Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy maintainership and gentoo-x86 scm

2010-01-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 14 January 2010 18:25:35 Petteri Räty wrote: On 01/15/2010 12:54 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: That top item is the largest blocker. The actual conversion time is down to 9 hours, but with more than that again in setting it up. I'd like to get the conversion time down to UNDER 4

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2010-01-15 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 15-01-2010 00:34:08 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 16 December 2008 18:46:44 Jeremy Olexa wrote: Exhibit A: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/eclass/python.eclass?r1=1.4 8r2=1.49 This causes me pain on my hosts that don't have =bash-3.1[0] for /bin/bash.

Re: [gentoo-dev] proxy maintainership and gentoo-x86 scm

2010-01-15 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
On 1/15/10, Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: git commit dir and git status dir still do full tree lstat(). I can try to make a patch or two to reduce lstat() in such cases. That would definitely compliment the --stat option to git diff et al, making git more usable on

[gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2010-01-15 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org: btw, latest python.eclass requires bash-3.2+ due to parsing errors in the regex checks: $ bash-3.1 -c '[[ a =~ ^(a|b)$ ]]' bash-3.1: -c: line 0: syntax error in conditional expression: unexpected token `(' bash-3.1: -c: line 0: syntax error near `^(a'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-15 Thread Victor Ostorga
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:35:45 +0100 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: 2010/1/12 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org: If you feel like it, become a proxy-maintainer and poke a developer to put your ebuilds on tree. Have you ever heard of that ? :) Proxy-maintainership should be given a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-15 Thread Ben de Groot
I think we have a bigger problem with packages that have a maintainer, at least nominally, but said maintainer does not actually maintain the package anymore. -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __

[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: app-i18n/qimhangul

2010-01-15 Thread Markos Chandras
# Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (15 Jan 2010) # Qt3 only application. Bug #299746. Will be removed in 30 days app-i18n/qimhangul -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Hello! By default layman currently stores overlays into /usr/local/portage/layman (was /usr/portage/local/layman before that). As of bug 253725 [1] that's not without problems. I would like to get it right with the next switch. Would /var/lib/layman do well? /var/cache/layman seems

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:36:20 +0100, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello! By default layman currently stores overlays into /usr/local/portage/layman (was /usr/portage/local/layman before that). As of bug 253725 [1] that's not without problems. I don't think it should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Alex Legler
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:36:20 +0100, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: Would /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -- Alex Legler | Gentoo Security / Ruby a...@gentoo.org | a...@jabber.ccc.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Dawid Węgliński
On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote: /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -1, /usr/local/layman? -- Cheers Dawid Węgliński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 15-01-2010 21:25, Dawid Węgliński wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote: /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -1, /usr/local/layman? Wouldn't that break the rule that /usr/local is reserved for users / admins? - From the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Dawid Węgliński
On Saturday 16 January 2010 00:33:15 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: On 15-01-2010 21:25, Dawid Węgliński wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote: /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -1, /usr/local/layman? Wouldn't that break the rule that /usr/local is reserved

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Ben de Groot
2010/1/15 Dawid Węgliński c...@gentoo.org: On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote:   /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -1, /usr/local/layman? /usr/local/ is a location the system should avoid. Somewhere in /var/ seems to be the logical place. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote: - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. The FHS (which we don't always obey, but in cases like this it's useful as a guideline) says about /var/lib: This hierarchy holds state information pertaining to an application or

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 01/16/10 00:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. If /var/cache/layman doesn't work, what about /var/spool/layman instead? Okay, how about /var/spool/layman then? Any objections? Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 15 January 2010 20:24:38 Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 01/16/10 00:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. If /var/cache/layman doesn't work, what about /var/spool/layman instead? Okay, how about /var/spool/layman

[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Duncan
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:45:49 -0500 as excerpted: On Friday 15 January 2010 20:24:38 Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 01/16/10 00:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. If /var/cache/layman doesn't work, what about

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 15 January 2010 20:55:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 01/16/10 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: the better idea though would be to split your stuff along the proper lines. cache files = /var/cache/layman/ as i said: it's not a normal cache. you said but didnt explain why it's

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-ruby/ruby-libgda

2010-01-15 Thread Hans de Graaff
# Hans de Graaff gra...@gentoo.org (16 Jan 2010) # Not supported anymore by upstream since several ruby-gnome2 # releases. Will be removed in 30 days. dev-ruby/ruby-libgda Support for ruby-libgda already got removed by upstream with the 0.16 release which was released at the end of 2006.