Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 19:29 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > Steve Long wrote: > > IMO the real reason you have such an issue with quoting is the redundant > > braces which are Gentoo house style; too many newbie scripters think that > > cd ${S} is safe when it should be cd "${S}" or more simply cd "$S".

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in gnome-extra/gnome-power-manager: ChangeLog gnome-power-manager-2.20.0.ebuild

On 22:58 Tue 02 Oct , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 16:41 Tue 02 Oct , Saleem Abdulrasool (compnerd) wrote: > > if [[ $(portageq has_version / 'sys-libs/pam') ]] ; then > > You don't need to call portageq, you're already inside portage. Oh yes, this also is broken for ROOT != /. Just wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

Ryan Hill wrote: > SLOT depends are something we could really use right now. What kind of > time frame are you thinking of? +1 from the Gnome Herd, we could definitely use them as well (glib, gtk, gtkhtml, gtksourceview, ... are all slotted) Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in gnome-base/gnome-desktop: ChangeLog gnome-desktop-2.20.0.ebuild

On 19:34 Tue 02 Oct , Mart Raudsepp (leio) wrote: > 1.1 gnome-base/gnome-desktop/gnome-desktop-2.20.0.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/gnome-base/gnome-desktop/gnome-desktop-2.20.0.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > plain: > http://sources.gentoo

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in gnome-extra/gnome-power-manager: ChangeLog gnome-power-manager-2.20.0.ebuild

On 16:41 Tue 02 Oct , Saleem Abdulrasool (compnerd) wrote: > 1.1 > gnome-extra/gnome-power-manager/gnome-power-manager-2.20.0.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/gnome-extra/gnome-power-manager/gnome-power-manager-2.20.0.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=ma

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in mail-client/claws-mail: ChangeLog claws-mail-3.0.2.ebuild

On 16:37 Tue 02 Oct , Andrej Kacian (ticho) wrote: > 1.1 mail-client/claws-mail/claws-mail-3.0.2.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/mail-client/claws-mail/claws-mail-3.0.2.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > plain: > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcv

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in gnome-base/gdm: ChangeLog gdm-2.18.4-r1.ebuild

On 14:40 Tue 02 Oct , Daniel Gryniewicz (dang) wrote: > 1.1 gnome-base/gdm/gdm-2.18.4-r1.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/gnome-base/gdm/gdm-2.18.4-r1.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > plain: > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/gno

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/PyQt4: ChangeLog PyQt4-4.3.1.ebuild

On 12:27 Tue 02 Oct , Caleb Tennis (caleb) wrote: > 1.1 dev-python/PyQt4/PyQt4-4.3.1.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/dev-python/PyQt4/PyQt4-4.3.1.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > plain: > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/dev-pyt

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-db/mysql-community: ChangeLog mysql-community-5.1.21_beta.ebuild

On 10:02 Tue 02 Oct , Robin H. Johnson (robbat2) wrote: > 1.1 dev-db/mysql-community/mysql-community-5.1.21_beta.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/dev-db/mysql-community/mysql-community-5.1.21_beta.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > plain: > http:

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Steve Long wrote: > IMO the real reason you have such an issue with quoting is the redundant > braces which are Gentoo house style; too many newbie scripters think that > cd ${S} is safe when it should be cd "${S}" or more simply cd "$S". I don't > buy the legibility argument since most people use

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:02 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: >> Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they provide useful extensions. >> > it may be worthwhile to force `find` in the portage environment to be >> > GNU find so we can stop wasting time tryin

[gentoo-dev] Re: Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

Zac Medico wrote: > Jason Smathers wrote: >> On 10/2/07, *Robin H. Johnson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: > >> Hi Guys, > >> Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have >> support in profiles for package.use, how soon can we start to u

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 23:16 +0300, Eldad Zack wrote: > On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > I maintain a few packages where I either no longer have the hardware or > > no longer have appropriate access to test the packages. Because of > > this, I am looking to find a maintai

