Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Sunday 17 May 2009 06:43:50 Richard Freeman wrote: Duncan wrote: So I believe the cost to be quite reasonably managed, after all. Benchmarks would of course be needed to demonstrate that, but I believe it worth pursuing. I thought we had agreed that (1) with GLEP55 you have to source the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 01:50 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:45 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: As for ciaranm's argument that you're restricting changes to the version string, say allowing -rc where _rc is now required, one-time restriction of

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Alistair Bush
Ben de Groot wrote: Patrick Lauer wrote: For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55. [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html] The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, This, in my opinion, is

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

2009-05-17 Thread Tobias Scherbaum
Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2009, 20:48 +0200 schrieb Thomas Sachau: This is already done. darkside/idl0r did/do suggest sunrise to all maintainer-wanted bugs, that meet some specific criteria. noticed that, and i'd like to give a thanks guys for doing so :) But have to say, while hundreds of

[gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION size

2009-05-17 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max but according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max. I'm confused, who should I believe ? :) [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html Thanks, Mounir

[gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION size

2009-05-17 Thread Nikos Chantziaras
Mounir Lamouri wrote: Hi, According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max but according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max. I'm confused, who should I believe ? :) [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html Though I'm not a

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION size

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Mounir Lamouri wrote: According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max nitpicking It says less than 80 so 79 is the maximum. ;-) /nitpicking but according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max. I'm confused, who should I believe ? :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread David Leverton
On Sunday 17 May 2009 08:29:31 Patrick Lauer wrote: I thought we had agreed that (1) with GLEP55 you have to source the ebuild anyway (whereas the other proposal allows to just parse it to get at the EAPI value) and (2) you can cache it sanely so that performance isn't the issue? You don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION size

2009-05-17 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Ulrich Mueller wrote: The devmanual also says Where possible, try to keep lines no wider than 80 positions. which would limit DESCRIPTION to 66 characters. These are guidelines, not strict rules. Keep it shorter if it's reasonably possible. Even guidelines should be consistent. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Thomas Anderson
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:35:43AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: Ravi Pinjala wrote: Nick Fortino wrote: Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as well as ebuild format. Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the extension is to get rid of

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 07:40 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: [...] The difference is that putting the EAPI in the filename has backwards compatibility because package managers not knowing about this change won't even look at the those ebuilds. Putting EAPI as the fifth line completely loses this,

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION size

2009-05-17 Thread Petteri Räty
Mounir Lamouri wrote: Ulrich Mueller wrote: The devmanual also says Where possible, try to keep lines no wider than 80 positions. which would limit DESCRIPTION to 66 characters. These are guidelines, not strict rules. Keep it shorter if it's reasonably possible. Even guidelines should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Files owned by multiple slots

2009-05-17 Thread Petteri Räty
Sven wrote: Gilles Dartiguelongue eva at gentoo.org writes: so this wrapper could be installed in a separate eselect sort of package ? How exactly can this be done? If a gem creates five executables, would this mean that this gem comes in six ebuilds? well given the next answer, it sounds

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Richard Freeman
Alistair Bush wrote: Is it really necessary to convince the entire community for every GLEP? I thought that the reason we have the council is so they can make decisions. You know specialization of decision making. If the council is going to expect anyone else, besides themselves, to

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Petteri Räty
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 02:31:45 +0300 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On the other hand you also have to make sure you have a stable portage for a time long enough so mostly everyone has it installed. Otherwise you could break users systems pretty badly depending

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
Hello, I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change I

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200 Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote: I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new and innovative stuff that makes working on Gentoo fun. YES ! /loki_val

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds. I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS). -- Arfrever

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Denis Dupeyron
2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org: I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. Thanks a lot Piotr. Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 04:07:18 + (UTC) Mark Bateman coul...@soon.com wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:58:10 + (UTC) Mark Bateman couldbe at soon.com wrote: The current way of specifying the EAPI in ebuilds is flawed That is not defining the problem, that is an opening statement.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds. I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds. This is glep 55 material. I will update it to reflect that. -- Best Regards, Piotr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Sunday 17 May 2009 18:35:29 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Please stop wasting everyone's time. Yes, please do. Your replies are full of emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks. If you are unable to keep to the technical aspects of a discussion you should reconsider answering to every email

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com: 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:58:58 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: No good, for two reasons. First, this is a global scope change Why do you think that it is a global scope change? Package managers still need to be able to get the EAPI, even if they

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: Wrong. For example: - stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending on the package manager - --disable-static (maybe in a later EAPI) changes content - slot-dep-operators change the rdepend

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote: 2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski pe...@gentoo.org: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change I'm strongly against 1 and 2 (no

