[gentoo-dev] fwbuilder and libfwbuilder
Hi guys, if nobody has an objection to it, i'll take maintainership of the fwbuilder/libfwbuilder ebuilds since they are in need of love. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2007-07-29 23h59 UTC
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:26:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed > from the tree, for the week ending 2007-07-29 23h59 UTC. Ignore this one, it's the next weeks run due to a cron burp. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpBNGZTO75EE.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2007-07-22 23h59 UTC
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2007-07-22 23h59 UTC. Removals: media-plugins/banshee-official-plugins 2007-07-17 03:41:26 drac mail-client/muttng 2007-07-19 17:47:28 grobian dev-java/bluej-bin 2007-07-20 08:46:29 drac app-forensics/regviewer 2007-07-20 09:47:42 dragonheart media-gfx/xzgv 2007-07-21 07:44:00 drac net-dialup/multiimonc 2007-07-21 15:48:24 dirtyepic virtual/x11 2007-07-21 23:57:36 dberkholz Additions: sci-biology/embassy-meme2007-07-18 01:43:22 ribosome sci-biology/embassy-phylip 2007-07-18 01:50:28 ribosome sci-biology/embassy-vienna 2007-07-18 01:59:20 ribosome app-cdr/cdck2007-07-19 09:59:22 zzam x11-plugins/wmwork 2007-07-20 14:49:18 s4t4n dev-dotnet/mono-addins 2007-07-20 21:48:43 jurek dev-tex/glossaries 2007-07-22 13:09:49 pylon net-p2p/linkage 2007-07-22 14:08:35 drac media-plugins/vdr-atmo 2007-07-22 15:50:38 hd_brummy -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 Removed Packages: media-plugins/banshee-official-plugins,removed,drac,2007-07-17 03:41:26 mail-client/muttng,removed,grobian,2007-07-19 17:47:28 dev-java/bluej-bin,removed,drac,2007-07-20 08:46:29 app-forensics/regviewer,removed,dragonheart,2007-07-20 09:47:42 media-gfx/xzgv,removed,drac,2007-07-21 07:44:00 net-dialup/multiimonc,removed,dirtyepic,2007-07-21 15:48:24 virtual/x11,removed,dberkholz,2007-07-21 23:57:36 Added Packages: sci-biology/embassy-meme,added,ribosome,2007-07-18 01:43:22 sci-biology/embassy-phylip,added,ribosome,2007-07-18 01:50:28 sci-biology/embassy-vienna,added,ribosome,2007-07-18 01:59:20 app-cdr/cdck,added,zzam,2007-07-19 09:59:22 x11-plugins/wmwork,added,s4t4n,2007-07-20 14:49:18 dev-dotnet/mono-addins,added,jurek,2007-07-20 21:48:43 dev-tex/glossaries,added,pylon,2007-07-22 13:09:49 net-p2p/linkage,added,drac,2007-07-22 14:08:35 media-plugins/vdr-atmo,added,hd_brummy,2007-07-22 15:50:38 Done.
[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2007-07-29 23h59 UTC
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2007-07-29 23h59 UTC. Removals: games-fps/blackshades-cvs 2007-07-23 12:41:47 nyhm dev-cpp/libbonobomm 2007-07-24 01:35:02 leio dev-cpp/libbonobouimm 2007-07-24 01:35:02 leio dev-cpp/orbitcpp2007-07-24 01:35:02 leio Additions: games-fps/blackshades 2007-07-23 12:39:34 nyhm app-misc/emelfm22007-07-23 17:42:09 drac -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 Removed Packages: games-fps/blackshades-cvs,removed,nyhm,2007-07-23 12:41:47 dev-cpp/libbonobomm,removed,leio,2007-07-24 01:35:02 dev-cpp/libbonobouimm,removed,leio,2007-07-24 01:35:02 dev-cpp/orbitcpp,removed,leio,2007-07-24 01:35:02 Added Packages: games-fps/blackshades,added,nyhm,2007-07-23 12:39:34 app-misc/emelfm2,added,drac,2007-07-23 17:42:09 Done.
