Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] depgraph: account for binpkg-multi-instance in unused warning (bug 619620)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 15:11:41 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Brian Dolbec > wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 May 2017 03:07:50 -0700 > > Zac Medico wrote: > > > > > With FEATURES=binpkg-multi-instance, it is normal

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] emerge: warn for --autounmask-continue with --autounmask=n (bug 619612)

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:10:23 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > > > In order to avoid possible confusion when the user has specified > > --autounmask-continue and EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS contains > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Mon, 29 May 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > > On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:00 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> Can you provide an efficient algorithm for the above syntax? That > >> is, given a set of +/- useflags

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] man/portage.5: document -* in profile "packages" files (bug 610670)

On Sun, 28 May 2017 13:15:12 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > The -* wildcard has been supported since portage-2.3.4, but it was > not explicitly documented. > > X-Gentoo-Bug: 610670 > X-Gentoo-Bug-URL: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=610670 > --- > [PATCH v2] clarifies

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] depgraph: account for binpkg-multi-instance in unused warning (bug 619620)

On Sun, 28 May 2017 03:07:50 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > With FEATURES=binpkg-multi-instance, it is normal to have some > unused binary packages, so don't warn if the selected package > is the latest version and the most recent build. > ^^^ is or isn't the latest version?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:00 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> Can you provide an efficient algorithm for the above syntax? That >> is, given a set of +/- useflags forced by user, output the set of >> effective useflags (or a rant if it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] meson.eclass: implement basic cross-compiler support

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On pon, 2017-05-29 at 16:58 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> + # system roughly corresponds to uname -s (lowercase) >> + local system=unknown >> + case ${CHOST} in >> + *-aix*) system=aix ;; >> +

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 23:23:55 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > Can you provide an efficient algorithm for the above syntax? > > That is, given a set of +/- useflags forced by user, output the set > > of effective useflags (or a rant if it is inconsistent). > > I'd rather leave

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:00 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > In the basic form, it can be used to conditionally force a specific > > flag to be enabled or disabled. For example: > > > > foo? ( bar ) > > > > would

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] emerge: warn for --autounmask-continue with --autounmask=n (bug 619612)

In order to avoid possible confusion when the user has specified --autounmask-continue and EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS contains --autounmask=n, display a warning message as follows: * --autounmask-continue has been disabled by --autounmask=n X-Gentoo-bug: 619612 X-Gentoo-bug-url:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] meson.eclass: implement basic cross-compiler support

On pon, 2017-05-29 at 16:58 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > --- > eclass/meson.eclass | 74 > + > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/eclass/meson.eclass b/eclass/meson.eclass > index 758e4180ba7a..0fdb1d848973

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] meson.eclass: implement basic cross-compiler support

--- eclass/meson.eclass | 74 + 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/meson.eclass b/eclass/meson.eclass index 758e4180ba7a..0fdb1d848973 100644 --- a/eclass/meson.eclass +++ b/eclass/meson.eclass @@ -39,8 +39,7

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:24 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > For a long time we seem to be missing appropriate tools to handle USE > > flag constraints efficiently. EAPI 4 brought REQUIRED_USE but all > > things

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:42:33 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:24 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > For a long time we seem to be missing appropriate tools to handle > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > For a long time we seem to be missing appropriate tools to handle USE > flag constraints efficiently. EAPI 4 brought REQUIRED_USE but all > things considered, it has proven to be far from an optimal solution. > I would

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > For a long time we seem to be missing appropriate tools to handle USE > flag constraints efficiently. EAPI 4 brought REQUIRED_USE but all > things considered, it has proven to be far from an optimal solution.

Re: [gentoo-dev] toolchain meeting agenda for today 19:00 UTC #gentoo-toolchain

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 08:29:59PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote > On 05/26/2017 08:07 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > A bit late to the party, but what was the outcome of the meeting, esp. > > this part ? > > Unofficial log from meeting: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On wto, 2017-05-30 at 04:30 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Automatically solving USE constraints solve all three fore-mentioned > > issues with REQUIRED_USE. By default, no user intervention is required > > to solve

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Automatically solving USE constraints solve all three fore-mentioned > issues with REQUIRED_USE. By default, no user intervention is required > to solve USE constraints and package.use needs to be modified only to >

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

Hello, For a long time we seem to be missing appropriate tools to handle USE flag constraints efficiently. EAPI 4 brought REQUIRED_USE but all things considered, it has proven to be far from an optimal solution. I would therefore like to discuss adding a better tool to amend or replace it, to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] depgraph: make --autounmask-continue imply --autounmask

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Looks OK. Although I'm not a fan of the proposed change. Changes like > these make scripts a tiny bit more tedious. If you have a bunch of > --autounmask stuff in your script, you can now just do --autounmask=n >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2017-05-28 23:59 UTC

On pon, 2017-05-29 at 12:10 +0300, nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: > On 2017-05-29, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed > > from the tree, for the week ending 2017-05-28 23:59 UTC. > > > > Removals: > > app-editors/vim-qt

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

On 2017.05.29 11:59, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 27/05/17 18:17, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > But you do gentoo wrong, so as a user I'd like you to reconsider > what > > you wrote there and maybe take a long vacation. > I too do not hate our users (in which I include myself). > > Treating users

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

On 27/05/17 18:17, Patrick Lauer wrote: > But you do gentoo wrong, so as a user I'd like you to reconsider what > you wrote there and maybe take a long vacation. I too do not hate our users (in which I include myself). Treating users as a worthless nuisance, unless they're writing ebuilds or

[gentoo-dev] Re: Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2017-05-28 23:59 UTC

On 2017-05-29, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed > from the tree, for the week ending 2017-05-28 23:59 UTC. > > Removals: > app-editors/vim-qt 20170525-10:36 mgorny 1aff8d7da4e This was announced here in