Re: [gentoo-dev] license issue with fretsonfire

2009-05-17 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Arun Raghavan wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 18:17 +0200, Mounir Lamouri wrote: [...] I think the code can be considered GPL-2 (i will check if there is no header specifying something else) and for the fonts, I will have to add 2 licenses not in the tree at the moment. But what to do with

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Peter Alfredsen loki_...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200 Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote: I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new and innovative stuff that makes working on Gentoo fun. YES ! I sincerely hope

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Denis Dupeyron wrote: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change My preference goes to 3 with a .eb extension and EAPI on the first line. I second this. :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote: 2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski pe...@gentoo.org: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Markos Chandras
On Sunday 17 May 2009 20:39:26 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote: 2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski pe...@gentoo.org: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: As others have commented, we should probably make this the last comment line in the header. Any suggestions for a specific identification string or do we simply use '# EAPI=X' or use a she-bang '#!/.. EAPI=X' ? Well, if a she-bang, should be the first line.

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 14 May 2009 03:32:12 +0300 Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote: Project maintainer-wanted = Abstract: There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000) languishing on bugzilla waiting for a developer or team to get interested and package it in the

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200 Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello, I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org: On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200 Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello, I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me. We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets highly crazy -- EAPIs aren't orderable, so it's not

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
Hi, On 2009/05/17, Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote: I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. In the GLEP, you raises the following argument against the Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild class of solutions: Performance decrease comes from the fact

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:37 +0200 Thomas de Grenier de Latour tom...@free.fr wrote: This argument is wrong imho. Future EAPIs can't be allowed to introduce backward-incompatible changes to the versions ordering rules, or they would make the PM behavior ill defined. Or, more precisely, if

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:54:38 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Peter Alfredsen loki_...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200 Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote: I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: Hello, I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily fetchable EAPI

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: information on localstatedir

2009-05-17 Thread Mark Loeser
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org said: I was told by the brltty developers that localstatedir should be /var. I noticed, however, that econf passes --localstatedir=/var/lib to the configure script. The way around this was to pass the --localstatedir option to econf. According to FHS we are

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:18:14 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me. We couldn't. Allowing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 11:11 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill: On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: Wrong. For example: - stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending on the package manager - --disable-static (maybe in a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Ben de Groot
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions)

[gentoo-dev] Re: scm in GLEP 54 (was: Council meeting summary for meeting on May 14, 2009)

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Thomas Anderson wrote: - Vote on GLEP 54 This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the problems mentioned in GLEP 55

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:22:57 +0200 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: Why do you think that it is a global scope change? Because he wants to push GLEP 55. Ben, please stop that and apologise for your behaviour. It's already been explained why changing bash versions is a global scope

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
Just a heads up that I wrote a more detailed description of the peformance hit that EAPI in the ebuild introduces. Might come up with some numbers later too. [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#easily-fetchable-eapi-inside-the-ebuild -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2009-05-17 20:57:25 Robert Buchholz napisał(a): On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: Hello, I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: scm in GLEP 54 (was: Council meeting summary for meeting on May 14, 2009)

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:24:27 -0600 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote: Thomas Anderson wrote: - Vote on GLEP 54 This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org: On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: Hello, I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Yet another proposal for ebuild extensions

2009-05-17 Thread Ben de Groot
Ravi Pinjala wrote: Instead of changing rules for existing ebuilds, then, why not formalize some guidelines for non-ebuild-compatible packages in the tree, separate from EAPIs? Allowing new package formats is the next logical generalization after considering new and incompatible ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: information on localstatedir

2009-05-17 Thread William Hubbs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 02:57:47PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: According to FHS we are doing it right: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARLIBVARIABLESTATEINFORMATION I guess what I would really like to know is...why does it matter? If

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: scm in GLEP 54 (was: Council meeting summary for meeting on May 14, 2009)

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: History suggests that if it goes up for debate again, no decision will ever be reached. If we simply have to decide between alternatives scm and live, then I don't see what should be so complicated about reaching a decision. GLEP 54 doesn't really

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
On 2009/05/17, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Let's take a very simple example: - eapi X says _p is equal to _p0 - eapi Y says _p is greater than any _pN -- of foo-1_p1 with EAPI=X and foo-1_p with EAPI=Y, what is the best version? You don't define

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds

2009-05-17 Thread Ben de Groot
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: 2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: scm in GLEP 54

2009-05-17 Thread Ben de Groot
Joe Peterson wrote: I have not seen much discussion lately regarding the choice of the string, scm in this GLEP. I asked the author today on IRC, and he said he doesn't have a particularly strong reason for scm beyond historical reasons. Since we are stuck with the string once it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: scm in GLEP 54 (was: Council meeting summary for meeting on May 14, 2009)

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: About a million years ago, we were going to move all the SCM packages into their own category (but it never happened, because port001's script didn't work). There was a huge bikeshed debate about whether to use vcs, rcs, scm or something else. In

[gentoo-dev] GLEP54 vs. package.mask (was: Council meeting summary for meeting on May 14, 2009)

2009-05-17 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org wrote: - Vote on GLEP 54 This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the problems

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:57:40 +0200 Thomas de Grenier de Latour tom...@free.fr wrote: On 2009/05/17, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: You don't define it quite like that. You define it by mapping EAPI X _p onto super-EAPI _p0, and EAPI Y _p onto super_EAPI _pINFINITY.

