Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo alt-projects meeting 9/26 1900 UTC

2005-09-16 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 16 September 2005 01:56, Nathan L. Adams wrote: I'm writing a tool, called esyntaxer, that finds certain common ebuild errors and automagically corrects them if possible. Yes, I'm aware of the overlaps with repoman, and no this isn't a duplication of work. Actually, I already have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo alt-projects meeting 9/26 1900 UTC

2005-09-16 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 16 September 2005 01:30, Kito wrote: Items on the Agenda so far: I would add that (that I forgot last night but is one of the main concerns): * ${ARCH} usage, keywords and variables assignments. Flame-on. This was my part :P -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò Gentoo Developer -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarification of packages cd's for 2005.1

2005-09-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:51 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: According to the release announcement the package cd's don't seem to have an athlon version any more. http://www.gentoo.org/news/20050808-annoncement-release-2005.1.xml (the choices seem to be alpha amd64 ppc (32 bit) ppc (64 bit) sparc64

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
If nobody finds problem in the attached eclass, I'm going to commit this tonight or tomorrow. The first function is a drop-in replacement for cp --parent (that doesn't work on BSD userland), the second one is a commodity function to symlink commands and manpages at once (as done by bsdtar and

[gentoo-dev] Change md5 checksum in ebuils by sha-256, AES or others

2005-09-16 Thread Camilo Aguilar
Hello, i was reading in some pages that md5 is no longer secure anymore to continue proving the integrity of the programs. Is it possible to change md5 check in the ebuilds for another more secure algorithm ? links: http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/HackingMd5.asp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Change md5 checksum in ebuils by sha-256, AES or others

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 11:47 am, Camilo Aguilar wrote: Is it possible to change md5 check in the ebuilds for another more secure algorithm ? search bugzilla please before asking about feature enhancments this has been covered in bugzilla (among other places) a couple of times -mike --

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 11:42 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: the second one is a commodity function to symlink commands and manpages at once (as done by bsdtar and other packages). i dont see this being really useful ... either way, assuming the manpage is compressed with gzip (or

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread Martin Schlemmer
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 17:42 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: If nobody finds problem in the attached eclass, I'm going to commit this tonight or tomorrow. The first function is a drop-in replacement for cp --parent (that doesn't work on BSD userland), the second one is a commodity

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo alt-projects meeting 9/26 1900 UTC

2005-09-16 Thread Kito
Thanks for the feedback kids. Anyone who has any items they want added, speak up! Revised agenda list: * Rollcall/Active members * Elections/Nominations for project lead? * Sub-project organization * Project page content (tech notes, tasks data, etc) * Alt-project roadmap *

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

2005-09-16 Thread Lares Moreau
Does someone who is primarily working on (for arguents sake) Translations does not nessessarily know what they are doing in terms of overall gentoo dev. My impression is that they have voting privileges. My feeling is that people who know about TopicA will vote on things that relate to that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 16 September 2005 18:16, Martin Schlemmer wrote: I do not think its so urgent?  Either way, we have elibs approved now, so how about waiting a while so that we do not have yet another elib candidate to port? There are at least two ebuilds in portage that uses cp --parente . It wasn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 18:33 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 17:59, Mike Frysinger wrote: i dont see this being really useful ... either way, assuming the manpage is compressed with gzip (or compressed at all) is wrong Doesn't portage always gzip manpages?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 12:33 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 17:59, Mike Frysinger wrote: i dont see this being really useful ... either way, assuming the manpage is compressed with gzip (or compressed at all) is wrong Doesn't portage always gzip

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread warnera6
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 19:28, Mike Frysinger wrote: current stable does yes, but ive started adding customizable compression to trunk Okay, then *that* is a problem :P Suggestion how to fix it? You are going to have to ask portage what it used via a

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Martin Schlemmer
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 19:42 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 00:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: actually this is came up in the meeting as something we would like to see spelled out explicitly ... either as a GLEP itself or as a policy update to current stabilization

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:14:08PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 19:42 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 00:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: actually this is came up in the meeting as something we would like to see spelled out explicitly ... either

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Simon Stelling
Paul de Vrieze wrote: Ok, I do think that we will need a way for the maintainer to indicate that the package is stable. I'd be happy to leave stabilizing out of my hands, but I wouldn't want my packages to be stabilized before I deem it stable. That's exactly what the maint keyword is for.

