13.15 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto: It looks like good idea to unify them. Or you could use, you know, $(tc-arch) from toolchain-funcs.eclass? :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/nspr: nspr-4.8.8.ebuild ChangeLog

2011-05-16 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 5/16/11 11:15 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: Why do you need such complex detection? Is it possibly similar to the scenario from http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=296917, i.e. multilib portage and other non-standard configurations? If so, it may also be useful to re-use the detection logic in

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Mark Loeser
Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org said: vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02 Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild Log: old Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/ It'd also be better to do this all as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread RB
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 07:41, Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org wrote: Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org said: vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild   Log:   old Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs. It would also seem manifests

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Kacper Kowalik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 W dniu 16.05.2011 15:41, Mark Loeser pisze: Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org said: vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02 Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild Log: old Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)
El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend to quickly convert into the witch hunt and seldom lead to anything conclusive. To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer following the list) it is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend to quickly convert into the witch hunt and seldom lead to anything conclusive. To

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Alec Warner
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Mark Loeser
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org said: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: Neither of those points include

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:45:14PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: Neither of

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 05/17/2011 03:15 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: Let's start with generalized example so everyone gets the idea... Reference: man 8 pklocalauthority /etc/polkit-1/localauthority/10-vendor.d/example-udisks.pkla [Local users] Identity=unix-group:plugdev Action=org.freedesktop.udisks.*

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Remove USE=v4l2 and rename the consumers to plain USE=v4l?

2011-05-16 Thread Samuli Suominen
First of all, it's disappointing how little the packages in the linux-headers-2.6.38 tracker[1] intrest people. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/359595 Planning on masking some of the low hanging fruits from the tracker. And after the bugs are mostly (or all) dealt with, I suggest we remove USE=v4l2

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Duncan
Samuli Suominen posted on Tue, 17 May 2011 03:20:40 +0300 as excerpted: On 05/17/2011 03:15 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: The above file would grant permission with or without active local ConsoleKit session to users in plugdev group to everything udisks handles. Notice that getting active

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Remove USE=v4l2 and rename the consumers to plain USE=v4l?

2011-05-16 Thread Duncan
Samuli Suominen posted on Tue, 17 May 2011 03:48:23 +0300 as excerpted: First of all, it's disappointing how little the packages in the linux-headers-2.6.38 tracker[1] intrest people. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/359595 Indeed. I finally decided to try to get the netbook's webcam running the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 17 May 2011 03:20:40 +0300 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: Futhermore I would like the baselayout package to create the groups decided here, be it wheel (already there), plugdev, or more fine grained storage/power ones. Just my .03 PLN -- I'd like to remind you that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Christopher Head
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 17 May 2011 01:13:15 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: User perspective... If it's at all possible to continue to have a consolekit/polkit-less system, making them USE-based dependencies of kde, gnome, etc, relying

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: [...] User perspective... For the sake of having a user with a different point of view, let me say that I firmly believe the new *kit daemons (along things like pulseaudio, systemd, GNOME 3, KDE 4) are the future, and Gentoo