Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of ebuild
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:40 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: The core of a distribution is the packaging system, and the core of the packaging system is the building system, which has no reason not to be distribution agnostic, and actually, packaging system agnostic. Why not create a new build system with a state of the art programming language, and an advanced DSL that actually other distributions could use? I would like to hear your opinions on this matter. Take a look at Nix. It's a distribution-agnostic package manager that uses a purely functional DSL for package specifications. http://nix.cs.uu.nl/index.html -- Duncan Coutts : Gentoo Developer (Haskell team) -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] iptables and libiptc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jo, It appears that bug 177978 answers your question. Apparently libiptc wasn't meant to be a public interface and is intended to be removed from the iptables pacakge[2]. Hope this helps answer your question. Please do have a good hunt through bugzilla when you've got a question, it's got a huge wealth of information stored in there in both open and closed bugs... 5:) Mike 5:) [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177978 [2] http://www.netfilter.org/documentation/FAQ/netfilter-faq-4.html#ss4.5 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHvXasu7rWomwgFXoRAm84AKC06Ww9JJ3eQusx5du0SMYsJ3co6wCgryCV ydbBEAi1Y3IAIf8DEGgkdOw= =vB9r -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] iptables and libiptc
Hi list, i'm currently developing a C-program that needs to use libiptc to modify netfilter tables. Unfortunately this library isn't included in the iptables package as it should be. Is this a reasonable behavior or just a simple bug? I really need this library and would like to make use of the gentoo package instead of installing iptables including patches by hand. Any ideas? jo -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 - x86_64
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:40:23 +0100 Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20-02-2008 19:23:26 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe. What's the possibility of switching amd64 to x86_64? Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change. As the benefit is close to nothing IMO the required work is definitely greater by several orders of magnitude. Well, that depends a bit. We basically introduced x64 a shorthand, and changed some keywords in prefix, of which I just finished the transition. It's basically just setting the new keyword in the profiles, and then gradually changing the keywords, e.g. on a repoman commit. That's sort of how I did it. You don't need any Portage support, IMHO. - sorry, but comparing prefix with its limited and (I assume) technically skilled userbase that is used to change to the main tree where people sometimes don't update their system for years is like comparing apples and oranges - you forgot the necessary updates to documentation and renaming of other amd64 related stuff, only changing the keyword would make things worse IMO - what I wanted to say is that any amount of work required to realize this is greater than the benefit - x64 is IMO the worst name for the architecture (originally a MS marketing term later adopted by Sun, looks too similar to x86, name doesn't make any sense really if you compare it to x86) Marius -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 - x86_64
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - x64 is IMO the worst name for the architecture (originally a MS marketing term later adopted by Sun, looks too similar to x86, name doesn't make any sense really if you compare it to x86) Marius said all I wanted to say on that name. Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys? -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ pgpJcqFsPOsVT.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-video/konverter
# Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (21 Jul 2007) # Broken by upstream. cf. bug 173972. =media-video/konverter-0.93 This has been p.masked for quite some time now for instability and lots of bugs. It's been abandoned for about two years now. It won't even compile anymore now (bug 211002). As it's completely broken now, I'm going to remove it on February, 29th. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 - x86_64
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 07:40:43PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys? I guess there may be some confusion for people installing their first amd64 on a Intel box. However, i think this sort of confusion is solved more appropiately by telling them amd64 is fine for their hardware than renaming it inside Gentoo with all the things that need changing and can easily be overlooked. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpi9yd2ADUgR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 - x86_64
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys? In fairness, not just for Intel fanboys. Drop by the forums some time and just try to count up all the threads asking are the amd64 stages/media appropriate for my computer? i have a core 2 and similar. Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier, there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which wouldn't make the GDP happpy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 - x86_64
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:37 -0800, Josh Saddler wrote: Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier, there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which wouldn't make the GDP happpy. Doubt the amd64 team, and infra would be happy either. Since likely have to make changes there as well. Lots of work for sure. Benefit little if any. No worries here, just wanted to toss it out there. Sorry for repeating this. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/amd64/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
