On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 01:39 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> 210125 Michał Górny wrote:
> > Changed eselect-python dep removal date to July 2021.
> > Not sure if there's a reason to display it to stable users today,
> > or delay until the stable request is actually filed.
>
> I've been using Gentoo
Disable --autounmask-license by default, in order to limit user
exposure to risks associated with package.license changes.
The changes that this option suggests are only intended to be
accepted when a user has made a conscious decision to accept
the corresponding license(s). Creation of
Hi,
TL;DR: I'd like to move virtual/libjpeg, virtual/libudev and so on to
another category (e.g. lib-sover/*) to make it clear that they are used
for := deps and have valid use even with a single provider.
Right now we have at least a few packages that provide more than one
valid
Call os.getpid() lazily, which eliminates getpid calls when possible
after os.fork() in the portage.process module.
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/767913
Signed-off-by: Zac Medico
---
lib/portage/__init__.py | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 9:36 AM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> TL;DR: I'd like to move virtual/libjpeg, virtual/libudev and so on to
> another category (e.g. lib-sover/*) to make it clear that they are used
> for := deps and have valid use even with a single provider.
>
>
> Right now we have at
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 03:49:41 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> Disable --autounmask-license by default, in order to limit user
> exposure to risks associated with package.license changes.
> The changes that this option suggests are only intended to be
> accepted when a user has made a conscious decision
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 04:59:32 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> Call os.getpid() lazily, which eliminates getpid calls when possible
> after os.fork() in the portage.process module.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/767913
> Signed-off-by: Zac Medico
> ---
> lib/portage/__init__.py | 4 +++-
> 1 file
On Sat, 2021-01-30 at 18:35 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> To make this SOVERSION-virtual concept more visible and easily
> distinguishable from regular virtuals, I'd like to propose that we
> start
> moving them into a dedicated category. For example, 'lib-sover'
> comes
> to my mind. While