[gentoo-dev] Re: Nominations Update
Christina Fullam schrieb: > Just a reminder about nominations and voting... > If anyone is still interested in running, you have one week left for > nominations. > Most who have accepted havent told us why we should vote for them. While > that information is not required perhaps it should be if we are to make > intelligent votes - sorry this isnt a popularity contest so give us some > content to review. Agreeing with previous posters to this thread here, it is a bit of popularity contest ;) > 1) What you will do > 2) Why you will do it While being all for finally documented EAPI stuff (we really need use and slot deps), I also want to keep an eye on user involvement. After all I wouldn't be a dev myself if some other dev would have been willing to help me with this stuff. I think we have quite a bunch of powerusers who either hide a bit in the corner or hit some devs they can't work along with. Actually makes me sad when I see such stuff when userrel@ gets involved. Besides that, some Distributions that base their work on gentoo already have hit some technical issues with the system they want to work around (There will be a binary merger some time soonish)... We should see if we can pick up some stuff from the communities that are even not directly gentoo related to see if we can merge work instead of duplicating it. I second a recent planet post about NotInventedHere problems sometimes. That should bring us back on track and at the technical top of (meta)distributions :) > 3) How you will do it For the technical part, well, you can't force someone to do things if he works just for fun. Though I want to get people motivated to work towards the new features mentioned in previous questions. On many ends we have proven that we can handle even huge evolutions soonish, so we should go on with it. > 4) What is the timescale for doing it Some of my ideas take some weeks, some may last longer. Depends on motivation of all involved, though I'm willing to set a point on that. > 5) What experience do you have with this or a similar role As being part of userrel, overlays lead and sunrise co-lead I already have a fair share at users front I think ;) > 6) Why do you think you are qualified I'm quite active in the opensource community (member of two LUGs), gentoo user since 1.4rc days and dev for more than one and a half year now. I think I know more a bit about how the stuff works around here. > 7) How you plan to balance a council role with your current Gentoo role I mentored / co-mentored a good handful of devs who keep up the work when I'm not in (Uni exams mainly) ;) > 8) How much time can you dedicate to the council role Should be something around 1-2 hours a day, sometimes more, sometimes a bit less. After all I still maintain some mystic thing called real-life ;) Though if you have something important, I am on irc, reachable via email and if there is really scary stuff going on, some devs have my cell phone number to send me a text about it. Greetz -Jokey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On 7/21/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is just a heads up for getting baselayout-2 stable. Next week I plan to put baselayout-2.0.0_rc1 into the tree without any keywords and it will be removed from package.mask (keeping the current alphas masked though). Arch teams will then be pinged on a bug to keyword baselayout-2. Hi! Just an issue I thought a long while ago... What about adding USE flags for all optional networking components... So that they installed without manually merging them one by one? Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stratos Psomadakis wrote: > i'm a bit confused... > i have the same problem... > i try to make an upgrade and it says that pidgin is going to be rebuilt > without the msn use flag(althoug i have enabled the use flag for > pidgin,in /etc/portage/package.use)... > what's the problem?...is there a solution?... > :/ > thx... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGph/Ip/VmCx0OL2wRAiLsAKCJnjQ0dEPv1DHnKD9dEt15mm64dwCeML6Y knVO6SwUGq9+P9IvNgMf9iY= =7pit -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols
i'm a bit confused... i have the same problem... i try to make an upgrade and it says that pidgin is going to be rebuilt without the msn use flag(althoug i have enabled the use flag for pidgin,in /etc/portage/package.use)... what's the problem?...is there a solution?... :/ thx... O/H Christian Faulhammer έγραψε: > "Eric Polino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin >> turned on by default. We often get people coming to #pidgin looking >> for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working. >> It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE >> flag. >> > > Without doubting the decision made about the msn USE flag, here are > some quotes from a bug report: > > "I am not sure if it's a bug ... > anyway, at least on AMD64 you have removed MSN protocol. > Right now I am avoiding an upgrade because the flag has been marked as > not usable.