Hi,
I'm querying this list out of the need of adding a new license[1] for
adobe-pcfi[2].
Suggested name for the license is adobe-pcfi. An other possibility
could be Adobe-PCFI to better match other Adobe* licenses.
The license would be added to the MISC-FREE license group.
If you have any
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
I'm querying this list out of the need of adding a new license[1] for
adobe-pcfi[2].
Suggested name for the license is adobe-pcfi. An other possibility
could be Adobe-PCFI to better match other Adobe* licenses.
If there are other Adobe* already,
Hello,
distutils-r1 (and previously python-distutils-ng) was using custom
phase functions for a while. Recently, hasufell added multilib-minimal
which does the same. Since in both cases the custom functions are
closely related to building multiple variants of the package, I'm
thinking of adding a
The framework provides functions to declare, export and obtain custom
phase functions.
Each of the custom phases can be defined by eclasses and ebuilds
in a manner similar to regular phases. The eclasses define
${ECLASS}_${phase} function and run 'multibuild_export_phases' to
register them. The
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass | 8 ++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
index 070425f..a77368e 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
+++
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass | 20
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
index a77368e..2510578 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
+++
---
gx86/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass | 71 -
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
index 264ce9c..ce518a7 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
+++
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
index 2a707b1..cfe4eef 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
This makes replacing sub-phase functions much easier.
---
gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 34 --
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
index
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass | 54 -
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
index 2510578..2a707b1 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-minimal.eclass
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:01:55AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
CMaps for PDF CJK Fonts
---
[...]
Permission is granted for redistribution of this file
provided this copyright notice is maintained intact and
that the contents of this file are not altered
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
+DEPEND==app-shells/bash-4.2
+
Why is this needed?
Ulrich
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
+DEPEND==app-shells/bash-4.2
+
Why is this needed?
Seems it's because of this:
+declare -g -A _MULTIBUILD_EXPORTED_PHASES || die
+local p
+for p; do
+
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:16:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
+DEPEND==app-shells/bash-4.2
+
Why is this needed?
Seems it's because of this:
+ declare -g -A
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:18:25 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:16:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
+DEPEND==app-shells/bash-4.2
+
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 11:10:11 +0100
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:30:10 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
We're talking about two different tricks.
Busybox checks argv to support symlinking for a standard tool. With
invalid argv[0], it still
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
Yep. That's why the non-quoted fragment has a safety check and dies
if it doesn't.
It doesn't matter if there's a safety check. Bash 4 features are
simply not allowed in the tree.
Ulrich
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:44:42 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
Yep. That's why the non-quoted fragment has a safety check and dies
if it doesn't.
It doesn't matter if there's a safety check. Bash 4 features are
simply not allowed in
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:48:06 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, unless we're talking about a theoretical package mangler which
intentionally uses internal, old version of bash to prove the point.
That's a good idea, maybe we'll do that. Sounds like a good way of
doing better
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:26:29 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:48:06 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, unless we're talking about a theoretical package mangler which
intentionally uses internal, old version of bash to prove
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:46:41 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:26:29 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:48:06 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, unless we're talking about a theoretical package
The framework provides functions to declare, export and obtain custom
phase functions.
Each of the custom phases can be defined by eclasses and ebuilds
in a manner similar to regular phases. The eclasses define
${ECLASS}_${phase} function and run 'multibuild_export_phases' to
register them. The
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into
testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users
could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to
ignore
On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into
testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users
could've reported some
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
The framework provides functions to declare, export and obtain custom
phase functions.
Thanks for fixing this up.
-A
Each of the custom phases can be defined by eclasses and ebuilds
in a manner similar to regular
On 03/10/2013 02:11 PM, hasufell wrote:
On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into
testing, and as you said there was no previous version on
hasufell posted on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:11:52 +0100 as excerpted:
I was told a while back (I might still have it in irc logs), that 30
days is NOT a rule. It's common sense, but in the end the maintainer
decides when to request stabilization, no one else.
I can confirm the 30-day-guideline
Starting up a new project (gentoo-openstack). It is currently a
subproject of virtualization and our project page can be found here.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/virtualization/openstack/
The current goals are to flesh out the support for Openstack on Gentoo
(we have the ebuilds in tree, but
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2013-03-10 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
virtual/c++-tr1-functional 2013-03-05
13:35:56 flameeyes
virtual/c++-tr1-memory
29 matches
Mail list logo
