Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Multislot dependencies
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:41:17 +0200 Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > := only makes sense when something is both a DEPEND and an RDEPEND. > > Actual behaviour, for Paludis, is that it rewrites := deps to :=blah > > when writing to VDB any time it can, and leaves anything it can't > > as := deps. Verifying sanity of := use is left to developers and > > the QA tool. > > ... and the spec. The spec's well defined. It just tells you how := works, not how to use it in a sensible manner. Pretty much the same as for everything else. > > The only sensible thing you can do with multiple matches on := slots > > (and ||=, if that route is taken) is to take the slot of the best > > matching installed version, and require that ebuilds do that too. In > > real world cases, this works just fine. > > > so, ebuilds should use best_version instead of has_version for > example. That's what I meant and what I miss in the kdebuild-1 > spec :-) Generally, it "just works", because packages are usually fairly good at picking up the best installed version themselves anyway. But yes, if you have to pass a version manually to a package, best_version is the way to do it. And no, that's not something that should be in the spec. The devmanual, perhaps, although there's no kdebuild stuff in there just now. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Multislot dependencies
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:57:11 +0200 > Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I miss two things here: >> a) What happens in case of DEPEND="", RDEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" ? Is >> that defined? If yes, what does it mean? If not, what shall be the >> package managers behaviour? > > := only makes sense when something is both a DEPEND and an RDEPEND. > Actual behaviour, for Paludis, is that it rewrites := deps to :=blah > when writing to VDB any time it can, and leaves anything it can't as := > deps. Verifying sanity of := use is left to developers and the QA tool. ... and the spec. > >> b) It is not said that a package depending on "|| ( cat/bar:2 >> cat/bar:3 )" then really uses cat/bar:3 if available, it might as >> well use cat/bar:2 for one reason or another. It might be clearer if >> we have slots named "stable", "unstable". In such a case a package >> depending on cat/bar might decided to use cat/bar:stable if available >> instead of cat/bar:unstable. So, the spec should either state that >> the package must use the best matching version or we need another way >> for such cases, like a function to explicitly tell the pm which slot >> has been used. > > The only sensible thing you can do with multiple matches on := slots > (and ||=, if that route is taken) is to take the slot of the best > matching installed version, and require that ebuilds do that too. In > real world cases, this works just fine. > so, ebuilds should use best_version instead of has_version for example. That's what I meant and what I miss in the kdebuild-1 spec :-) -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Multislot dependencies
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:57:11 +0200 Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I miss two things here: > a) What happens in case of DEPEND="", RDEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" ? Is > that defined? If yes, what does it mean? If not, what shall be the > package managers behaviour? := only makes sense when something is both a DEPEND and an RDEPEND. Actual behaviour, for Paludis, is that it rewrites := deps to :=blah when writing to VDB any time it can, and leaves anything it can't as := deps. Verifying sanity of := use is left to developers and the QA tool. > b) It is not said that a package depending on "|| ( cat/bar:2 > cat/bar:3 )" then really uses cat/bar:3 if available, it might as > well use cat/bar:2 for one reason or another. It might be clearer if > we have slots named "stable", "unstable". In such a case a package > depending on cat/bar might decided to use cat/bar:stable if available > instead of cat/bar:unstable. So, the spec should either state that > the package must use the best matching version or we need another way > for such cases, like a function to explicitly tell the pm which slot > has been used. The only sensible thing you can do with multiple matches on := slots (and ||=, if that route is taken) is to take the slot of the best matching installed version, and require that ebuilds do that too. In real world cases, this works just fine. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Multislot dependencies
Tiziano Müller schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Tiziano Müller schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Tiziano Müller schrieb:
Hi everyone
I'd like to bring bug #229521 to your attention and see whether we can
come up with a solution for it.
The problem:
A package "foo" depends on a slotted package "bar" _and_ more than one
slot of "bar" can satisfy this dependency.
Why this is a problem:
If the dependency looks like one of the following:
* DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2"
* DEPEND="<=cat/bar-3"
* DEPEND="|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 )
then the package manager doesn't know after building "foo" which slot
of "bar" has been used to build "foo". On the other hand might this
information be needed to debug problems with package "foo".
