You broke deps with that masking. I've commented it in package.mask so
you can fix that up first.
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Mark Loeser wrote:
Upstream has been dead for years and is unmaintained. Also requires
some reworking to compile with gcc-4
Okay three more virtuals that I think should be implemented.
The first would be for generic findutils, that is find and xargs commands; it
would be satisfied by sys-apps/findutils or one of the BSD -ubin packages.
This will solve problems of packages depending on sys-apps/findutils and then
usi
Let me preface this by saying that I am aware of the large amounts of
bad blood existing between various Gentoo dev members and 'dma147'. I
was not poking around under the hood of Gentoo when things transpired,
so I am unaware of what happened... and frankly don't care to know what
happened.
Hi,
This is an automatically created email message.
http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 15047 ebuilds.
The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the ebuilds.
The tests are:
* if a version has been masked for 30 days or more.
* if an arch was in KE
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 21:20 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
> > exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
> > to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
> > going "woah, what?" and if masked
On Monday 03 April 2006 01:54, Daniel Goller wrote:
> you are really trying hard to get gtk(1)
Everyone as s/he likes. I favor the deprecation of the gtk2 flag and start
dancing on my chair, once we have a Portage version with slot/use depends in
arch. But this is a completely different topic: K
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 01:17 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> > Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
> > simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
> > 2.0 .
>
> Why didn't you file (Gentoo) securi
Upstream has been dead for years and is unmaintained. Also requires
some reworking to compile with gcc-4; bug #122022. It will be removed
in 4 weeks unless someone steps up to maintain it.
--
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email - halcy0n AT gent
On Sunday 02 April 2006 17:23, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at
> package.mask. Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is
> void. And even if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
As Andrej Kacian already noted, there are quit
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:12, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most
> > people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like
> > that.
> Most people upgrade the whole system at once - those would see a warning
> about masked
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:53 +0200, foser wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:43 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Delaying GNOME-2.14 for non-GNOME packages using gtk2 USE flag is mildly
> > funny to me, too.
>
> These two things are not related, 2.14 is not delayed whatsoever.
> Jakub's call was just
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
> simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
> 2.0 .
Why didn't you file (Gentoo) security bugs? Perfect reason to drop Gtk1
support, if no one steps up to
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:43 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Delaying GNOME-2.14 for non-GNOME packages using gtk2 USE flag is mildly
> funny to me, too.
These two things are not related, 2.14 is not delayed whatsoever.
Jakub's call was just to get attention to the bugs and didn't originate
from the
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> I don't think gtk 1 will leave the tree soon, but at least we can try to
> make it unneeded on most users systems.
I would just give my 2 eurocents about this, although I originally wasn't so
keen on having gtk2 useflag dropped entirely.
gtk 1.2 has a
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the "lets
> remove
> packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one
Sure it does, in my experience unmaintained packages tend to depend on
unmaintained
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
> future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider was
> The Man, so i guess people forgot about that
That was never the case. We actually
On Sunday 02 April 2006 23:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Not that I'd care so much whether it's a week or a month (IMO individual
> depending on ebuild in question) - so just a technical note. Portage 2.1
> *does* spit out the relevant info.
I'm aware of this, but that doesn't help anyone running running
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:42:50 -0300
"Marcelo Góes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/2/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at
> > package.mask. Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is
> > void. And even
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 23:20 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
> >>> "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... i
On 4/2/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask.
> Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even
> if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
I still do not understand what the rush is wit
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> lets apply the same logic to all things unmaintained !
Yes, that's one reason I am so annoyed of the unmaintained parts of the tree.
> besides, you're talking about removing GTK1 completely ... this thread is
> talking about deprecating the g
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> I don't see the necessity for devs and users would have to look at the
> package.mask file regularly to get the information that a package is masked.
> If Portage would be that smart to spit out the relevant information on
> emerge --sync, a longer period would probably m
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's
> absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
> way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative
> tools in.
This is n
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
>>> "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it
>>> benefits no one
>> No bugs filed? Well, just search the
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> This is a recent change, and usually someone replies with "why not a
> month?".
This is simply not true or we have very different ideas of the meaning of
recent. The vast majority of "last rites" emails from 2005 had slated
removals of one
On Sunday 02 April 2006 16:09, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting
> > > Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc..
> >
> > and when such a situation arises, the solution may to simp
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 22:20:49 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The usual period is thirty days.
|
| Grep this mailing list, most often a one week period was used.