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Duncan
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org posted 2009051752.133c7...@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on Sun, 17 May 2009 11:11:52 -0600: Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) - When is it allowed to use an EAPI in the tree (given as offset to the release of portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:41 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: (See EAPI-3, now preapproved, but conditional on feature implementation, with removal of some feature or other possible before final approval if not all PMs support it in a timely manner.) EAPI 3's approval is based

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 11:11 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill: On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: Wrong. For example: - stuff like docompress may change the content

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: So, unless you're doing a pkgmove it's a dangerous thing since the PM can't reliably track reverse deps when doing uninstalls since it has to use the vdb entry for that,

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP54 vs. package.mask (was: Council meeting summary for meeting on May 14, 2009)

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Thomas de Grenier de Latour tom...@free.fr: On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org wrote:     - Vote on GLEP 54         This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. The reason for this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: information on localstatedir

2009-05-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 17 May 2009 15:55:55 William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 02:57:47PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: According to FHS we are doing it right: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARLIBVARIABLESTATEINFORMATI ON I guess what I would really like to know is...why does it

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:41 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org posted 2009051752.133c7...@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on Sun, 17 May 2009 11:11:52 -0600: Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) - When is it

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ben de Groot
Let me first say that I think this revision is much improved, and makes it clearer what we are talking about. As to the stated problem(s): 1. Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package dir too) A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish to allow

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:00:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: 2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: So, unless you're doing a pkgmove it's a dangerous thing since the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: 1. Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package dir too) A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish to allow this in the first place. The current inherit behavior with

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI Changes

2009-05-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 May 2009 15:19:17 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:00:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: 2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 3. Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely. Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably well. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ben de Groot
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: 1. Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package dir too) A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish to allow this in the first place. The current

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:08:05 +0200 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: There are already horrible hacks in the tree to get per-package 'eclasses'. That's a clear sign there's something lacking. I haven't come across any horrible hacks, that I'm aware of, but of course my interest is only

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread David Leverton
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: 2. Add new global scope functions in any sane way This is a valid use case, as seen by the eapi-2 update. But the way this is currently handled by portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Upstreams don't standardise either way on - vs _, so there's no reason Gentoo should. Upstreams use all sorts of strange versioning schemes. Here is a small collection: 1_14 - 1.14(app-emacs/limit) 1.0pre4- 1.0_pre4

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:54:04 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: Upstreams don't standardise either way on - vs _, so there's no reason Gentoo should. Upstreams use all sorts of strange versioning schemes. Here is a small collection: And we can handle a lot more of them sensibly

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 1_14 - 1.14(app-emacs/limit) 12B5 - 12.2.5 (dev-lang/erlang) These we should handle. How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid package names, so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts? Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:11:45 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 1_14 - 1.14(app-emacs/limit) 12B5 - 12.2.5 (dev-lang/erlang) These we should handle. How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid package names, so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts? By the time the things we need to get this done end up being accepted, we'll probably be using ranged deps, so it won't be an

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:30:26 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid package names, so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts? By the time the things we need to get this done

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV (was: GLEP 55 updated)

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: In fact, with GLEP 54 we have the problem already now. P=foo-1a-scm could mean both of the following: PN=foo PV=1a-scm PN=foo-1a PV=scm We've had that problem ever since -100dpi things had to be made legal, But so far you can split P into

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV (was: GLEP 55 updated)

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:43:43 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed. You mean like -r0? It's easily solved by a careful definition, in any case, just the same way that there's already a careful definition full of weaselling out to allow other

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2009-05-17 23h59 UTC

2009-05-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2009-05-17 23h59 UTC. Removals: net-www/adobesvg2009-05-12 15:12:45 ulm dev-tcltk/tkdiff2009-05-12 19:22:52 mescalinum media-sound/ermixer

[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.9 stabilization

2009-05-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
if you've got something that needs to block glibc-2.9 going stable, now is the time to make it block Bug 270243. with us finally using glibc-2.8 and gcc-4.3.2, hopefully these core packages wont lag for so long. clicky link: http://bugs.gentoo.org/270243 -mike signature.asc Description: This

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed. You mean like -r0? The revision is not part of PV. And it's easily split off, since the string -rdigits cannot occur elsewhere in the package version. It's easily solved by a careful definition, in any