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:02 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they provide useful extensions. it > > may > > be worthwhile to force `find` in the portage environment to be GNU find so > > we > > can stop wasting time trying to figure ou

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Mike Frysinger wrote: > wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they provide useful extensions. it may > be worthwhile to force `find` in the portage environment to be GNU find so we > can stop wasting time trying to figure out how to rewrite expressions in > ebuilds (which can be done trivially w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 23:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Roy Marples wrote: > > Everything in shell IS a command with the exception of variable > > assignment. Why do you think [ exist in /usr/bin? > > > Yes I know, it's the same reason greycat will often use test -e blah && > blahBlah to show where

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason Smathers wrote: > On 10/2/07, *Robin H. Johnson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have > support in profiles for package.use, how

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 19:37 +0100, Steve Long wrote: >> Roy Marples wrote: >> > With [[ ]] you don't need to quote, which encourages people not to >> > bother learning when and when not to quote. >> > >> Ugh, that is so untrue imo. In #bash most people don't know [[ and use [

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 19:37 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Roy Marples wrote: > > With [[ ]] you don't need to quote, which encourages people not to > > bother learning when and when not to quote. > > > Ugh, that is so untrue imo. In #bash most people don't know [[ and use [ > without quoting, as well

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:23 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 02:08 +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > > Let's assume that the new Council will preside from October through > > > September. This would have elections done by September 30th, and > > > nominations start

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 02:08 +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > Let's assume that the new Council will preside from October through > > September. This would have elections done by September 30th, and > > nominations starting on August 1st, as we usually do 1 month for > > nominations and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

> > Something that annoys me is the license : there is [3], [4] and [5], > > so GPL-2 might probably be fine, but I'm definitely not a lawyer... > > You can add several licenses to LICENSE. And a lot of packages are > LPPL, so you really need to adjust it. There has been a discussion on > the

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Roy Marples wrote: > With [[ ]] you don't need to quote, which encourages people not to > bother learning when and when not to quote. > Ugh, that is so untrue imo. In #bash most people don't know [[ and use [ without quoting, as well as leaving out quotes elsewhere. Which is why we beat them over t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 10/2/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I accept the argument for initscripts, since an embedded system is not > > likely to have bash. But for compile-time (which shouldn't happen on an > > embedded target) there simply isn't any real benefit to end-users that I > > can see. > > The

[gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've had several success reports, and fixed the remaining (known) bugs > there. I was thinking that it might be time to integrate this to the > official tree, as a first shoot under package.mask. You would make so many people happy, if one has a look at the s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 18:30 +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: > Tuesday, 2. October 2007, Roy Marples Ви написали: > > And here it is > - if [[ "${FORTRANC}" = "gfortran" ]]; then > + if [ "${FORTRANC}" = "gfortran" ]; then > > You know, it is funny to see these lines after all those cri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Tuesday, 2. October 2007, Roy Marples Ви написали: > And here it is - if [[ "${FORTRANC}" = "gfortran" ]]; then + if [ "${FORTRANC}" = "gfortran" ]; then You know, it is funny to see these lines after all those cries about how [ is evil and we should really never ever use it but rathe

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Natanael Copa wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > >> I don't think there is a technical reason to avoid using bash. > > Ofcourse there is. See first issue mentioned in BUGS section in bash > manpage. > Presumably these

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 15:18 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > Attached is a patch to make it posix sh. And here it is Index: molden-4.6.ebuild === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/sci-chemistry/molden/molden-4.6.ebuild,v retrieving revisio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 13:36 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > ++ There's just too much nice stuff in BASH to drop down to sh to my mind. I > for one would go right off Gentoo if i were forced to write ebuilds in sh. I had this chat with Donnie last night and he pulled the molden ebuild of the top of his

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is > > > this speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the > > > time

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > I don't think there is a technical reason to avoid using bash. Ofcourse there is. See first issue mentioned in BUGS section in bash manpage. -nc -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On 10/2/07, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have > support in profiles for package.use, how soon can we start to use it to > replace the old crufty no* flags (particularly ones that are critical to > a system

