[gentoo-dev] Re: bzr.eclass into Portage

2008-10-13 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Steve Long wrote: No objections, a minor point wrt bash: EBZR_OPTIONS=${EBZR_OPTIONS:-} (and similar variants) doesn't do anything (beyond waste lex and yacc time.) It does something, namely assigns an empty string if the variable was undefined before. ;-) git.eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-lang/python: ChangeLog python-2.6.ebuild python-2.5.2-r6.ebuild

2008-10-13 Thread Jan Kundrát
Steve Long wrote: insinto /usr/share/doc/${P}/examples Is there any chance we can start using correctly quoted filenames across the board? Since when is ${P} allowed to have spaces? Besides being faster (quote the whole thing) Have you done a benchmark certifying that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New keywords for non-Gentoo Linux platforms

2008-10-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:16:01 +0100 Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless someone can say what using PROPERTIES=prefix would break, I'd go with that. It's a /classic/ usage of that variable, as it's simply a boolean; PROPERTIES is well-defined and I'm hoping all the manglers support it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bzr.eclass into Portage

2008-10-13 Thread Bo Ørsted Andresen
On Monday 13 October 2008 04:43:48 Steve Long wrote: EBZR_OPTIONS=${EBZR_OPTIONS:-} (and similar variants) doesn't do anything (beyond waste lex and yacc time.) It gets listed in the generated man page. [...] The same consideration applies to all those constant values 'and indeed' ${foo} as

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-13 Thread Petteri Räty
Matti Bickel kirjoitti: Hi folks, While fixing bug #240060 I touched fox.eclass. In the process, I updated the eclass to * use versionator * cut support for fox-1.0 (loong outdated) * cut support for fox-1.5 * use eautomake instead of =automake-1.4* * use emake

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 13:56 Mon 13 Oct , Petteri Räty wrote: Could you also send a diff next time. Or this time, even. +1 on that. One easy thing to do is move what comments exist to the eclass-manpages format. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI change: Call ebuild functions from trusted working directory

2008-10-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 21:03 Thu 09 Oct , Robert Buchholz wrote: I would like: * everyone to comment on the change and propose changes to the wording * council to vote on this change to EAPI-0, -1 and -2. It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and EAPI=2 are just differences to EAPI=0,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New keywords for non-Gentoo Linux platforms

2008-10-13 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 13-10-2008 15:27:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:16:01 +0100 Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless someone can say what using PROPERTIES=prefix would break, I'd go with that. It's a /classic/ usage of that variable, as it's simply a boolean; PROPERTIES is

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI change: Call ebuild functions from trusted working directory

2008-10-13 Thread Wulf C. Krueger
On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote: Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst package-manager developers and PMS editors. So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-13 Thread Matti Bickel
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13:56 Mon 13 Oct , Petteri Räty wrote: Could you also send a diff next time. Or this time, even. +1 on that. Here you are. It's attached. One easy thing to do is move what comments exist to the eclass-manpages format. I also included some

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI change: Call ebuild functions from trusted working directory

2008-10-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:21 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and EAPI=2 are just differences to EAPI=0, they wouldn't be voted on. Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote either. As it's a draft

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI change: Call ebuild functions from trusted working directory

2008-10-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 20:20 Mon 13 Oct , Wulf C. Krueger wrote: On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote: Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst package-manager developers and PMS editors. So,

Re: [gentoo-dev] System packages in (R)DEPEND?

2008-10-13 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Sachau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see packages like bison, flex, perl or sed in the system set. And i also see ebuilds depending on them. I also heard from Peter Volkov (pva) that there where discussions about removing different packages from the

[gentoo-dev] Stabilize ebuilds which use EAPIs only supported by ~arch PMs

2008-10-13 Thread Jose Luis Rivero
Hi all: Reading a random discussion in our dev mailling list, I came with a doubt about our new EAPI policy and its procedures. I couldn't find it documented nor discussed anywhere so I bringing it here. Supposing that anyone can currently add an ebuild using EAPI-2 under the testing branch:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilize ebuilds which use EAPIs only supported by ~arch PMs

2008-10-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 02:03 Tue 14 Oct , Jose Luis Rivero wrote: Hi all: Reading a random discussion in our dev mailling list, I came with a doubt about our new EAPI policy and its procedures. I couldn't find it documented nor discussed anywhere so I bringing it here. Supposing that anyone can currently

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilize ebuilds which use EAPIs only supported by ~arch PMs

2008-10-13 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hypothetical case: foo-1 (eapi-0) marked as stable and foo-2 (eapi-2) with new features marked as testing. A security problem appears affecting both. UPSTREAM release foo-3 to solve the security issue. Backport the fix or create an EAPI=0 ebuild, as

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-lang/python: ChangeLog python-2.6.ebuild python-2.5.2-r6.ebuild

2008-10-13 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:59:00 +0100 Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas Sachau wrote: what about this: insinto /usr/share/doc/${P}/examples Is there any chance we can start using correctly quoted filenames across the board? This is correctly quoted, so, yep. -- gcc-porting,