The problem gets even worse as soon as RDEPEND comes in:
(assuming the same examples from above but with RDEPEND)
* The package manager currently doesn't record which slot has been used
and can't therefore track whether the user will destroy something in
case he uninstalls one of the slots of "bar"
* The package manager can't sanely consider whether an update for a
slot is actually needed
There is a section in PMS, that tries to address this.
=
Slot Dependencies
A named slot dependency consists of a colon followed by a slot name. A
specification with
a named slot dependency matches only if the slot of the matched package
is equal to the slot
specified. If the slot of the package to match cannot be determined
(e.g. because it is not a
supported EAPI), the match is treated as unsuccessful.
An operator slot dependency consists of a colon followed by one of the
following operators:
* Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime
dependencies, indicates
that the package will not break if the matched package is uninstalled
and replaced by a
different matching package in a different slot.
= Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime
dependencies, indicates
that the package will break unless a matching package with slot equal to
the slot of the
best installed version at the time the package was installed is
available. To implement the equals slot operator, the package manager
will need to store the slot of the
best installed version of the matching package. The package manager may
do this by appending
the appropriate slot after the equals sign when saving the package?s
dependencies. This syntax
is only for package manager use and must not be used by ebuilds.
=
So, if you go with that, the dependency would look like this:
DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:="
That means, that it accepts any slot of versions above version 2, but
restricts it to the slot it has been built against, at runtime.
The combination of >= and := might look a bit ugly, so maybe it might
indeed be useful to specify a way to provide a list of slots.
But it would work in most cases.
hmm, this is kdebuild-1...
Indeed, but it is a proposal.
I miss two things here:
a) What happens in case of DEPEND="", RDEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" ? Is that
defined? If yes, what does it mean? If not, what shall be the package
managers behaviour?
I don't think, that RDEPEND matters here.
If a dep is not in DEPEND, that means, that it doesn't affect the build
process of the package. So in case the dep spec matches more than one
slot, the package should be able to use both without a rebuild.
(Which means, that the package manager can switch the dep.)
If changing the slot would mean, that a rebuild is required, then the
dep affects the package at build time and should be in DEPEND.
Oh, my point is much simpler:
The kdebuild-1 spec says: "[...] that the package will break unless a
matching package with slot equal to the slot of the best installed version
at the time the package was installed is available."
But: RDEPEND doesn't have to be evaluated before installing the package and
DEPEND doesn't contain this package. So, there is no record of such a
package. What now?
tbh, I don't get what you are on about.
The slot restrictions only matter in cases where a rebuild what be
required, because the package would break, if you change the installed
slot. But in that case the dep affects runtime and should be in DEPEND.
For runtime-only deps, the package manager should be allowed to change
the slot, if multiple slots are allowed.
Regarding the || ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 ) construction, if a package
manager chooses one out of the two, it should restrict the package to
this dep at runtime.
Hmm, this is the point: What happens if the package chooses cat/bar:2 to
link against and the package manager records cat/bar:3 since it assumes
this is the better match? Is it it allowed to do the following (it's an
example):
DEPEND="|| ( sys-libs/db:4.5 sys-libs/db:4.6 )"
pkg_setup() {
DB_VER=""
# both major versions work but prefer 4.5 if available
has_version "sys-libs/db:4.5" && DB_VER="4.5"
}
Questions:
a) should DEPEND be valid?
b) will has_version evaluate to true?