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is > > this speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the > > time that it takes bash, but bash can do it in a 1 second, do we care ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Duncan wrote: > Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on > > Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:28:30 +0100: > > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> i am convinced by superior standards and by good things. forcing the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Mike Frysinger wrote: > in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is this > speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the time that it > takes bash, but bash can do it in a 1 second, do we care ? the majority of > ebuilds are going to take magnitud

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 10/2/07, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on > Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:28:30 +0100: > > > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> i am convinced by superior standards and by good things. forcing th

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:28:30 +0100: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> i am convinced by superior standards and by good things. forcing the >> standard from bash to POSIX is neither of these. i

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 10/2/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > BSD is a second class citizen to GNU here. Gentoo started out as a project > > targetting a GNU userland under Linux and will continue for quite sometime > > (forever?) as the majority

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote: > IFF your proposed changes lead to something that is simpler or as simple > to write, faster or as fast to parse, easier or as easy to > read/maintain; then you may have a solid stance. Otherwise it is a > pointless annoyance for everybody, you first

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > BSD is a second class citizen to GNU here. Gentoo started out as a > > project targetting a GNU userland under Linux and will continue for quite > > sometime (forever?) as the majority/cor

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: >> I like consistency too, and I'll be pushing for using sh instead of >> forcing bash. > > pushing a new standard by slowly converting the tree is not the way to go. > >> My motivation? Simple. I don't believe that the porta

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i am convinced by superior standards and by good things. forcing the > > standard from bash to POSIX is neither of these. i dont see that as a > > flaw in my logic. > > Forcing? I'm not a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Roy Marples wrote: > Well, let me be the first to stand for equal rights then! Hm... > > I say that for the most part, there should be no technical reason why > ebuilds cannot be in posix shell whilst being readable and maintainable. Beside teaching us how to do that. > If portage or another p

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > BSD is a second class citizen to GNU here. Gentoo started out as a project > targetting a GNU userland under Linux and will continue for quite sometime > (forever?) as the majority/core focus. forcing the project to limit itself > when

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i am convinced by superior standards and by good things. forcing the > standard > from bash to POSIX is neither of these. i dont see that as a flaw in my > logic. Forcing? I'm not asking for anything to be forced, I'm asking for it to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 02-10-2007 12:00:12 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > Infact, if we're not interested in portable code why bother with > Gentoo/ALT in the first place? Our code /IS/ portable, that's why you and me have a working Gentoo/Alt system at the moment. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- [E

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny > > > the ICC users the ability to compile it? > > > > that is project X's decision and no one else's. dont pull a s

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > I personally like consistency. So if we use bash in ebuilds, then > > > > I'd like to use bash in eclasses too. I'm interested in your > > > > motivation to make this eclass "pure sh"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:41 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 02-10-2007 11:09:21 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > It also means that their code stands a better chance of working where > > bash is not available, but /bin/sh is a POSIX shell still. > > I prefer to define that ebuilds (and eclasses) ar

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny > > the ICC users the ability to compile it? > > that is project X's decision and no one else's. dont pull a stallman on us > and force everyone to subscribe to your

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:10 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > > > A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that > > > monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones th

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 02-10-2007 11:09:21 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > It also means that their code stands a better chance of working where > bash is not available, but /bin/sh is a POSIX shell still. I prefer to define that ebuilds (and eclasses) are dealt by GNU bash, which is installed as part of the installation

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:10 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > > A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that > > monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones throat is > > no better - it's just replacing one monocul

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My > > question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta > > information interpretation definition.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > The bonus is that it works on shells other than bash. > > which is irrelevant here I think otherwise. > > > > I personally like consistency. So if we use bash in ebuilds, then I'd > > > like to use bash in eclasses too. I'm intereste

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

On Monday 01 October 2007, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > 1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council > meeting in September. Will this council have 11 meetings or will its > term end in September of next year? > > 2. Regardless of the decision about the above, we sho

