Re: [gentoo-dev] SDLMame maintainer with Gnome setup wanted

2008-07-26 Thread Christian Birchinger
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:07:10PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Christian Birchinger wrote: Hello Anyone interested in maintaining further SDLMame updates? Beginning with 0.126 it requires GConf to get a font setting for it's now mandatory debugger. I use a plain XFCE setup and don't really

Re: [gentoo-dev] SDLMame maintainer with Gnome setup wanted

2008-07-26 Thread Luca Barbato
Christian Birchinger wrote: But no matter how wrong i think it is, i usualy respect the upstreams wishes. If upstream is wrong I think we should help them... lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: [gentoo-dev] SDLMame maintainer with Gnome setup wanted

2008-07-26 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 03:13:36PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Christian Birchinger wrote: But no matter how wrong i think it is, i usualy respect the upstreams wishes. If upstream is wrong I think we should help them... Upstream thinks it's a bad idea not to give the user any possibility of

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patched to respect them. Such patches are usually small and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-07-26 18:06:12 Ryan Hill napisał(a): On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patched to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-07-26 02:45:57 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference. It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but lacking anything even close to as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:54:20 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Respecting LDFLAGS provides also some some degree of optimization. It's a *very* small degree, and certainly nowhere near on the scale of the difference made by CFLAGS on some archs. If CFLAGS only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy. Why

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a): On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are usually fixed,

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:37:06 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal

[gentoo-dev] split Qt 4.4 dependencies

2008-07-26 Thread Carsten Lohrke
Since it is time to get Qt 4.4 into testing, here some information how to get the dependencies in the ebuilds you maintain, right. Beforehand: Relying on best_version() or the broken qt4_min_version() stuff from qt4.eclass is not fine. - Migrating existing ebuilds requires a dependency like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis a écrit : 2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a): On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the QA team about this. Such issues are not up to a self chosen group, but are topic for this list. Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: Um, this already is the policy. We've always fixed bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored. Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-07-26 23:43:53 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a): Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis a écrit : 2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a): On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-07-27 00:00:55 Carsten Lohrke napisał(a): On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: Um, this already is the policy. We've always fixed bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored. Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd like to know, why Mark

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Nikos Chantziaras
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le dimanche 27 juillet 2008 à 02:12 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras a écrit : Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though. Of course that's just me.) ahah ! now I have an example for you, nemiver. It seems it does the module loading thingy that was brought up in the

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300 Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though. Of course that's just me. Well, then, behold: http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9 Now you have. Enjoy. :) -- gcc-porting,

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Nikos Chantziaras
Ryan Hill wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300 Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though. Of course that's just me. Well, then, behold: http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9 Now you have. Enjoy. :) Then I must be lucky. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already available. So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that isn't broken with regards to a policy _needed_ to enforce this action? Are bugs being ignored

[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.2-rc3 parallel merges quit being parallel

2008-07-26 Thread Duncan
So I'm running the 2.2-rcs and have been seeing blogs about the new parallel merge capacities... Having a dual-dual-core Opteron and having run multiple merges manually for some time, this is VERY welcome news. =8^) So after upgrading to -rc3 I set EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS to include --jobs=10

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.2-rc3 parallel merges quit being parallel

2008-07-26 Thread Andrew Gaffney
Duncan wrote: --jobs=10 --keep-going --load-average=15 For a dual-dual-core setup, a load average of 4.0 is fully loaded. Anything higher than that and you're just causing jobs to queue up unnecessarily and your system to thrash. have MAKEOPTS=-j -l20 so it's not going to be low all the

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: portage-2.2-rc3 parallel merges quit being parallel

2008-07-26 Thread Duncan
Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:56:20 -0500: Duncan wrote: --jobs=10 --keep-going --load-average=15 For a dual-dual-core setup, a load average of 4.0 is fully loaded. Anything higher than that and you're just causing jobs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.2-rc3 parallel merges quit being parallel

2008-07-26 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: For the first 100 or so packages, it worked quite well. However, about there, maybe package 120 or so, so about 20% of the way thru, it reverted to doing them one-at-a-time again. I'm now on package #279 and it's still doing

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.2-rc3 parallel merges quit being parallel

2008-07-26 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:56:20 -0500 Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan wrote: --jobs=10 --keep-going --load-average=15 For a dual-dual-core setup, a load average of 4.0 is fully loaded. Only in ideal cases, when you have long-running processes hammering the cpu and little or no

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC/PATCH v2] New objects cpv, pv and version to be used instead of raw strings.

2008-07-26 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ali Polatel wrote: Thanks for the comments. I haven't been able to finish reviewing your patch yet but I just want you to know that it's still in my queue. Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)