Re: [gentoo-dev] Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:29 PM, konsolebox wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> > We consider 5.01 and 5.010 as equal versions. >> And do we still plan to keep them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > We consider 5.01 and 5.010 as equal versions. > >>> And do we still plan to keep them equal when we fix =*? > >> Yes. Makes me wonder. Are there even packages that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.

On 15 September 2015 at 06:54, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> I think it'd be okay to e.g. change the meaning and behavior of * in >> a new EAPI. > > Bug 560466 now. Assuming the syntax can be changed in a future EAPI. What EAPI applies to the use of these specifiers on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Semantic versioning is a new fad. I believe it's already been there for a while. It just didn't become a standard soon. > Certain upstreams still think that > 5.10 is a lower version that 5.2. Perl used

Re: [gentoo-dev] Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.

On 16 September 2015 at 19:40, konsolebox wrote: > And I find it so wrong that it makes me think that it shouldn't have > been acknowledged by any packaging system. That versioning madness > should have been just fixed in the ebuilds level. Yeah. My experience with

[gentoo-dev] Re: code.google.com readonly starting on 25/Aug/15

Hi Tobias, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > Tomorrow, code.google.com will turn off write access to all > remaining projects[0]. As such, Gentoo ebuilds which still have > HOMEPAGE= pointing there should be updated. Hmm. Codehaus has also been shut down this year in May, but packages still

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-apps/otrs: needs new maintainer

Am 2015-09-16 um 02:37 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:13:34PM +0200, hasufell wrote: >>> On 09/15/2015 02:00 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: If you have interest in this package then you can do one or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: code.google.com readonly starting on 25/Aug/15

On 16/09/15 10:56, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > Tobias Klausmann wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Tomorrow, code.google.com will turn off write access to all >> remaining projects[0]. As such, Gentoo ebuilds which still have >> HOMEPAGE= pointing there should be updated. > > Hmm. Codehaus has

[gentoo-portage-dev] Portage questions

1) Is there a way to generate a snapshot of an installed portage VDB and then later compare that snapshot against the current VDB and generate a list of added/updated packages? 2) Currently we generate a tar file with binary pkgs containing all updated pkgs, unpack the tar file and

[gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

Hi all, here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: > Dynamic dependencies in Portage > === > During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to > dependencies in eclasses, could require mass rebuilds of packages. > > Vote: > - "The council asks the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Hi all, > > here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: > >> Dynamic dependencies in Portage >> === >> During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

On 09/16/2015 05:49 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Hi all, > > here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: > >> Dynamic dependencies in Portage >> === >> During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to >> dependencies in eclasses, could require

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 16/09/15 03:49 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Michał Górny > wrote: >> 2. Dependency changes that don't need to apply immediately >> don't need revbump. For example, if foo.eclass raises minimal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/16/2015 09:21 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:49 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: >> >>> Dynamic dependencies in Portage >>> === During

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > As for virtuals and eclasses, I don't really understand why anyone > thinks they are special in any regard. In both cases, we're talking > about regular dependency change in metadata, and we need to understand > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 16/09/15 02:13 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > How would virtuals be handled with static dependencies? AFAIK virtuals would need to be handled the same as anything else -- when updating an atom in RDEPEND, the virtual's ebuild needs to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

Dnia 2015-09-16, o godz. 17:49:24 "Andreas K. Huettel" napisał(a): > Hi all, > > here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: > > > Dynamic dependencies in Portage > > === > > During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:04 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Assuming the developer understands the consequences of bumping and > not bumping Well that narrows it down to about three people, and only if they're thinking very very carefully. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > If you modify an eclass, you're responsible for the outcome. Even if > means revbumping hundreds of ebuilds for the sake of it. Note that this > is the kind of revbump that wouldn't require resetting stable keywords > as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

On 09/16/2015 04:25 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Right now we kinda have three layers of team package maintainership > in Gentoo: > > 1. e-mail aliases + bugzilla accounts, > > 2. herds, > > 3. projects. > > Now if we get into the details, it's all very messy. > > > E-mail aliases

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Mittwoch, 16. September 2015, 23:25:33 schrieb Michał Górny: > > To summarize, I see the following issues: > > 1. All three layers are totally disjoint, stored in completely > different format in completely different places. > > 2. Only herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > - - emerge -uD @world would update the dep anyhow > > - - emerge -u @world wouldn't rebuild the package if that package > didn't change, and if the package did change then the new dep would > get built. Just to be

[gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

Hello, Right now we kinda have three layers of team package maintainership in Gentoo: 1. e-mail aliases + bugzilla accounts, 2. herds, 3. projects. Now if we get into the details, it's all very messy. E-mail aliases are pretty much handled by obscure, proprietary scripts. Formally Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Mittwoch, 16. September 2015, 23:43:43 schrieb Matthew Thode: > > Herds are groups of developers that can then be mapped to a package. > Heh. See? :) - -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

On Saturday 12 of September 2015 21:12:25 Michał Górny wrote: | What are your thoughts? Any other proposals? Well, there's always an option to set up infra hosted Gerrit or Gitlab and forget about Github workflow altogether... regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New Project: MATE

On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 21:50 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El jue, 02-07-2015 a las 15:40 -0400, NP-Hardass escribió: > > Greetings all, > > > > Looking for some feedback on creating a new project and herd for the > > MATE Desktop environment. The goal, like many other DE based > > projects, > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

Dnia 2015-09-16, o godz. 15:49:24 Rich Freeman napisał(a): > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > As for virtuals and eclasses, I don't really understand why anyone > > thinks they are special in any regard. In both cases, we're

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 16/09/15 04:30 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Michał Górny > wrote: >> >> If you modify an eclass, you're responsible for the outcome. >> Even if means revbumping hundreds of ebuilds for the sake

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > So, what are your thoughts for unmessing this? > This sounds familiar. :) Honestly, I wouldn't mind combining them all. Just today I was pinged by an !expn in IRC and thought to myself, "how many times have I typed