c) how will
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Multislot dependencies
Bernd Steinhauser wrote: > Tiziano Müller schrieb: >> Bernd Steinhauser wrote: >> >>> Tiziano Müller schrieb: Hi everyone I'd like to bring bug #229521 to your attention and see whether we can come up with a solution for it. The problem: A package "foo" depends on a slotted package "bar" _and_ more than one slot of "bar" can satisfy this dependency. Why this is a problem: If the dependency looks like one of the following: * DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2" * DEPEND="<=cat/bar-3" * DEPEND="|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 ) then the package manager doesn't know after building "foo" which slot of "bar" has been used to build "foo". On the other hand might this information be needed to debug problems with package "foo". The problem gets even worse as soon as RDEPEND comes in: (assuming the same examples from above but with RDEPEND) * The package manager currently doesn't record which slot has been used and can't therefore track whether the user will destroy something in case he uninstalls one of the slots of "bar" * The package manager can't sanely consider whether an update for a slot is actually needed >>> There is a section in PMS, that tries to address this. >>> >>> = >>> Slot Dependencies >>> A named slot dependency consists of a colon followed by a slot name. A >>> specification with >>> a named slot dependency matches only if the slot of the matched package >>> is equal to the slot >>> specified. If the slot of the package to match cannot be determined >>> (e.g. because it is not a >>> supported EAPI), the match is treated as unsuccessful. >>> An operator slot dependency consists of a colon followed by one of the >>> following operators: >>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime >>> dependencies, indicates >>> that the package will not break if the matched package is uninstalled >>> and replaced by a >>> different matching package in a different slot. >>> = Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime >>> dependencies, indicates >>> that the package will break unless a matching package with slot equal to >>> the slot of the >>> best installed version at the time the package was installed is >>> available. To implement the equals slot operator, the package manager >>> will need to store the slot of the >>> best installed version of the matching package. The package manager may >>> do this by appending >>> the appropriate slot after the equals sign when saving the package?s >>> dependencies. This syntax >>> is only for package manager use and must not be used by ebuilds. >>> = >>> >>> So, if you go with that, the dependency would look like this: >>> DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" >>> >>> That means, that it accepts any slot of versions above version 2, but >>> restricts it to the slot it has been built against, at runtime. >>> The combination of >= and := might look a bit ugly, so maybe it might >>> indeed be useful to specify a way to provide a list of slots. >>> But it would work in most cases. >> >> hmm, this is kdebuild-1... > Indeed, but it is a proposal. > >> I miss two things here: >> a) What happens in case of DEPEND="", RDEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" ? Is that >> defined? If yes, what does it mean? If not, what shall be the package >> managers behaviour? > I don't think, that RDEPEND matters here. > If a dep is not in DEPEND, that means, that it doesn't affect the build > process of the package. So in case the dep spec matches more than one > slot, the package should be able to use both without a rebuild. > (Which means, that the package manager can switch the dep.) > If changing the slot would mean, that a rebuild is required, then the > dep affects the package at build time and should be in DEPEND. Oh, my point is much simpler: The kdebuild-1 spec says: "[...] that the package will break unless a matching package with slot equal to the slot of the best installed version at the time the package was installed is available." But: RDEPEND doesn't have to be evaluated before installing the package and DEPEND doesn't contain this package. So, there is no record of such a package. What now? > >> b) It is not said that a package depending on "|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 >> )" then really uses cat/bar:3 if available, it might as well use >> cat/bar:2 for one reason or another. It might be clearer if we have slots >> named "stable", "unstable". In such a case a package depending on cat/bar >> might decided to use cat/bar:stable if available instead of >> cat/bar:unstable. So, the spec should either state that the package must >> use the best matching version or we need another way for such cases, like >> a function to explicitly tell the pm which slot has been used. > Not sure if that is a good idea, because you would expect, that those > slot assignments (assuming you mean stable and unstable as list of > slots) get chang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Multislot dependencies