This is a recent change, and usually someone replies with "wh
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Who said a package gets masked before it gets removed? There is no such
requirement in the ebuild policy.
Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's absolutely
reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That way you give
the user
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The usual period is thirty days.
Grep this mailing list, most often a one week period was used.
> Once it's in p.mask it's effectively gone, to the extent that ignoring
> it for a month is fine.
Who said a package gets masked before it gets
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van D??k wrote:
> > Others did speak up at that time. The result:
> >
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641
>
> Yeah, that was the one and only single voice.
On gentoo-d
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
> future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider
> was The Man, so i guess people forgot about that
No, see the whole thread Harald references
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
> > "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it
> > benefits no one
>
> No bugs filed? Well, just search the archives of this ML, an
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Others did speak up at that time. The result:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641
Yeah, that was the one and only single voice.
Carsten
pgplFkefqq6Ma.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 09:12:28PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term,
> so
> blaming Olivier for usin
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
"lets remove
> packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one
No bugs filed? Well, just search the archives of this ML, and search
bugzilla for all those bugs about portage pulling in
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:20:21 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| We haven't had a single issue with the usual seven day period
The usual period is thirty days.
| > in short, if it's slowing down the process, why do you need it to be
| > quick in the first place?
|
| Getting the junk
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:12, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term,
> so blaming Olivier for using it is a bit od
On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
> exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
> to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
> going "woah, what?" and if masked it is a matter of unmasking rather
> than recommitting
We haven
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony
On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term, so
blaming Olivier for using it is a bit odd), but what we (can and want to)
support. Wouldn't it have
Alexander Gretencord wrote:
> And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most
> people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like
> that.
Most people upgrade the whole system at once - those would see a warning
about masked package.
Cheers,
-jkt
--
c
On Saturday 01 April 2006 22:52, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Yes, there is. It's slowing down the process, getting into the flow.
> > Waiting 30 days is a lot of time. A regular user does not necessarily
> > follow the dev-gentoo mailing list and it doesn't matter for him, if the
> > package is masked o
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
have been lasting for half a y
On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> > > have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* n
On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> or you can be the hero and fix the packages
ehehe yeah I'll do when i'll have more time, like i did for binutils ;)
By the way, that patch? :P
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD,
On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> > have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
>
> too bad it doesnt address packages which s
On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:04, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Thus my request to zmedico to have a per-package use.mask so that we can
> mask the flag for the packages that can use only the sys-apps/acl
> interface.
or you can be the hero and fix the packages ;)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.or
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:41:25 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In your own words what benefit does this have over
> kernel_linux? ( acl? ( sys-apps/acl ))
It moves all of the platform-conditional voodoo into one place, which
helps maintainability and will greatly reduce the work involv
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:26:27 +0100 Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | We have a fair number of packages in the tree (57 someone said, but a
> | non-trivial number) which depend upon sys-apps/acl for ACL support.
> | Since the packages needed for this differ bet
On Sunday 02 April 2006 19:41, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Do they use the same API?
Not all of them, although some API are common iirc.
Most, but not all, of the packages has anyway fallback to the right API in the
right system (it's the case of vim and bsdtar at least, and should be the
same for kdelibs,
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:26:27 +0100 Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| We have a fair number of packages in the tree (57 someone said, but a
| non-trivial number) which depend upon sys-apps/acl for ACL support.
| Since the packages needed for this differ between platforms
| (sys-apps/acl is
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 18:26 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> We have a fair number of packages in the tree (57 someone said, but a
> non-trivial number) which depend upon sys-apps/acl for ACL support.
> Since the packages needed for this differ between platforms
> (sys-apps/acl is for linux only), i
We have a fair number of packages in the tree (57 someone said, but a
non-trivial number) which depend upon sys-apps/acl for ACL support.
Since the packages needed for this differ between platforms
(sys-apps/acl is for linux only), if noone has any reasonable
objections I will be adding a (new-styl
On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize gtk/gtk2
i for one wont be "fixing" thes
This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
For affected ebuilds, please see the attached list and Bug 106560.
Thanks.
--
jakub
app-crypt/pinentry-0.7.2
app-editors/mp-3.3.12
app-editors/mp-3.3.14
app-
This is just a friendly reminder that Bug 116346 doesn't seem to be
moving much. :P The two months old list seems still almost fully valid.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=79178&action=view
Do we manage to kill the flag? Always good to have one redundant flag
less... ;)
Thanks.
--
ja
56 matches
Mail list logo