[...]" > > [Some discussion later] > > "If I see (-msn%*) and as far as I know it means that you are removing > the protocol." [Editor's note: (-msn%) means that the USE flag has been > removed and was not enabled] > > [Even more bitching] > > "Otherwise, if this was not the case, it's not written anywhere that > this flag is incorporated oh, yes I know it is in the Changelog, > and I have read it before filing this bug, but come on ... that's not > the point. In this case, you should do like skype, i.e.: emerge pidgin > (msn) (yahoo) (icq) spell tcl tk -avahi -bonjour ... and so far and so > on ... and you should not delete/remove the flag in the way you did. > > Licq still uses msn flag so I user may understand that licq is the > only software supporting MSN." > > V-Li > > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: > And there aren't specification-compliant Yaml libraries for Ruby, > Python or Perl. That's important. If you're using the thing that Syck > generates, you're not using Yaml. Sorry for starting this off-topic discussion. I'd suggest that we first concentrate on what we want (moving DESCRIPTION or not), while not forgetting this difficulty when making the decision of which format or library to choose (which might not happen at all if we decide not to check whether we should change the format of metadata). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:11:35 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's > > still a pain in the ass to handle... > > > > Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different > than ruby python and perl... =/ And there aren't specification-compliant Yaml libraries for Ruby, Python or Perl. That's important. If you're using the thing that Syck generates, you're not using Yaml. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's still a > pain in the ass to handle... > Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different than ruby python and perl... =/ lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations Update
Yesterday night I tried to reply but I was too tired... Christina Fullam wrote: > Just a reminder about nominations and voting... > If anyone is still interested in running, you have one week left for > nominations. > Most who have accepted havent told us why we should vote for them. While > that information is not required perhaps it should be if we are to make > intelligent votes - sorry this isnt a popularity contest so give us some > content to review. Ok > > 1) What you will do Probably I'll try my best to make sure what is decided in the council will end up with something implemented, hopefully in a timely fashion, no matter how unpopular may be perceived. E.g.: push for getting an EAPI 1.1 with some nice stuff, like the IUSE defaults, out asap and use them on the tree. > 2) Why you will do it Because I like to help and maybe I still have some sanity to invest into this project > 3) How you will do it Basically trying to be balanced and to keep things on the technical field. I like to offer alternative solutions but usually I try to pick the best one (possibly not what I proposed, I'm an fan of the antiNIH movement) > 4) What is the timescale for doing it "This is an opensource project, we deliver things when we feel it is ready". I'll try my best to keep things going smoothly and that also includes suggesting/changing leads in subprojects or have parallel subprojects spawned to let people willing to do have their share of fun. > 5) What experience do you have with this or a similar role Messed with politics in my University, I'm a member of different associations of different sizes with deciding roles of various degree > 6) Why do you think you are qualified Usually I try to get along with everybody and I try to let people know when I'm biased towards something (being unbiased is too hard) > 7) How you plan to balance a council role with your current Gentoo role There aren't conflicts so far for my gentoo role and my outside roles (e.g. me being an ffmpeg/mplayer developer) > 8) How much time can you dedicate to the council role Enough to be present, not enough to be annoying (hopefully) Feel free to ping me on irc if you have questions ^^ lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:46:05 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has > > only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external > > bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically yaml except > > with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly", in > > which case there's Syck... > > what about libyaml? libyaml's the compliant one, but it only supports the bottom part of the stack. You'd still have to write the composer and constructor by hand, which is a lot of work. It also can't read many documents generated by Syck because it's strictly specification compliant and rejects invalid input. Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's still a pain in the ass to handle... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has > only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external > bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically yaml except > with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly", in which > case there's Syck... > what about libyaml? lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations Update
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:25:56 +0200 "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've said my piece. You'll vote for me if you agree with my > > technical decisions and you find yourself siding with me (even > > mentally) in the few discussions I take part in on -dev and #-dev. > > I can't say much about your technical decisions because I haven't > consciously seen any, I rarely see you take part in any discussions. > > So your refusal to say anything about what you have in mind is > rather problematic to me and probably others. > > On this basis, I can't and won't vote for you. If you've not been paying attention to what Roy's been doing whilst on the Council, perhaps you shouldn't be voting at all... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations Update
