[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Multislot dependencies

2008-06-30 Thread Tiziano Müller
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggested default LDFLAGS+=-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common

2008-06-30 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 29-06-2008 20:28:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 23:15 Sun 29 Jun , Fabian Groffen wrote: On 29-06-2008 07:29:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 28 June 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis kirjoitti: I would like to suggest that default

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: mail-client/claws-mail-pdf-viewer

2008-06-30 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, # Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (30 Jun 2008) # Masked for removal for license issues, see bug 230157 mail-client/claws-mail-pdf-viewer V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: mail-client/claws-mail-pdf-viewer

2008-06-30 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, # Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (30 Jun 2008) # Masked for removal for license issues, see bug 230157 mail-client/claws-mail-pdf-viewer V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggested default LDFLAGS+=-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common

2008-06-30 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-06-30 10:57:21 Fabian Groffen napisał(a): On 29-06-2008 20:28:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 23:15 Sun 29 Jun , Fabian Groffen wrote: On 29-06-2008 07:29:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 28 June 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Multislot dependencies

2008-06-30 Thread Enrico Weigelt
big_snip Funny, how you all manage to make simple things complicated ;-o I guess nobody considered an trivial solutions like an useflag ... cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggested default LDFLAGS+=-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common

2008-06-30 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 30-06-2008 17:35:08 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: How can you easily revert it in a profile? You can set LDFLAGS= in a subprofiles's make.defaults. How elegant... but I guess I'll have no choice. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level --

[gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Jeroen Roovers
To anyone (else) out there who thinks that bug wranglers should be punished when they make mistakes in the heap of unthankful work they perform on a more than daily basis, I would like you to know that if you reassign bugs (back) to bug-wranglers@ without properly communicating the reason you are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To anyone (else) out there who thinks that bug wranglers should be punished when they make mistakes in the heap of unthankful work they perform on a more than daily basis, I would like you to know that if you reassign

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Mark Loeser
Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On a side note: How is the b-w SOP doc coming? It is obvious to me the b-w is tedious a time consuming so I would like to help every now and then but I really am not sure about the rules wrt assignment just by looking at metadata.xml. IMO, b-w'ing is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Michael Hammer
* Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080630 19:53]: [...] IMO, b-w'ing is something that anyone can do. s/can/should ? I mean bug wrangling is a very important thing especially in the sight of users. I'm really willing to help on b-w'ing if it makes sense and is possible. g, mueli --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Monday 30 June 2008, Michael Hammer wrote: * Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080630 19:53]: [...] IMO, b-w'ing is something that anyone can do. s/can/should ? I mean bug wrangling is a very important thing especially in the sight of users. I'm really willing to help on b-w'ing if it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggested default LDFLAGS+=-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common

2008-06-30 Thread Petteri Räty
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: On Saturday 28 June 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Robert Bridge
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:52:02 -0500 Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a side note: How is the b-w SOP doc coming? It is obvious to me the b-w is tedious a time consuming so I would like to help every now and then but I really am not sure about the rules wrt assignment just by looking at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Come on guys, bug wrangling isn't that difficult just read metadata.xml, if it's not correct, it's not your fault, if it's you misread it, I dare to except devs won't get angry at it and just reassign to whoever they see fit with a proper message. If you're so afraid to make errors, just reassign

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Multislot dependencies

2008-06-30 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le lundi 30 juin 2008 à 19:01 +0200, Enrico Weigelt a écrit : big_snip Funny, how you all manage to make simple things complicated ;-o I guess nobody considered an trivial solutions like an useflag ... no, this is not the proper solution. Just consider how bad gtk/gtk2 useflag was and that

[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggested default LDFLAGS+=-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common

2008-06-30 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:42:49 +0300 Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: On Saturday 28 June 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis kirjoitti: I would like to suggest that default LDFLAGS in Gentoo contain the following flags:

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Multislot dependencies

2008-06-30 Thread Tiziano Müller
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: Le lundi 30 juin 2008 à 19:01 +0200, Enrico Weigelt a écrit : big_snip Funny, how you all manage to make simple things complicated ;-o I guess nobody considered an trivial solutions like an useflag ... no, this is not the proper solution. Just consider how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 22:04 Mon 30 Jun , Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: PS: I'd like to remind users reading here that assigning bugs directly is _bad_ if you didn't perform the above checks. It is _not_ ok to assign bugs just because you _think_ the package is owned by ${HERD}. The standard user privileges

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:04:31PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: PS: I'd like to remind users reading here that assigning bugs directly is _bad_ if you didn't perform the above checks. It is _not_ ok to assign bugs just because you _think_ the package is owned by ${HERD}. The same goes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le lundi 30 juin 2008 à 13:33 -0700, Donnie Berkholz a écrit : On 22:04 Mon 30 Jun , Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: PS: I'd like to remind users reading here that assigning bugs directly is _bad_ if you didn't perform the above checks. It is _not_ ok to assign bugs just because you

[gentoo-dev] Patching of Makefile.in and configure (eautoreconf calls)

2008-06-30 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Hello, Recently a big bunch of autotools related bugs were filed, of which quite a few are quite obvious bugs that need to be fixed, but there are a few of the kind that I can't agree with without given technical proof it's a real problem. So one of those is the changes both autotools source and

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Installation of static libraries, USE=static-libs proposal

2008-06-30 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Hello again, Over a year or two ago, it was communicated that it supposedly a policy that USE=static should only control if a package installs static libraries INSTEAD of shared libraries, and never to be used to control if static libraries are installed in _addition_ to shared ones or not.