On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:46:21 -0400 as excerpted:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:14
Hi all,
A new doheader (and newheader) helper function is on our list of
possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just
copy the code from doconfd or doenvd.
However, this function was suggested in Bug 21310 [1] which was filed
in 2003. The absence of any activity there makes
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Since not all the buildsystem we support use make for the actual
build, and they don't necessarily support make-like options (-jX -s
and so on), it would be nice to be able to express a JOBS variable
that could be used for parallel build
On 8/31/12 10:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
A new doheader (and newheader) helper function is on our list of
possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just
copy the code from doconfd or doenvd.
I'm somewhat interested. Here's the current code dev-lang/v8 uses to
install
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:57:25 schrieb Rich Freeman:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org wrote:
scarabeus suggested the change dev should use latest eapi when bumping
to dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses.
He was asked to
On 31-08-2012 11:03:06 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
any fun to look up things in PMS anew everytime you edit something. (Was the
prayer to Paludis only required in EAPI=7 in src_prepare or in EAPI=8 in
pkg_preinst?) This problem could however also be solved by selectively
phasing
out
Am Freitag, 31. August 2012, 11:11:37 schrieb Fabian Groffen:
On 31-08-2012 11:03:06 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
any fun to look up things in PMS anew everytime you edit something. (Was
the prayer to Paludis only required in EAPI=7 in src_prepare or in
EAPI=8 in pkg_preinst?) This
Right now, it just contains the function Tiziano listed in his post[1].
I'd appreciate further ideas, feedback, and possibly an example from
someone who will actually need it.
---
gx86/eclass/boost-utils.eclass | 47 ++
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
Am Freitag, 31. August 2012, 11:03:06 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:57:25 schrieb Rich Freeman:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org wrote:
scarabeus suggested the change dev should use latest eapi when
bumping
to dev must use
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number of
packages in @system, for various reasons including both the parallel
merge
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:06:06 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of every
single ebuild.
Every ebuild doesn't need all of those - that is the whole point. As
Duncan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
rant
Let's say, we as in Gentoo decide that we're completely sick of keeping all
that old code out there adjusted to newer and newer gcc versions that are more
and more critical towards minor details of the c++
On 08/30/2012 08:33 PM, Duncan wrote:
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:38:11 -0400 as excerpted:
My main concern is doing bumps all the time just for their own sake.
Yes. That's why I didn't tackle that side at all. But I've seen the
PM's can never drop support for an EAPI
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we
should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS
because this name is too generic, see the old discussion.) Then we
could add it to EAPI
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:58:00 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Of course an individual PM could choose to keep support for as long
as they want, but unless I'm missing something, that'd let PMs drop
support for old EAPIs if desired, with at least a reasonably sane
upgrade path for
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:42:10 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:06:06 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
Duncan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I believe that the more important direction here is to make
development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEPENDs over
and over again to every single
On 31 August 2012 11:05, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I believe that the more important direction here is to make
development *easier*, not harder.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:45:21 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we
should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we
should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS
because this name is too
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I believe that the more important direction here is to make
development
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:48:23 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of
every single ebuild.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 11:27 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 12:08 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 31/08/12 11:27 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Coming back to
On 31-08-2012 18:08:12 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
And for a reasonable Gentoo toolchain, pkg-config is a must-have. At
least since we deprecated and are seriously fighting libtool.
what?
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:12:58 +0200
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 31-08-2012 18:08:12 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
And for a reasonable Gentoo toolchain, pkg-config is a must-have. At
least since we deprecated and are seriously fighting libtool.
what?
Libtool archives, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 12:12 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 31-08-2012 18:08:12 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
And for a reasonable Gentoo toolchain, pkg-config is a must-have.
At least since we deprecated and are seriously fighting libtool.
what?
deprecated
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:08:12 +0200 as excerpted:
Reducing @system may be a goal but it should be a *reasonable* goal. Not
reducing because we can reduce but because it is bloated with unneeded
software.
We shouldn't even try to go below POSIX system requirements; we
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
people seem to be settling on x86_64-pc-linux-gnux32 as the default tuple, so
i'll be updating our profiles to use that by default. this shouldn't impact
anyone already running x32 as the existing tuple/ABI settings should continue
to
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is to
have all the deps specified and nothing left in @system, and while
progress isn't fast by
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:56:06 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is
to have all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Good evening everyone,
It is again this time of year where the Recruiters project[1] is
seeking more manpower. We are looking for a maximum of two people to
join this project as soon as possible. The ideal candidates must be
developers for more
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:03:33 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is to
have all the deps
For those who may not know, chromium-os currently uses a
hard-host-depends ebuild as a workaround for our lack of HDEPEND support
[1]. We could easily add HDEPEND in EAPI 5 if we want, since we already
have a Portage patch attached to bug #317337 [2]. Here is a summary of
what that Portage patch
On 08/31/2012 04:03 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
For those who may not know, chromium-os currently uses a
hard-host-depends ebuild as a workaround for our lack of HDEPEND support
[1]. We could easily add HDEPEND in EAPI 5 if we want, since we already
have a Portage patch attached to bug #317337 [2].