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 14:25 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: > I can't say much about your technical decisions because I haven't > consciously seen any, I rarely see you take part in any discussions. Maybe that's because -dev wasn't a forum for technical discussion. Hopefully that might change. > So your refusal to say anything about what you have in mind is rather > problematic to me and probably others. What did you want me to say? I don't have anything planned beyond what I already do (which is baselayout, some base system foo, dhcpcd, Gentoo/FreeBSD on x86 and sparc) Or should I make up some crap just to get votes? Sorry, won't do that. I *will* say that I will continue to work on what I'm doing to make Gentoo a better place. > On this basis, I can't and won't vote for you. That's your prerogative. You do know that we use a Condorcet voting system which means you rank candidates instead of voting for them? Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> Petteri Rýty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
>>> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
>>> added to repoman.
>> Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it?
>> What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not
>> displaying correct information) exactly?
>
>> V-Li
>
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata.
No
> That would make it
> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
>
It isn't duplicated, description is per ebuild and could change,
metadata is for the package as whole.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] My answers to the questions for the council candidates
Christina Fullam kirjoitti: > Just a reminder about nominations and voting... > If anyone is still interested in running, you have one week left for > nominations. > Most who have accepted havent told us why we should vote for them. While > that information is not required perhaps it should be if we are to make > intelligent votes - sorry this isnt a popularity contest so give us some > content to review. Dunno. Seems like a popularity contest to me :) Of course answering the questions well can increase your popularity. > > 1) What you will do > Provide my knowledge and hopefully get things done. As for the goal side I will push for getting EAPI-0 and EAPI-1 finished and accepted. > 2) Why you will do it To loose the right to blame others. > 3) How you will do it With sticks and carrots. > 4) What is the timescale for doing it Of course it would be great to provide some far reaching visions at this point but I think it would be better to focus on the bunch of important things on the table that need doing and after getting that stuff done start to think about the next things to do. > 5) What experience do you have with this or a similar role At least some people should remember what I did during 2006. > 6) Why do you think you are qualified At least I am the Java and Recruiters lead. > 7) How you plan to balance a council role with your current Gentoo role I will make Calchan and Java monkeys do all the work for me :) > 8) How much time can you dedicate to the council role A couple hours weekly should not be much of a problem. But really if you need any further info just ping me on IRC or of course you can ask here too. My irssi never sleeps. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:18:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
> >> make it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove
> >> some duplication.
> >
> > Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage
> > won't use XML for anything that it has to parse.
>
> Well, if/when DESCRIPTION is moved to metadata, this must be changed.
The intention was to stick with things that could be parsed quickly and
easily, without relying upon slow library code. Whether that's still an
issue these days what with the Portage people who were saying that the
loudest not being around any more is up for debate...
Although, at the other end of the scale, Daniel claims that he wanted
to move all ebuild metadata into metadata.xml...
> Unless we change the metadata format as well (to yaml for example :-)
The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically yaml except
with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly", in which
case there's Syck...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Petteri Räty schrieb: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186454 In regard to this it makes sense to add a check (but only a warning) to repoman and document it in the devmanual. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
>> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
>> duplication.
>
> Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage won't
> use XML for anything that it has to parse.
Well, if/when DESCRIPTION is moved to metadata, this must be changed.
Unless we change the metadata format as well (to yaml for example :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Petteri Räty schrieb:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
>> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
>>> atoms?
>> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
>> various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
>>
>
> I did say in my original mail that there are ebuilds building dynamic
> DESCRIPTION variables but the my question was that does anything make
> use of their dynamic nature. I think for example eix only looks at the
> latest.
Because it spuriously assumes that only the latest one is relevant and
it therefore doesn't do any ${PV} substitution (which is correct
behavior under this assumption).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
On Tuesday, 24. July 2007 14:26, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> >
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
> >> make it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove
> >> some duplication.
> >
> > Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage
> > won't use XML for anything that it has to parse.
>
> Well here we need to answer the question whether searching
> DESCRIPTION strings is a core feature. I have never used emerge
> --searchdesc but that might be just me.
I believe it to be a core feature. How else am I to find an rss reader
in portage without having any preference or knowledge before
installing? Or some random tool to convert X to Y.
Often, features are not part of the name.
Robert
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
>> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
>
>
>
>
> sounds like something for EAPI-1
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186454
right, we can just get rid of DESCIRPTION
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
>> atoms?
>
> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
> various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
and put details like this in .
Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGpfZZp/VmCx0OL2wRAqnsAJ4s1QCF2X+DZlxupyRjLGm3getRVwCeMrmx
bwX7qP5PeseQ4B8ypNIcQIA=
=V04j
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
>> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
>> duplication.
>
> Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage won't
> use XML for anything that it has to parse.
>
Well here we need to answer the question whether searching DESCRIPTION
strings is a core feature. I have never used emerge --searchdesc but
that might be just me.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations Update
Hello Roy! I've said my piece. You'll vote for me if you agree with my technical decisions and you find yourself siding with me (even mentally) in the few discussions I take part in on -dev and #-dev. I can't say much about your technical decisions because I haven't consciously seen any, I rarely see you take part in any discussions. So your refusal to say anything about what you have in mind is rather problematic to me and probably others. On this basis, I can't and won't vote for you. -- Best but rather irritated regards, Wulf NB: Why should I vote for someone who doesn't even know *himself* why he wants to be on the council and who's motivation was a free beer? pgpG98UvBXD2v.pgp Description: PGP Digital Signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300 > Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION >> atoms? > > Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include > various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION. > I did say in my original mail that there are ebuilds building dynamic DESCRIPTION variables but the my question was that does anything make use of their dynamic nature. I think for example eix only looks at the latest. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
> duplication.
Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage won't
use XML for anything that it has to parse.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION > atoms? Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Tiziano Müller wrote: As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself (rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change between versions, whether "automatically" by using a version-dependent variable or "manually". Well, from what I understand, DESCRIPTION should generally stay the same between different versions of the same package. While two versions of the same package may have some slight differences, the general purpose of the package should remain the same, and DESCRIPTION is after all just a short general description. I don't see any/enough exceptions to warrant all the duplication and unnecessary complexity. -- David Shakaryan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Tiziano Müller kirjoitti:
> Petteri Räty schrieb:
>> Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
>> description which leads to results like:
>> Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
>> Java SDK version 1.6.0
>>
>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you should
>> not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be added to repoman.
>
> As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself
> (rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change
> between versions, whether "automatically" by using a version-dependent
> variable or "manually".
>
> I'd therefore only add a note in the devmanual which recommends not to
> use ${PV} (and ${P}, ...) in the DESCRIPTION.
>
> Cheers,
> Tiziano
>
But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION atoms?
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> Petteri Rýty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
>>> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
>>> added to repoman.
>> Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it?
>> What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not
>> displaying correct information) exactly?
>
>> V-Li
>
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
>
> Marijn
>
>
sounds like something for EAPI-1
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186454
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Petteri Räty schrieb:
> Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
> description which leads to results like:
> Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
> Java SDK version 1.6.0
>
> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you should
> not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be added to repoman.
As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself
(rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change
between versions, whether "automatically" by using a version-dependent
variable or "manually".
I'd therefore only add a note in the devmanual which recommends not to
use ${PV} (and ${P}, ...) in the DESCRIPTION.
