Re: [gentoo-dev] Call to Emacs Gentoo Devs: Help Make My Package Pretty?

2014-05-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Fri, 9 May 2014, Jason A Donenfeld wrote: I maintain the app-admin/pass ebuild. Inside the contrib/emacs directory of the tarball/gitrepo there is password-store.el and Cask ( http://git.zx2c4.com/password-store/tree/contrib/emacs). I probably want to add an emacs USE flag that RDEPENDs

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH cmake-multilib] Use multilib-minimal phase functions.

2014-05-09 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-04-30, o godz. 20:14:35 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a): The goal is to make overriding parts of build process easy. Before, the eclass called cmake-utils directly via multilib_foreach_abi, therefore user overriding a phase function needed to call multilib_foreach_abi

[gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files (was: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014)

2014-05-09 Thread Matti Bickel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote: I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would be added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new violations). I want to repeat my stance from the linked bug that making this

[gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Markos Chandras
Hi, (please avoid cross-list e-mails in the future if possible. Makes threading horrible) On 05/09/2014 07:21 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote: I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would be added or renamed downstream (at least this will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that properly? Yes, when your instead of ... is not an option. What other distributions

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Markos Chandras
On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that properly? Yes, when your instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:10:50 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig files instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). The controversy only exists when upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Markos Chandras
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Ben de Groot
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,