Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing kde-base/arts from tree.

2009-11-11 Thread volkmar
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:14:41AM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
 Here's _somewhat_ complete list of ebuilds that have a depend on
 kde-base/arts, excluding those that are masked for other reasons
 or ones that I plan on handling myself.

[..]
 media-video/vlc-0.9.10:arts

There is a bug with ffmpeg for ppc which is blocking vlc-1.0.2 stabilization.
Please, consider just dropping arts support from 0.9.10 instead of removing the
ebuild. The ffmpeg bug isn't simple enought to be fixed for the end of the week.

Thanks.

--
Mounir



Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing kde-base/arts from tree.

2009-11-11 Thread Samuli Suominen
Samuli Suominen wrote:
 Here's _somewhat_ complete list of ebuilds that have a depend on
 kde-base/arts, excluding those that are masked for other reasons
 or ones that I plan on handling myself.

And the unreasonable goal is done.

kde-base/arts is masked, remaining unmasked ebuilds fixed, and USE arts
is temporarily masked in base/use.mask until kde-base/* is wiped out of
KDE 3.5.10.



[gentoo-dev] =kde-base/kdelibs-3* removal, bug 292791

2009-11-11 Thread Samuli Suominen
Goal is to have =kdelibs-3* out of tree by this year, and get
autoconf-2.64 keyworded for ~arch. See the bug in $summary,
and open bugs as you see needed.

Thanks, Samuli



Re: [gentoo-dev] =kde-base/kdelibs-3* removal, bug 292791

2009-11-11 Thread likewhoa
Nice, kde3 deprecation removal is in full effect. You rock Samuli!

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 17:32 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
 Goal is to have =kdelibs-3* out of tree by this year, and get
 autoconf-2.64 keyworded for ~arch. See the bug in $summary,
 and open bugs as you see needed.
 
 Thanks, Samuli
 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-11 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:20:00 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:

 But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release:
  screen-4.0.2.tar.gz27-Jan-2004 05:46  821K  
  screen-4.0.2.tar.gz.sig27-Jan-2004 05:47   65   
  screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30  821K  
  screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig07-Aug-2008 06:30   65   
 You see the pattern? It is 1 year newer than it.

Correct. The snapshot should have been named _pre20070403.


Regards,
 jer



[gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-11 Thread Torsten Veller
 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
  But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release:
   screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30  821K  
   screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig07-Aug-2008 06:30   65   

*screen-4.0.3 (25 Oct 2006)

Part of the famous Software from the future series.
Proudly presented by your Gentoo time travel agency.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-11 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:11:37 +0100
Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net wrote:

  Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
   But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release:
screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30  821K  
screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig07-Aug-2008 06:30   65   
 
 *screen-4.0.3 (25 Oct 2006)
 
 Part of the famous Software from the future series.
 Proudly presented by your Gentoo time travel agency.

Yes, corrected again. The original came out in 2006, whatever the
timestamp on the site says. The _p* was a CVS snapshot that was added
to the tree years later.


I'll get me coat,
 jer



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo stats server/client @ 2009-08-22

2009-11-11 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Torsten Veller wrote:
 What's the status of the stats project? What's missing? What help is
 needed?

Hello Torsten, thanks for your interest.
Let me quote myself from a recent reply on a similar question:

  for the quickest summary possible these steps are needed:
  - make me have and take time for it (soon again as planned)
  - fix server performance to not take 10 seconds per gentoo-submission
(my alchemy code is partly stupid, now i know)
  - move batch processing upstream (depends on upstream co-op)
  - get more gentoo people join coding after
(http://soc.gentooexperimental.org/projects/stats/issues)


 I'd really like to see a system that can answer:
 How often is cpv x installed on arch y (testing/stable flavour)?

That's possible, yes.  Please elaborate more on motivation and details.



Sebastian



[gentoo-dev] [maintainer-needed] app-emulation/kvm

2009-11-11 Thread Doug Goldstein
KVM needs a maintainer. Plain and simple. If you're interested please
step and and start wrangling some bugs.

-- 
Doug Goldstein



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: redistribute intel rpms

2009-11-11 Thread Sébastien Fabbro
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Duncan wrote:

 The big combo tarball could then be restrict=mirror or whatever, with
 or without a specific user click-thru (and restrict=interactive or
 whatever) as necessary and already used on some packages, following
 existing policies.
 
 Of course, there's certainly the complexity of automating the tarball 
 unpack of only the specific needed components, but gentoo/kde has a 
 **LOT** of experience with that sort of thing by now, and I'm sure
 they'd be happy to share hints and helpful tactical strategies with
 you, if you ask, and there's no way I can conceive it being even half
 as dependency convoluted as kde4 was to figure out, so it should be
 FAR easier.

To make myself clearer, the tar ball includes a few binary rpms and a
installer blob. Both icc and ifc tar ball include the mkl, idb and some
common library rpms. If we go for a kde-split with a mirror
restrict approach, users would still have to download the big (~800Mb)
tar balls. Only users with use of all (icc, idb, ifc, mkl, ipp, tbb)
intel software would benefit of downloading them. It is also the fact
Intel has a history of changing their packaging system. Not to
mention that a rpm split seems to me lot simpler to maintain and
quicker to package for me than the kde-split mirror-restricted approach,
and the fact my interest for these packages is limited.

--
Sébastien



Re: [gentoo-dev] redistribute intel rpms

2009-11-11 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:58:09PM -0800, Sébastien Fabbro wrote:
  Additionally, from the base license:
  ] Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
  any specific ] restrictions which may appear in the Redistributables
  text files, Intel grants ] to you a non-exclusive, non-assignable
  copyright license to distribute (except ] under an Evaluation License
  as specified below) the Redistributables, or any ] portions thereof,
  as part of the product or application you developed using the ]
  Materials.
  
  Thus, we need to review the any specific restrictions which may
  appear in the Redistributables text files for problems as well.
 The Redistributables seem a bit different in Intel sense, see my
 post in [1]. I also put the redist file in [2].
Can you make a list of files in the giant tarball aren't included in the
credist.txt list?

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee  Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85