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
For those who may not know, chromium-os currently uses a
hard-host-depends ebuild as a workaround for our lack of HDEPEND
support [1]. We could easily add HDEPEND in EAPI 5 if we want, since
we already have a Portage patch
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:01:01 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net
wrote:
Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:31:43 -0400
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:03:33 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/31/2012 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
What exactly would the rules be for handling a package that is in both
DEPEND and HDEPEND, when ROOT is in effect? Would the versions be
expected to match? What about use flags?
For the sake of simplicity, I
I like this as well.
However, since we're going to introduce a *DEPEND split, how about
splitting PDEPEND as well?
As far as I've seen, PDEPEND has two (or more?) different meanings:
- advisory (for instance, informing users about plugins)
- cycle-breaking to help the dependency solver
Would it
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:53:35 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure if you're aware of it but Gentoo doesn't aim at
supporting solely Linux and no other system.
elf != linux
Also, please tell me how to handle multiple slots sanely without
pkg-config in a package
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:40:27 +0200
Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
Would it be possible to add support for ODEPEND (as in optional
dependencies -- I don't really care about the variable name) as well?
This would be quite beneficial under certain circumstances. One of
these is when
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:11:38 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/31/2012 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
What exactly would the rules be for handling a package that is in
both DEPEND and HDEPEND, when ROOT is in effect? Would the versions
On 08/31/2012 02:40 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
I like this as well.
However, since we're going to introduce a *DEPEND split, how about
splitting PDEPEND as well?
As far as I've seen, PDEPEND has two (or more?) different meanings:
- advisory (for instance, informing users about plugins)
-
On 08/31/2012 02:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:11:38 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/31/2012 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
What exactly would the rules be for handling a package that is in
both DEPEND and HDEPEND,
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:58:49 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the
runtime-switchable USE flags proposal:
https://gist.github.com/2945569
Do we have an implementation of this yet? I have extreme doubts about
the viability of the
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the runtime-switchable
USE flags proposal:
https://gist.github.com/2945569
runtime-switchable USE flags for optional dependencies o.O? It sounds
like using a spoon to eat
On 08/31/2012 03:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:58:49 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the
runtime-switchable USE flags proposal:
https://gist.github.com/2945569
Do we have an implementation of this yet? I
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 00:18:07 +0200
Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org
wrote:
For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the
runtime-switchable USE flags proposal:
https://gist.github.com/2945569
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:58:49 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/31/2012 02:40 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
I like this as well.
However, since we're going to introduce a *DEPEND split, how about
splitting PDEPEND as well?
As far as I've seen, PDEPEND has two (or more?)
On 08/31/2012 03:18 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the runtime-switchable
USE flags proposal:
https://gist.github.com/2945569
runtime-switchable USE flags for optional
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:49:34 -0400
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:53:35 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure if you're aware of it but Gentoo doesn't aim at
supporting solely Linux and no other system.
elf != linux
Gentoo !=
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:03:25 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
runtime-switchable USE flags for optional dependencies o.O? It
sounds like using a spoon to eat spaghetti to me.
All suggested deps are not equal, so USE flags give you the ability to
pick and choose the ones that you
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:03:25 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think SDEPEND is a much simpler approach to the issue, why
introducing a new kind of USE flags to address what really belongs
to *DEPEND?
I guess we could combine the two ideas if we allow USE conditionals
inside
On 8/31/2012 4:48 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of every
single ebuild.
Every ebuild doesn't need all of those
Gregory M. Turner posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:13:20 -0700 as excerpted:
For the record, I'm not saying we need to put pkgconfig in - I'm totally
agnostic about that, as I am about whether it should be brought in as a
dependency.
[Just replying here as it's handy.]
I don't believe the
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 01:05:39 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:49:34 -0400
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:53:35 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure if you're aware of it but Gentoo doesn't
On 08/31/2012 04:07 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:03:25 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
runtime-switchable USE flags for optional dependencies o.O? It
sounds like using a spoon to eat spaghetti to me.
All suggested deps are not equal, so USE flags give you the
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:51:08 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
That arbitrary collection of packages is called a system. I don't think
the goal for Gentoo should be to abandon standards like POSIX in favor
of 'design system yourself but don't come crying to us if you forget
some
61 matches
Mail list logo