Cheers,
Tiziano
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
I think that this is a great idea, for the reasons which you stated. I
certainly hope this will not be yet another situation where everyone
agrees and no one takes any action to actually implement anything.
--
David Shakaryan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: media-fonts/artwiz-fonts
Ryan Hill wrote: > # Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (23 Jul 2007) > # duplicated by media-fonts/artwiz-aleczapka-en. use that instead. > # Bug #186400 > media-fonts/artwiz-fonts Unmasked until artwiz-aleczapka-en gets the appropriate keywording. Sorry about that. -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Petteri R�ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
>> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
>> added to repoman.
>
> Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it?
> What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not
> displaying correct information) exactly?
>
> V-Li
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGpeY0p/VmCx0OL2wRAttEAJ4pNQ9Ez7zz3wyOsZtBKclfEIll0gCfTW6z
w1X0FcpUJ1OnijVdd8wOJ0A=
=JsjC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue: > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html > What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you > should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be > added to repoman. Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it? What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not displaying correct information) exactly? V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
description which leads to results like:
Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
Java SDK version 1.6.0
I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you should
not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be added to repoman.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
Ryan Hill wrote: > Michael Cummings wrote: > a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project agree that any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software. > >>> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. > >> It's not a problem - what we actually produce as a product, the ebuilds, >> etc., >> are free to distribute. > > They may want to change their language then from "software distributed" > to "software produced" or something. Taken literally it seems to imply > differently. Is it possible to ask your contact to clarify this, just > to be safe? Never mind, i just saw Chris' post. Good enough for me. ;D -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:55:16 +0200 Benedikt Boehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:17:46 +0200 > Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: > > > > qmail_base_install should be split in smaller functions, maybe > > > > with callbacks (if possible in bash). > > [...] > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean with "callbacks" here, maybe you can > > > elaborate? > > > > If we have a common part which cannot, due to whatever reason, be > > split into several functions, but we've to do something package > > specific in between, we need callbacks. Just a sample (might not > > work at all, I'm not that much into eclasses): > > [...] > > i guess this could be done with some "eval" foo... going to run some > tests the next days > I figured that we can simply use declare to check if a function exists, so i implemented hooks for all install functions and provided a combined qmail_src_install that calls all install functions. I also moved the unpack stuff back into the ebuilds, only genqmail and qmail-spp remain with a little unpack function in the eclass... Bene -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-2 stablisation plans
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, the "best" for us is if it is already stable in the tree before > we snapshot, as that means it was tested and stabilized prior to our > snapshot and likely has more QA done on it before we even start the > release. If we can do that, then Release Engineering will be set and > we'll love you long time. x86 will do some extensive testing, too. So we should be ready soon. V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
Roy Marples escribió: On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what to use and that we're all on the same page. Fair enough. Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway? Note that the following arch's have been tested by people other than me amd64 arm ppc ppc64 sparc (fbsd only i think so far) x86 In alpha is under testing by Tobias Klausman (B|ackbird) but, a part from the net.eth0 lost link issue, seems to be sane AFAIK. We will be ready very soon. Thanks. -- Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations Update
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 17:38 -0700, Christina Fullam wrote: > Just a reminder about nominations and voting... > If anyone is still interested in running, you have one week left for > nominations. > Most who have accepted havent told us why we should vote for them. While > that information is not required perhaps it should be if we are to make > intelligent votes - sorry this isnt a popularity contest so give us some > content to review. I've been nominated, and I've accepted (after bribery of beer :P). I'm also a current Council member. I'm not going to tell you why you should vote for me, as I'm not a politician. I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to do if I was voted back in because I don't have a game plan as such. And when it comes right down to it, it *is* a popularity contest. Or rather who would you trust the most to make decisions you agree with. So you're really voting for someone like-minded and is probably more eloquent and vocal than yourself. I've said my piece. You'll vote for me if you agree with my technical decisions and you find yourself siding with me (even mentally) in the few discussions I take part in on -dev and #-dev. Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