Tiziano Müller schrieb: Bernd Steinhauser wrote: Tiziano Müller schrieb: Hi everyone I'd like to bring bug #229521 to your attention and see whether we can come up with a solution for it. The problem: A package "foo" depends on a slotted package "bar" _and_ more than one slot of "bar" can satisfy this dependency. Why this is a problem: If the dependency looks like one of the following: * DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2" * DEPEND="<=cat/bar-3" * DEPEND="|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 ) then the package manager doesn't know after building "foo" which slot of "bar" has been used to build "foo". On the other hand might this information be needed to debug problems with package "foo". The problem gets even worse as soon as RDEPEND comes in: (assuming the same examples from above but with RDEPEND) * The package manager currently doesn't record which slot has been used and can't therefore track whether the user will destroy something in case he uninstalls one of the slots of "bar" * The package manager can't sanely consider whether an update for a slot is actually needed There is a section in PMS, that tries to address this. = Slot Dependencies A named slot dependency consists of a colon followed by a slot name. A specification with a named slot dependency matches only if the slot of the matched package is equal to the slot specified. If the slot of the package to match cannot be determined (e.g. because it is not a supported EAPI), the match is treated as unsuccessful. An operator slot dependency consists of a colon followed by one of the following operators: * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a different slot. = Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime dependencies, indicates that the package will break unless a matching package with slot equal to the slot of the best installed version at the time the package was installed is available. To implement the equals slot operator, the package manager will need to store the slot of the best installed version of the matching package. The package manager may do this by appending the appropriate slot after the equals sign when saving the package?s dependencies. This syntax is only for package manager use and must not be used by ebuilds. = So, if you go with that, the dependency would look like this: DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" That means, that it accepts any slot of versions above version 2, but restricts it to the slot it has been built against, at runtime. The combination of >= and := might look a bit ugly, so maybe it might indeed be useful to specify a way to provide a list of slots. But it would work in most cases. hmm, this is kdebuild-1... Indeed, but it is a proposal. I miss two things here: a) What happens in case of DEPEND="", RDEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" ? Is that defined? If yes, what does it mean? If not, what shall be the package managers behaviour? I don't think, that RDEPEND matters here. If a dep is not in DEPEND, that means, that it doesn't affect the build process of the package. So in case the dep spec matches more than one slot, the package should be able to use both without a rebuild. (Which means, that the package manager can switch the dep.) If changing the slot would mean, that a rebuild is required, then the dep affects the package at build time and should be in DEPEND. b) It is not said that a package depending on "|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 )" then really uses cat/bar:3 if available, it might as well use cat/bar:2 for one reason or another. It might be clearer if we have slots named "stable", "unstable". In such a case a package depending on cat/bar might decided to use cat/bar:stable if available instead of cat/bar:unstable. So, the spec should either state that the package must use the best matching version or we need another way for such cases, like a function to explicitly tell the pm which slot has been used. Not sure if that is a good idea, because you would expect, that those slot assignments (assuming you mean stable and unstable as list of slots) get changed if a different slot is now "stable" and that would break previous assignments. BTW, you can already name a slot unstable-2 or similar. KDE 4.0 has slot kde-4, for example. Regarding the || ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 ) construction, if a package manager chooses one out of the two, it should restrict the package to this dep at runtime. Not sure how the several package managers handle this, tbh. I think that problem a) is a bit nasty, but it might become better if we'd split the dependency variables into DEPEND, RDEPEND, C(OMMON_)DEPEND (where the last one would be used for packages needed at compile time and runtime). I would rather vote for labels, which clear the whole dependency thing up a bit and doesn't splatter them over several vars. Unfort
[gentoo-dev] Re: Multislot dependencies
Bernd Steinhauser wrote: > Tiziano Müller schrieb: >> Hi everyone >> >> I'd like to bring bug #229521 to your attention and see whether we can >> come up with a solution for it. >> >> The problem: >> A package "foo" depends on a slotted package "bar" _and_ more than one >> slot of "bar" can satisfy this dependency. >> >> Why this is a problem: >> If the dependency looks like one of the following: >> * DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2" >> * DEPEND="<=cat/bar-3" >> * DEPEND="|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 ) >> then the package manager doesn't know after building "foo" which slot of >> "bar" has been used to build "foo". On the other hand might this >> information be needed to debug problems with package "foo". >> >> The problem gets even worse as soon as RDEPEND comes in: >> (assuming the same examples from above but with RDEPEND) >> * The package manager currently doesn't record which slot has been used >> and can't therefore track whether the user will destroy something in >> case he uninstalls one of the slots of "bar" >> * The package manager can't sanely consider whether an update for a slot >> is actually needed > > There is a section in PMS, that tries to address this. > > = > Slot Dependencies > A named slot dependency consists of a colon followed by a slot name. A > specification with > a named slot dependency matches only if the slot of the matched package > is equal to the slot > specified. If the slot of the package to match cannot be determined > (e.g. because it is not a > supported EAPI), the match is treated as unsuccessful. > An operator slot dependency consists of a colon followed by one of the > following operators: > * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime > dependencies, indicates > that the package will not break if the matched package is uninstalled > and replaced by a > different matching package in a different slot. > = Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime > dependencies, indicates > that the package will break unless a matching package with slot equal to > the slot of the > best installed version at the time the package was installed is available. > To implement the equals slot operator, the package manager will need to > store the slot of the > best installed version of the matching package. The package manager may > do this by appending > the appropriate slot after the equals sign when saving the package?s > dependencies. This syntax > is only for package manager use and must not be used by ebuilds. > = > > So, if you go with that, the dependency would look like this: > DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" > > That means, that it accepts any slot of versions above version 2, but > restricts it to the slot it has been built against, at runtime. > The combination of >= and := might look a bit ugly, so maybe it might > indeed be useful to specify a way to provide a list of slots. > But it would work in most cases. hmm, this is kdebuild-1... I miss two things here: a) What happens in case of DEPEND="", RDEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" ? Is that defined? If yes, what does it mean? If not, what shall be the package managers behaviour? b) It is not said that a package depending on "|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 )" then really uses cat/bar:3 if available, it might as well use cat/bar:2 for one reason or another. It might be clearer if we have slots named "stable", "unstable". In such a case a package depending on cat/bar might decided to use cat/bar:stable if available instead of cat/bar:unstable. So, the spec should either state that the package must use the best matching version or we need another way for such cases, like a function to explicitly tell the pm which slot has been used. I think that problem a) is a bit nasty, but it might become better if we'd split the dependency variables into DEPEND, RDEPEND, C(OMMON_)DEPEND (where the last one would be used for packages needed at compile time and runtime). -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Multislot dependencies
Tiziano Müller schrieb: Hi everyone I'd like to bring bug #229521 to your attention and see whether we can come up with a solution for it. The problem: A package "foo" depends on a slotted package "bar" _and_ more than one slot of "bar" can satisfy this dependency. Why this is a problem: If the dependency looks like one of the following: * DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2" * DEPEND="<=cat/bar-3" * DEPEND="|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 ) then the package manager doesn't know after building "foo" which slot of "bar" has been used to build "foo". On the other hand might this information be needed to debug problems with package "foo". The problem gets even worse as soon as RDEPEND comes in: (assuming the same examples from above but with RDEPEND) * The package manager currently doesn't record which slot has been used and can't therefore track whether the user will destroy something in case he uninstalls one of the slots of "bar" * The package manager can't sanely consider whether an update for a slot is actually needed There is a section in PMS, that tries to address this. = Slot Dependencies A named slot dependency consists of a colon followed by a slot name. A specification with a named slot dependency matches only if the slot of the matched package is equal to the slot specified. If the slot of the package to match cannot be determined (e.g. because it is not a supported EAPI), the match is treated as unsuccessful. An operator slot dependency consists of a colon followed by one of the following operators: * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a different slot. = Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime dependencies, indicates that the package will break unless a matching package with slot equal to the slot of the best installed version at the time the package was installed is available. To implement the equals slot operator, the package manager will need to store the slot of the best installed version of the matching package. The package manager may do this by appending the appropriate slot after the equals sign when saving the package’s dependencies. This syntax is only for package manager use and must not be used by ebuilds. = So, if you go with that, the dependency would look like this: DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" That means, that it accepts any slot of versions above version 2, but restricts it to the slot it has been built against, at runtime. The combination of >= and := might look a bit ugly, so maybe it might indeed be useful to specify a way to provide a list of slots. But it would work in most cases. Regards, Bernd -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] When the version scheme changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi list,
recently drscheme changed versioning scheme in such a way that the newer
versions(4.0.1) rank lower than the old versions(372). The only way to affect
ordering is to change the PV part of the filename, preferably the old one, so I
created a 0.372 version that was to be a copy of the old 372 version. To make
this work I also added a
PV=${PV/0./}
to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't require any
variable name changes or any other changes to the ebuild regardless of what it
does. Unfortunately it is also illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only
variable. Right now I feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few
bugs?) is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes when the
version scheme changes). Please comment.