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:42:36 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ok, I do think that we will need a way for the maintainer to indicate | that the package is stable. I'd be happy to leave stabilizing out of | my hands, but I wouldn't want my packages to be stabilized before I | deem it

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:48:45 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Take it out of package.mask and leave it for thirty | (package-dependent) days. If there is a pressing (eg security) | reason for it to go to stable sooner than would normally be | expected, file a bug and Cc: the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portability eclass

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 01:36 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 19:28, Mike Frysinger wrote: current stable does yes, but ive started adding customizable compression to trunk Okay, then *that* is a problem :P Suggestion how to fix it? simple, dont add the

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Simon Stelling
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Well, if it's in ~arch it's a candidate to go to stable after further testing. If a package maintainer isn't prepared to have a package moved to stable, they shouldn't take it out of package.mask. The 30 days are just a rule, there are enough packages which surely need a

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 03:02 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:48:45 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Take it out of package.mask and leave it for thirty | (package-dependent) days. If there is a pressing (eg security) | reason for it to go to stable

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:12:56 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Well, if it's in ~arch it's a candidate to go to stable after | further testing. If a package maintainer isn't prepared to have a | package moved to stable, they shouldn't take it out of

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:15:26 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable | forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work | some quirks/features out for a new revbump which you would want stable Those should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Aron Griffis
Vapier wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 03:15:26PM EDT] not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work some quirks/features out for a new revbump which you would want stable Why wouldn't you put these in package.mask?

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 16 September 2005 21:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that haven't yet proven themselves. No. Your idea how it should work simply doesn't match reality. When you e.g. have upstream devs following the maxim release early and

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Aron Griffis
Paul de Vrieze wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 04:11:14PM EDT] Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that haven't yet proven themselves. It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there are other reasons for not marking stable yet. Some packages for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarification of packages cd's for 2005.1

2005-09-16 Thread Nick Rout
Thanks for the clarification Chris. On a semi-related matter I was looking for the catalyst .spec files, and see a thread pointing at cvs, however I believe that as a non-dev mortal I can't get access to gentoo cvs. Is that so? If it is then how does one get the spec files? The old catalyst howto

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarification of packages cd's for 2005.1

2005-09-16 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 08:23:47AM +1200, Nick Rout wrote: Thanks for the clarification Chris. On a semi-related matter I was looking for the catalyst .spec files, and see a thread pointing at cvs, however I believe that as a non-dev mortal I can't get access to gentoo cvs. Is that so? If it

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 03:34 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:15:26 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable | forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work | some quirks/features

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Olivier Crete
On Fri, 2005-16-09 at 16:21 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 04:11:14PM EDT] Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that haven't yet proven themselves. It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there are

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:17:20 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Friday 16 September 2005 21:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch | that haven't yet proven themselves. | | No. Your idea how it should work simply doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 04:25 pm, Daniel Ostrow wrote: His point (and it's an unfortunately valid one) as I understand it is that our user base has been (mis)educated to avoid packages in p.mask for fear of breaking things too badly. As such it gets an inherently far smaller test base then

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarification of packages cd's for 2005.1

2005-09-16 Thread Lars Weiler
* Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/09/17 08:23 +1200]: On a semi-related matter I was looking for the catalyst .spec files, and see a thread pointing at cvs, however I believe that as a non-dev mortal I can't get access to gentoo cvs. Is that so? If it is then how does one get the spec files?

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i | still dont buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x - baselayout-1.11.x | stabilization

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:59:56 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | baselayout is an example, any package can be used here (although not | many are as critical) | | i'm saying that the maintainer may have a certain idea of when the | package is ready for stable (a target feature set,

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Simon Stelling
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: There is nothing in this view that says consulting the package maintainer is not part of the stable decision-making process for arch teams. So do I have to ask the maintainer first everytime I want mark a package stable? Is that what you are currently doing? -- Simon

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarification of packages cd's for 2005.1

2005-09-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 08:23 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: Thanks for the clarification Chris. On a semi-related matter I was looking for the catalyst .spec files, and see a thread pointing at cvs, however I believe that as a non-dev mortal I can't get access to gentoo cvs. Is that so? If it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 16 September 2005 22:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: That's not my idea. That's policy. I just happen to a) have actually read what policy says and b) agree with it. First: I know you're proposing this regularly, but please show me the policy - I'm sure your interpretation doesn't match

