[gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Marius Mauch
Hi, Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing in CFLAGS and CHOST (only exception is make.conf.mac which isn't used anymore in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them in make.conf too, except to make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Hi, Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing in CFLAGS and CHOST

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:52:28PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:01 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:52:28PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:01:07PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:01 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:52:28PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just about to finally commit the elog

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

2005-11-15 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:52:28 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Hi, Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different

[gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: parallel-fetch

2005-11-15 Thread Brian Harring
Yo. Continuing the pillaging of ebd, attached is an integration of parallel-fetch. The modification is pretty straight forward offhand; the notable difference this time around is rather then extending portage_exec to have the capability to 'spawn' python funcs (something I always found

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-15 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:42:56 -0600 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: Replace 2.1.0 with 2.2.0 and I'll agree. Skipping 2.1 accomplishes what? Avoid any possible

[gentoo-portage-dev] Savior Plugins Backport

2005-11-15 Thread Alec Warner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This patch should cover the backport of 3.0's plugin framework. Mostly needed to backport a few utils, which were stuck in portage_util.py. A few extra files ( portage_plugins and portage_modules ) were taken wholesale. Also a small addition to

[gentoo-portage-dev] Plugin backport PATCH (1/2)/(2/2)

2005-11-15 Thread Alec Warner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian asked me to split this up, and the first patch had some cruft...and I broke things, both from old messing around. So I started with a clean installed of rc7, hopefully these are a bit better. One patch is for the backend stuff,