Marijn
- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
[gentoo-dev] Multislot dependencies
Hi everyone I'd like to bring bug #229521 to your attention and see whether we can come up with a solution for it. The problem: A package "foo" depends on a slotted package "bar" _and_ more than one slot of "bar" can satisfy this dependency. Why this is a problem: If the dependency looks like one of the following: * DEPEND=">=cat/bar-2" * DEPEND="<=cat/bar-3" * DEPEND="|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 ) then the package manager doesn't know after building "foo" which slot of "bar" has been used to build "foo". On the other hand might this information be needed to debug problems with package "foo". The problem gets even worse as soon as RDEPEND comes in: (assuming the same examples from above but with RDEPEND) * The package manager currently doesn't record which slot has been used and can't therefore track whether the user will destroy something in case he uninstalls one of the slots of "bar" * The package manager can't sanely consider whether an update for a slot is actually needed Furthermore it is possible that a package "foo" which used one slot of "bar" to build may also use a different slot on runtime (think of plugins for a slotted app). (list not necessarily conclusive) Since this has (again) enough potential to result in a flamewar, I'd like to point out what I think we should do/avoid: What I think we should do now: * Complete the list of problems/use cases * Sort the cases by importance * See that we can come up with a common solution to at least 60% of the cases (yes, we may also actively decide to _not_ support certain cases, but we have to be aware of them) * Decide when it should be implemented, what is needed to implement it and who's involved in that What I think we should not discuss (right now): * Which package manager has what implemented (remember: it's more interesting right now _why_ it has been decided to do it like that) * How "|| ( cat/bar:2 cat/bar:3 )" could be expressed in a simpler way. This is pure syntactic sugar * How the implementation should be done or what else it should include. We should concentrate on "what is needed that the package manager devs can implement it properly" Thanks in advance, Tiziano -- --- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
RE: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev fortune submissions
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Chrissy Fullam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Whats this for? It sounds interest. > > Here's the output of `fortune gentoo-dev -m robbat2`: > > http://pastebin.osuosl.org/8802 > > Definitely of interest ;) The last fortune-mod-gentoo-dev set was > Saturday 28 July 2007 -- a new set is long overdue. Hooray for > robbat2!~ :) Hahaha... I've not used that but am interested now! :) Kind regards, Christina Fullam -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev fortune submissions
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Chrissy Fullam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whats this for? It sounds interest. Here's the output of `fortune gentoo-dev -m robbat2`: http://pastebin.osuosl.org/8802 Definitely of interest ;) The last fortune-mod-gentoo-dev set was Saturday 28 July 2007 -- a new set is long overdue. Hooray for robbat2!~ :) -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev fortune submissions
Whats this for? It sounds interest. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations > -Original Message- > From: Robin H. Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:26 AM > To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev fortune submissions > > Have some good Gentoo laughs? > > This is a reminder that I collect input for the Gentoo-dev fortunes > database. If you have some to submit, please email them to me, > [EMAIL PROTECTED], with some combination of 'fortune' and 'gentoo-dev' > in the subject line. Should be formatted per the existing entries, and it > may help to include to clarification as to where and when the quote came > from as an attribution. > > While the fortune db is called 'gentoo-dev', I will take quotes from any > Gentoo IRC channel. > > I'd like to spin a new release later this afternoon since I've got a dozen > pending submissions, so bring it on folks. > > -- > Robin Hugh Johnson > Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy > E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggested default LDFLAGS+="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common"
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis kirjoitti: I would like to suggest that default LDFLAGS in Gentoo contain the following flags: "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common". -O1 enables some basic optimizations. > At least adding -O1 should not be problematic. I think vapier was already suggesting this quite a while ago. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
