[gentoo-dev] News Item: Future Support of hardened-sources Kernel

Hi everyone, for your consideration: Title: Future Support of hardened-sources Kernel Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2015-10-21 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: sys-kernel/hardened-sources Display-If-Keyword: hardened Display-If-Keyword: pax_kernel Display-If-Profile:

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2015-10-18 23:59 UTC

20151016-12:25 tomboy64 7a3d130 dev-ml/ocplib-endian 20151016-12:20 tomboy64 182769d dev-ml/qcheck20151016-11:59 tomboy64 9b55086 dev-ml/stringext 20151016-12:01 tomboy64 b494a03 dev-python/automaton 20151018-06:48

Re: [gentoo-dev] xf86-input-evdev patch problem

On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 15:03 +0800, Jason Zaman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 06:56:27AM +0200, Cor Legemaat wrote: > > Hi: > > > > I created a ebuild with a patch for xf86-input-evdev to try and > > debounce my mouse button. The ebuild is at > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow SLOT documentation in metadata.xml

On 10/18/2015 08:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > btw, once this is committed, please consider adding or asking for a > repoman warning when subslot is defined but metadata.xml is not filled > Almost forgot: it has been committed yesterday:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:19:12 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > what I was trying to understand is what is the usefulness of eapply > vs epatch The point of eapply is that it's inside the package manager, so it can safely be used by default phase functions, for user patches, etc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:36:09 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:19:12 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > what I was trying to understand is what is the usefulness of eapply > > vs epatch > > The point of eapply is that

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sci-geosciences/grass/, sci-geosciences/grass/files/

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:12:00 + (UTC) "Ian Delaney" wrote: > commit: 2fa849db86f415ee6eca0a7fb965c88606ace3e6 > Author: Ian Delaney gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Wed Oct 14 15:11:05 2015 + > Commit: Ian Delaney gentoo org> > CommitDate: Wed Oct 14 15:11:49

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 18:16:33 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller > wrote: > > > > That eapply_user is called can be enforced by repoman, or by a QA > > warning. > > > > I hate to reply again on the same topic, but how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:24:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:08:38 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > [Resending since my first message didn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:47:01 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:24:47 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:08:38 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200 >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:23:56 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > - what do I, as en ebuild writer, gain from this? > > > > Reliable patching. Unlike epatch, eapply will not succeed when > > the patch unexpectedly applied to the wrong directory. > > Why not, but when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:31:09 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:47:28 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > Sorry for coming very late on this, but what is the rationale

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:01:27 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: [...] > > > It's trivial to change patch to -p1 (I think patchutils can do > > > that). > > > > It is. But the above cases were not whether it is possible, but > > rather desirable. > > Consistency is desirable.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: > That would be another reason to have the PM do the check. All it > has to do is set an internal flag when it is called, and then check > the flag before starting the next phase. Then you can have as many > levels of conditionals and nested

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:34:15 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:01:27 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > [...] > > > > It's trivial to change patch to -p1 (I think patchutils can do > > > > that). > > > > > > It is. But the above cases

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:47:28 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > Sorry for coming very late on this, but what is the rationale behind > > setting in stone an 'eapply' different to an 'epatch' that has been > > widely tested for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:48:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:31:09 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:47:28 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Alexis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > That would be another reason to have the PM do the check. All it > > has to do is set an internal flag when it is called, and then check > > the flag before

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > That would be another reason to have the PM do the check. All it > > has to do is set an internal flag when it is called, and then check > > the flag before

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> So the question is if we should add a sentence like the following to >> the spec: >> >> In EAPIs where it is supported, all ebuilds must run >> \t{eapply\_user} in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:54:05 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Am Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015, 11:23:56 schrieb Alexis Ballier: > > > > > Why not, but when exactly would eapply fail where epatch wouldn't > > while it should have ? > > > > Different issue but- if your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > But the big gain for everyone is in replacing a weird, overly clever > and highly fragile collection of weirdness that's designed to mostly > accept any dodgy input, with one that just gets you to give it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:05 AM, hasufell wrote: > > If you are messing with the build system in a patch, there is no > guarantee that eautoreconf will be enough. It might or might not be true > (see net-irc/hexchat for an example). Are we going to run eautoreconf >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:07:45 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:23:56 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > - what do I, as en ebuild writer, gain from this? > > > > > > Reliable patching. Unlike epatch, eapply will not succeed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > That would be another reason to have the PM do the check. All it > > has to do is set an internal flag when it is called, and then check > > the flag before

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 >> Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>> So the question is if we should add a sentence like the following to >>> the spec: >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:37 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/17/2015 08:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 >> hasufell wrote: >>> You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. >>> What's the problem?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sci-geosciences/grass/, sci-geosciences/grass/files/

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015, 09:23:10 schrieb Michał Górny: > > > URL:https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=2fa849db > > > > sci-geosciences/grass: bump to -7.0.1 > > (...) > (followed by a revbump) > This commit has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

Am Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015, 11:23:56 schrieb Alexis Ballier: > > Why not, but when exactly would eapply fail where epatch wouldn't > while it should have ? > Different issue but- if your patch only adds a subdirectory, eapply will work fine while epatch may add the subdir at a random level

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/18/2015 01:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:37 AM, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/17/2015 08:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 >>> hasufell wrote: You can apply the patches post_unpack or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:31:09 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > The rationale is that we cannot apply patches in the default > > src_prepare() unless there is a patch function in the package > > manager itself. Obviously the default phase cannot call a function > > from an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:09:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:34:15 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:01:27 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > [...] > > > > > It's trivial to change patch to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 08:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 > hasufell wrote: >> You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. >> What's the problem? > > Running autorecrap. > You can do that with hooks too (which is not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:00:11 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:44:30 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > [...] > > > - why should I ever want eapi6 src_prepare instead of > > > base_src_prepare ? > > > > Well base.eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:06:33 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:00:11 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:44:30 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > [...] > > > > -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:44:30 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [...] > > - why should I ever want eapi6 src_prepare instead of > > base_src_prepare ? > > Well base.eclass is supposed to be being removed, and is allegedly > banned for all new ebuilds... > > But the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow SLOT documentation in metadata.xml

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:32 +0200 Julian Ospald wrote: > The following patch tries to address the lack of slot > documentation, since getting the slots of a dependency > right seems like a common problem. > > Things that I was particularly not sure about: the 'subslots' >