Re: [gentoo-dev] Draft news item: preserve-libs default for portage-2.1.12
El lun, 03-06-2013 a las 17:24 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: [...] Yeah. The news item now advises the user that it's a good practice to run revdep-rebuild anyway, just to be safe. I would also suggest people to report bugs when they find cases not catched by preserve-libs as they can be a real bug (like bug #460826)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Draft news item: preserve-libs default for portage-2.1.12
On 06/03/2013 11:49 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: El lun, 03-06-2013 a las 17:24 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: [...] Yeah. The news item now advises the user that it's a good practice to run revdep-rebuild anyway, just to be safe. I would also suggest people to report bugs when they find cases not catched by preserve-libs as they can be a real bug (like bug #460826) Well, I already gave them an example bug report, so hopefully they'll take that as a clue. I don't feel like nagging them to file bugs. -- Thanks, Zac
[gentoo-dev] app-dict team needs help
Hello guys, the app-dict team is almost-non existent altho it provides one of the most core features for our daily desktop usage as without dictionaries and spell checking we could not imagine much work nowdays. So what is needed there: aspell - all various bugs around, per language file bumps here and there, cleanup and provide new eclass for aspell packages, current one is needlesly complex. myspell(hunspell): finish migration to myspell-r1 on the remaining packages, find more upstreams and include the lang files into the distribution. Most important here is that we have dicts for english from 2007 and they were updated a lot in last 6 years when i check the git in libreoffice dicts (but there is no upstream indication). stardict: trivial bugs around but i don't use stardict. I check this herd as I need it for nice and compfy libreoffice usage, but mostly I am not devoting much to it, so if you guys happen to have spare cycles, please take look for your languages/etc and updatedcleanup, also if you happen to fill stablereq, just cc arches directly there. Cheers Tom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Removing net-wireless/ipw3945*
Hi folks, somehow it happened that I'm listed as the only maintainer of net-wireless/ipw3945d, net-wireless/ipw3945 and net-wireless/ipw3945-ucode. I'm not an ebuild developer, I no longer use that hardware on a production machine, and I believe that I switched that old laptop to iwl3945 years ago anyway. Could you please start the last rites process for it? As I said, I don't have commit access to gentoo-x86, so I cannot do this myself. Cheers, Jan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing net-wireless/ipw3945*
On 4 June 2013 15:54, Jan Kundrát j...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi folks, somehow it happened that I'm listed as the only maintainer of net-wireless/ipw3945d, net-wireless/ipw3945 and net-wireless/ipw3945-ucode. I'm not an ebuild developer, I no longer use that hardware on a production machine, and I believe that I switched that old laptop to iwl3945 years ago anyway. Could you please start the last rites process for it? As I said, I don't have commit access to gentoo-x86, so I cannot do this myself. Cheers, Jan Hi Jan, Could you please open a bug so treecleaners can track this? -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
[gentoo-dev] Re: Removing net-wireless/ipw3945*
On Tuesday, 4 June 2013 17:02:33 CEST, Markos Chandras wrote: Could you please open a bug so treecleaners can track this? https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472296 it is. Thanks. Cheers, Jan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Draft news item: preserve-libs default for portage-2.1.12
On 04/06/13 03:24, Zac Medico wrote: Yeah. The news item now advises the user that it's a good practice to run revdep-rebuild anyway, just to be safe. And `revdep-rebuild --library libfoobar.so.0` is still useful, unless Portage can replace targeted --library calls too? Just saying I'm not seeing the command going away anytime soon ;-) - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: eselect init
Hi Luca, On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Again you should read the whole thread, please do, the whole eselect init stuff should stay opt-in for the time being so all this discussion is close to pointless. Can we please make this remain opt-in always? I too would rather not see this become mandatory for gentoo. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Draft news item: preserve-libs default for portage-2.1.12
On 06/04/2013 09:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 04/06/13 03:24, Zac Medico wrote: Yeah. The news item now advises the user that it's a good practice to run revdep-rebuild anyway, just to be safe. And `revdep-rebuild --library libfoobar.so.0` is still useful, This is for a ABI change without bumping the soname? It's possible to trigger rebuilds for that case by using sub-slots and slot-operators. unless Portage can replace targeted --library calls too? No, portage doesn't have that, except when it's implied via sub-slots and slot-operators. Just saying I'm not seeing the command going away anytime soon ;-) Yes, it could certainly be useful in some situations. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Draft news item: preserve-libs default for portage-2.1.12
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: This is for a ABI change without bumping the soname? It's possible to trigger rebuilds for that case by using sub-slots and slot-operators. Or you could choose a longer-term solution like firebombing the upstream maintainers... Rich
[gentoo-dev] About lafilefixer removal
It lacks a maintainer for a long time, also has some opened bugs and I am unsure if it's still needed. I am not using it for months and never saw any problem, also, portage fixes .la files by itself, and paludis people don't approve lafilefixer. Do we still need it?
Re: [gentoo-dev] About lafilefixer removal
On 05/06/13 00:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: It lacks a maintainer for a long time, also has some opened bugs and I am unsure if it's still needed. I am not using it for months and never saw any problem, also, portage fixes .la files by itself, and paludis people don't approve lafilefixer. Do we still need it? +1 for dropping it as... - gentoo-x86/ has been massively cleaned up with punting of .la files - -Wl,--as-needed is enabled by default for ages - portage's own .la file fixing - emptying of some dependency_libs='' in tree - the 'coming' GNU gold linker being even more stricter than -Wl,--as-needed - majority of `lafilefixer` users propably emerged it by accident, thinking it's some magic bullet for their .la file problem, which it's not
Re: [gentoo-dev] Draft news item: preserve-libs default for portage-2.1.12
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/04/2013 04:56 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: This is for a ABI change without bumping the soname? It's possible to trigger rebuilds for that case by using sub-slots and slot-operators. Or you could choose a longer-term solution like firebombing the upstream maintainers... HA! ++ - -Zero -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRrpXZAAoJEKXdFCfdEflK1EsQAIDpfQe9HGAl7g62hd9qBh7K Kc7tKpRRtYal7WTI5KnhzTkofGfd8eOnuG8DYQpZ8r6Ush3dseDTTOvUD12I6E63 De3x7HjCLLzVo6EtsVcynLb2TG52hgM+EWW4cFR1y7T3/InriuiG5CFOKy37VXE9 Yw+FmaGh4OtPhqzsElVi8HmxeSSOhye856ueHNjBYO8RhalVEOalEkUJ25vo2RSL 25TkDjKVbSlDYKkzY3KkkZa9HcdSFAufrcdywtVIteiDNzjK694QQTVsU4xqxu4V TEQTT7/tg9Y6TEV1dwzFZVtb3NIncTvwN1Pkf8LOHW7KWxJiv7r8aEM0UoDHqjvy mgDdtdWrNek9YQghsCboGl4w3ZB4S/rIkLkCaarosUyfH99bAqgflvg5hAAkr6xi iumIJFcBBxXiQIFAIzKzoa9MJU40Q9fM1MmvCtfpu8x0eoiKzRN/EPNAhU/HZP1t 2ublDGRe5iAtHvd2sF1TXCeB2UXIj5iQS+/L5Tm3mZ0quQ44TnRv04toy5bT2Juz GkoS0tY3m3YXiMCWHZgVRiopY6fkYMgzFhGIS2vgkvNDwMWwjOOy4ljC3g3KcMyt wawAkaVI2TnMvt3wjm5phzyNJVT3M+rRUR79daASRgLUEdUtKjnssHcQgDxk/XOF HVUMlwFoHUbS0ny6qj76 =8bCV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