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

On Monday 01 October 2007, Ferris McCormick wrote: > The election for this Council and its aftermath shows that we are not > sure how to handle a situation in which it appears a candidate will not > be able to serve if elected. i see it as jokey (who accepted) being an extended proxy for Flameeyes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Steve Long wrote: > Agreed, as it leaves Gentoo without a Council for a month, and you could > end up with no consistency at all viz date of elections. Stating that the > officials must be selected before the nomination process can be started, > and that the same deadlin

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that > monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones throat is > no better - it's just replacing one monoculture with another one. wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My > question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta > information interpretation definition. In other words, if project X > says their code should b

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:29 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 01-10-2007 22:59:40 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > > I would like to propse a new versionator.eclass for consideration > > > (attached). > > > > > > This version, I believe, is more reada

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 08:35 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: >> After a quick look I wonder how/if it deals with: >> >> 1.01 < 1.1 > > It treats them the same way > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ bash -c '. /usr/portage/eclass/versionator.eclass; > version_compare 1.01 1.1; echo $?' >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 02-10-2007 10:37:25 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > "vendor lock-in" is an interesting term to mention here, as bash is open > > source, and I think (I'm not a lawyer) free to use as long as you want, > > and modifyable if you like. > > Just because it's open source does not mean that it won't tr

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:22 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 02-10-2007 09:48:06 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > > What is your rationale to say that "pure sh" is a "bonus"? Especially > > > given the environment this is used in as ferdy already pointed out? > > > > The bonus is that it works on s

[gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

Hi Guys, Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have support in profiles for package.use, how soon can we start to use it to replace the old crufty no* flags (particularly ones that are critical to a system). One of the ones I've got in my sights is USE=nolvmstatic of sys-f

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 20:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i'd say that changing > > things from doing a case match against proper character classes to doing > > a printf against arbitrary character ranges (which btw are not locale > > safe, so i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

Mike Frysinger schrieb: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically > the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply r

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:38:01 -0700: > The next person is only accepted if the entire remaining Council > unanimously accepts the person. This really is there to allow a > rejection to keep us from going "in the red"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 02-10-2007 09:48:06 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > What is your rationale to say that "pure sh" is a "bonus"? Especially > > given the environment this is used in as ferdy already pointed out? > > The bonus is that it works on shells other than bash. I give you a big chance Solaris' or AIX' /b

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:29 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 01-10-2007 22:59:40 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > I would like to propse a new versionator.eclass for consideration > > (attached). > > > > This version, I believe, is more readable and maintainable then the one > > currently in porta

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass

Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:26:39 +0100: >> > > but I find interesting that >> > > you ripped Ciaran's copyright while leaving the "Prod ciaranm if >> > > you find something it can't handle" comment. >> > >> > I copied and past

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:54 +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >>> 1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council >>> meeting in September. Will this cou

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:29 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 01-10-2007 22:59:40 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > I would like to propse a new versionator.eclass for consideration > > (attached). > > > > This version, I believe, is more readable and maintainable then the one > > currently in porta

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-fs/device-mapper: ChangeLog device-mapper-1.02.22-r1.ebuild

On 08:12 Tue 02 Oct , Robin H. Johnson (robbat2) wrote: > 1.1 sys-fs/device-mapper/device-mapper-1.02.22-r1.ebuild > > file : > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-fs/device-mapper/device-mapper-1.02.22-r1.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > plain: > http://sources.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-lang/ifc: metadata.xml ChangeLog ifc-10.0.026.ebuild

On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 16:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 19:16 Mon 01 Oct , Sébastien Fabbro wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 13:53 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > 1.1 dev-lang/ifc/ifc-10.0.026.ebuild > > > > > > INSTALL_DIR=/opt/intel/${PB}${ext}/${PV} > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

On 01-10-2007 22:59:40 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > I would like to propse a new versionator.eclass for consideration (attached). > > This version, I believe, is more readable and maintainable then the one > currently in portage. It also uses a lot less code and has the bonus of being > pure sh.