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:20:58 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | There is nothing in this view that says consulting the package | maintainer is not part of the stable decision-making process for | arch teams. | | So do I have to ask the maintainer first

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:23:35 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Friday 16 September 2005 22:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | That's not my idea. That's policy. I just happen to a) have actually | read what policy says and b) agree with it. | | First: I know you're proposing this

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 22:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for ebuilds. The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing. The use of package.mask denotes that the application or library itself is deemed unstable. | Second: a)

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:41:21 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Good time for package maintainers to start following policy | properly, eh? | Good time for policy to be adapted to match reality ;-) Reality is that most people do exactly what policy says. Most bumps don't warrant a

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 04:43 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 04:25 pm, Daniel Ostrow wrote: His point (and it's an unfortunately valid one) as I understand it is that our user base has been (mis)educated to avoid packages in p.mask for fear of breaking things too

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 05:26 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:20:58 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | There is nothing in this view that says consulting the package | maintainer is not part of the stable decision-making process

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Martin Schlemmer
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 16:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i | still dont buy. how

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Kito
On Sep 16, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: actually, going with say 'testing.mask' instead of '?arch' may be better ... reinforce the fact that this is a package-level issue rather than arch-specific I like that concept. A lot less communication overhead, and addresses most of

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 05:57 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 16:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | ok, e17 packages dont

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Mark Loeser
Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. There are currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries or utilities that are no-herd and are actively maintained, and there are probably some that have

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Maurice van der Pot
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:50:39PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: actually, going with say 'testing.mask' instead of '?arch' may be better ... reinforce the fact that this is a package-level issue rather than arch-specific Let me get things straight. We would want this because it's the least

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 16 September 2005 23:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3chap=1 As I said - your interpretation doesn't match mine - or the policy is not good enough. Good time for package maintainers to start following policy properly, eh?

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 16 September 2005 23:50, Mike Frysinger wrote: actually, going with say 'testing.mask' instead of '?arch' may be better ... reinforce the fact that this is a package-level issue rather than arch-specific -mike That's nearly as bad as having to deal with package.mask all the time.

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 16 September 2005 23:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No. You *can* ask the package maintainer, if you feel that such a move would be useful and productive. No. There're lot of issues an arch maintainer not necessarily knows about. Without a way to indicate which ebuild is good, the whole

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 16 September 2005 23:57, Martin Schlemmer wrote: We still have KEYWORDS=-*. I'd appreciate, if we disallow that and all use package.mask. Carsten pgpanBD00AO4P.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:43:02 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Good time for package maintainers to start following policy | properly, eh? | | I'm sorry, not your idea of this policy. Policy is rather specific about it. It's not a matter of interpretation at all. -- Ciaran

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 06:20 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. it is different, but i dont mind the idea of having a bunch of C++ experts looking over a bunch of

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

2005-09-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:00, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Policy is rather specific about it. It's not a matter of interpretation at all. That I disagree should prove that this is not a case. It's one thing to consider an application to just work for the user and another having e.g. the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo alt-projects meeting 9/26 1900 UTC

2005-09-16 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: I don't trust automatic correction, false positives can always happen, currently my way to proceed with such problems is opening a big bug and poking maintainers to fix them :) The esyntaxer tool will warn

[gentoo-dev] compiler-config-2.0_alpha1

2005-09-16 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
Ok, I've put together an alpha release of compiler-config-2.0. This is a replacement for gcc-config which is alot more configurable Some notable improvements over gcc-config-1.3.x: GCC_SPECS and PATH are nolonger set in /etc/env.d/05gcc. Instead, that info is in the config files and extracted

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Aaron Walker
Mark Loeser wrote: Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. There are currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries or utilities that are no-herd and are actively maintained, and there are

[gentoo-dev] The tree is now utf-8 clean

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
The tree is now utf-8 clean. Or it is to the extent that a computer can reasonably determine... If the relevant people are prepared to smack anyone who refuses to play nice then now would be a good time to unwithdraw GLEP 31, make compliance mandatory and add glep31check [1] to repoman or

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:20:57 -0400 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as | Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. | There are currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries | or utilities that

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: gentoolkit: Make portage.config object a global object

2005-09-16 Thread Alec Warner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:59, Paul Varner wrote: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90680 Author: Paul Varner The current implementation of gentoolkit creates a portage.config object for every package object that it