[gentoo-dev] RFC: new sword-module eclass

Okay, this is my first attempt at writing an eclass, so comments are welcome. First of all, here's the background. Sword modules are currently lumped together in one general package (sword-modules), when it would be simpler and easier to track them by having them as individual packages, each

[gentoo-dev] Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] exists

Ryan Hill wrote: Torsten Veller wrote: gentoo-devhelp was created some days ago. More info on . I filed a request to get it on GMane. Should be available in a bit. She's up. gmane.linux.gentoo.devhelp -- fonts,

[gentoo-dev] Best practices for package.mask removals

Remi (or rane.. or some other r- dev ;]) was asking a couple days ago how to write a package.mask entry for removals so the script picks it up. Actually there is no script (just me), and there's no real rules. but I thought I'd mention a couple things that would make life easier. In your packa

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:43:38 +0100 "Matthias B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's wrong with making it an optional dependency? Something like a > useflag Because if this would be done consistently we'd end up with several thousand use flags long term, not really what I'd call managable. Unfor

[gentoo-dev] KDE 3.5.8 for x86

Hi arches, just to let you know that I will start marking above monster stable on Wednesday 30 Jan 2008 from 0800 CET for x86. Please leave the kde-base category alone for some hours. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNo

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-tex/koma-script, due some day after 28 Feb 2008

# Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (28 Jan 2008) # Provided by all our TeX distributions and thus # collides with them. Bug #153168 # Masked for removal, due some day after 28 Feb 2008 dev-tex/koma-script Alexis. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:59:39 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Krzysiek Pawlik kirjoitti: > > Yuri Vasilevski wrote: > >> I would say drop it from system and add to RDEPEND in kernel-2.eclass > >> for ${ETYPE} == sources. > > > > IMHO that's a bad idea - everybody use some kernel so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: openswan mit Kernel 2.6.24

Mateusz Mierzwinski pisze: Hallo, Please write in English, not everybody speaks German. Christian Faulhammer pisze: Hallo, Dirk Spiekermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Die IPSec-tools und Openswan habe ich schon neu emerged. Auch die neue Option "Authenc support" im Kernel habe ich aktiviert.

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti: On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:59:39 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BSD, prefix etc. I would say breaking make install is worse than requiring people to keep debianutils installed. They can just use package.provided if they want to get rid of it. ...which the

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:59:39 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BSD, prefix etc. I would say breaking make install is worse than > requiring people to keep debianutils installed. They can just use > package.provided if they want to get rid of it. ...which then breaks things that hav

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:23:18AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > now that the mktemp binary has been moved out of debianutils and integrated > straight into coreutils, perhaps it's time to ask how important this package > is to everyone. current debianutils is part of "system" and provides: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

Krzysiek Pawlik kirjoitti: Yuri Vasilevski wrote: I would say drop it from system and add to RDEPEND in kernel-2.eclass for ${ETYPE} == sources. IMHO that's a bad idea - everybody use some kernel sources, but not everybody runs `make install'. I'm for dropping debianutils from system. BSD

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: openswan mit Kernel 2.6.24

Hallo, Please write in English, not everybody speaks German. Christian Faulhammer pisze: Hallo, Dirk Spiekermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Die IPSec-tools und Openswan habe ich schon neu emerged. Auch die neue Option "Authenc support" im Kernel habe ich aktiviert. OpenSwan ist mittl

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

Yuri Vasilevski wrote: I would say drop it from system and add to RDEPEND in kernel-2.eclass for ${ETYPE} == sources. IMHO that's a bad idea - everybody use some kernel sources, but not everybody runs `make install'. I'm for dropping debianutils from system. -- Krzysiek Pawlik key id: 0

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: debianutils: system worthy ?

Duncan wrote: At minimum, I'd say make the usual BIG WARNING NOISES in the usual places, and probably still expect complaints. It may still be worth doing to cut down on system size... or not, depending on where the system size vs. inevitable complaints comes down. (FWIW, it's precisely this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: debianutils: system worthy ?

Duncan wrote: > Mainstream kernel's default make install uses /sbin/installkernel if it > exists, so I've been using it, invoking the kernel's make install from my > own kernel scripts. installkernel invokes mkboot... We (the docs team) have never suggested out users to run `make install` for v

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

Yuri Vasilevski kirjoitti: On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:18 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: now that the mktemp binary has been moved out of debianutils and integrated straight into coreutils, perhaps it's time to ask how important this package is to everyone. current debianutils i

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:18 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > now that the mktemp binary has been moved out of debianutils and > integrated straight into coreutils, perhaps it's time to ask how > important this package is to everyone. current debianutils is part > of "system" and

[gentoo-dev] Re: openswan mit Kernel 2.6.24

Hallo, Dirk Spiekermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Die IPSec-tools und Openswan habe ich schon neu emerged. Auch die > neue Option "Authenc support" im Kernel habe ich aktiviert. OpenSwan ist mittlerweile in Version 2.4.11 (nicht in Portage) erschienen, eventuell ist die Version angepasst. V-Li -

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

Mike Frysinger wrote: now that the mktemp binary has been moved out of debianutils and integrated straight into coreutils, perhaps it's time to ask how important this package is to everyone. current debianutils is part of "system" and provides: - installkernel - run-parts - tempfile - save

[gentoo-dev] Re: debianutils: system worthy ?

Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:18 -0500: > current debianutils is part of "system" and provides: > - installkernel > - mkboot > do people consider these things critical ? i dont know the last time i > personally needed/

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

On 28-01-2008 07:23:18 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > do people consider these things critical ? i dont know the last time i > personally needed/wanted any of these ... Given that it needs a jumbo patch to compile on non-GNU/Linux systems lacking GNU getopt, I wouldn't mind if it would get dropp

Re: [gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

Mike Frysinger a écrit : do people consider these things critical ? i dont know the last time i personally needed/wanted any of these ... I for one didn't even know what tools it provided ... let alone what I might use them for. Rémi -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] debianutils: system worthy ?

now that the mktemp binary has been moved out of debianutils and integrated straight into coreutils, perhaps it's time to ask how important this package is to everyone. current debianutils is part of "system" and provides: - installkernel - run-parts - tempfile - savelog - mkboot do people

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of digest files from the tree

On Jan 28, 2008 2:44 AM, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think throwing up an announcement today/tomorrow for Thursday/Friday > should be sufficient for this sort of a change, as it won't affect any > user who has a version of portage released in the past ~1.5 years. +1, too. --

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of digest files from the tree

Zac Medico a écrit : Robin H. Johnson wrote: Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no top level), for folk that have subtree checkouts only? (Probably look for skel.*/profile items two levels up). I think we should

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of digest files from the tree

Le dimanche 27 janvier 2008 à 17:44 -0800, Chris Gianelloni a écrit : > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 17:11 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > > >> If there are no objections then I don't so any reason not to go ahead > > >> and add > > >> the manifest1_obsolete sometime in the near future. Thoughts? > > > Let's

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of digest files from the tree

Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 17:11 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: If there are no objections then I don't so any reason not to go ahead and add the manifest1_obsolete sometime in the near future. Thoughts? Let's do it. I look forward to a lot less inodes on my disks. Let's schedule

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of digest files from the tree

Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 18:01 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 05:34:14PM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 06:27 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: Due to how CVS hooks operate, it's not quite possible. You wouldn't be able to block t