Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: make system-sqlite a global USE flag

2010-10-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 23:04:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:35:57 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > >> To fix this problem sqlite upstream made a specific change allowing a > >> #pragma to be used to define where

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: make system-sqlite a global USE flag

2010-10-05 Thread Ryan Hill
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:52:42 +0200 "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > The meaning is identical in all those cases, and I think the number of > packages may have hit the threshold for a global flag. > > <...> > > If we'd make system-sqlite a global USE flag, I'd suggest a description > like "Use the sy

[gentoo-dev] Unmasking GCC 4.5

2010-10-05 Thread Ryan Hill
We'll be unmasking GCC 4.5 soon. I was planning on this weekend but next weekend is more likely. If you have open bugs on the tracker, please take a look at them now. https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=296658&hide_resolved=1 Thanks. -- fonts, gcc-porting, we hold ou

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: make system-sqlite a global USE flag

2010-10-05 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:35:57 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> To fix this problem sqlite upstream made a specific change allowing a >> #pragma to be used to define where secure-delete is required, avoiding >> the need to use secure-delete

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: make system-sqlite a global USE flag

2010-10-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:35:57 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > To fix this problem sqlite upstream made a specific change allowing a > #pragma to be used to define where secure-delete is required, avoiding > the need to use secure-delete *everywhere*. so what you're saying is that this USE flag c

Re: [gentoo-dev] [enhancement proposal] Per-file Manifest GPG signatures

2010-10-05 Thread Zac Medico
On 10/05/2010 05:26 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 05:53:50PM -0400, James Cloos wrote: >> Have portage note in the ebuild log what was signed, by what key, and >> whether the sigs were true. > zmedico: can we include this in the repoman commit sig? Sure. Currently, repoman

Re: [gentoo-dev] [enhancement proposal] Per-file Manifest GPG signatures

2010-10-05 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 05:53:50PM -0400, James Cloos wrote: > > "RHJ" == Robin H Johnson writes: > > RHJ> Some more issues for you: > RHJ> 1. Increases the size of the Manifest by a minimum of 710 bytes _per_ > RHJ>file. (4 bytes for 'GPG ', 700-900 for the hash, 1 for the field > space

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread David Leverton
On 5 October 2010 23:38, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > And for Distros, it doesnt make sense to try to support anything imaginable. Not breaking things that already work would be a decent compromise. > I'm now working in embedded area (where static linking is quite common) > for about 10yrs, and pkg-c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb: > http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/10/04/libtool-archives-and-their-pointless-points ACK. IMHO, removing the .la files should be under invididual ebuild (or eclass) control, and we also should try to get it fixed at the source (if possible). > Also, I would like to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [enhancement proposal] Per-file Manifest GPG signatures

2010-10-05 Thread James Cloos
> "RHJ" == Robin H Johnson writes: RHJ> Some more issues for you: RHJ> 1. Increases the size of the Manifest by a minimum of 710 bytes _per_ RHJ>file. (4 bytes for 'GPG ', 700-900 for the hash, 1 for the field space, 5-12 bytes for the RHJ>trailer). RHJ> 1.1. 55907 Manifest2 entries

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:59:41 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: > > Great! It should be easy for you to fix it to only specify direct > > link dependencies then, thus solving the underlying problem in one > > place rather than working around it by fixing thousands of > > individual packages. > > Sadly tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Luca Barbato
On 10/5/10 4:33 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:49:43 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: Bluntly put, you seem to not know how libtool exactly works and further down in the thread how linking exactly works. Please try to learn the fine Gentoo docs on the subject and feel free to ask mo

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-portage/conf-update: new maintainer needed

2010-10-05 Thread José María Alonso
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 09:45:32PM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Hey there, > > > like etc-update and dispatch-conf _conf-update_ seems to be one of the > more central tools in Gentoo. > > I have the impression that it is unmaintained because... > - metadata.xml says maintainer-needed, and >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: scons.eclass

2010-10-05 Thread Michał Górny
Hello, I'm attaching the latest scons-utils.eclass once again, and announcing the last call for criticism. If there are no further complaints, I will proceed with committing. -- Best regards, Michał Górny scons-utils.eclass Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread David Leverton
On 5 October 2010 02:55, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > USE flags add complexity, and in real use cases there are near to no > good reasons at all to keep .la files around. That's why I initially suggested a variable rather than a USE flag, as if it was implemented in a centralised function it would

Re: [gentoo-dev] suspicious code snipped in gcc-4.5* ebuilds

2010-10-05 Thread Magnus Granberg
On Tuesday 05 October 2010 18.52.29 Petteri Räty wrote: > On 10/05/2010 02:32 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > I was just looking at some random ebuilds recently, and noticed this > > snippet in gcc-4.5* ebuilds: > > > > SSP_STABLE="amd64 x86 ppc ppc64 arm > > # uclibc need tls and nptl support

Re: [gentoo-dev] suspicious code snipped in gcc-4.5* ebuilds

2010-10-05 Thread Petteri Räty
On 10/05/2010 02:32 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I was just looking at some random ebuilds recently, and noticed this > snippet in gcc-4.5* ebuilds: > > SSP_STABLE="amd64 x86 ppc ppc64 arm > # uclibc need tls and nptl support for SSP support" > SSP_UCLIBC_STABLE="" > > Please note how the #-s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:49:43 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: > Bluntly put, you seem to not know how libtool exactly works and > further down in the thread how linking exactly works. Please try to > learn the fine Gentoo docs on the subject and feel free to ask more > details on irc. Ah, so you do know

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: make system-sqlite a global USE flag

2010-10-05 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 15:52 Tue 05 Oct     , "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> The meaning is identical in all those cases, and I think the number of >> packages may have hit the threshold for a global flag. >> >> However, we already have a very similar global USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: make system-sqlite a global USE flag

2010-10-05 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 15:52 Tue 05 Oct , "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > The meaning is identical in all those cases, and I think the number of > packages may have hit the threshold for a global flag. > > However, we already have a very similar global USE flag: sqlite, which > makes this a bit more tricky. The di

[gentoo-dev] RFC: make system-sqlite a global USE flag

2010-10-05 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
$ euse --info system-sqlite global use flags (searching: system-sqlite) no matching entries found local use flags (searching: system-sqlite) [-] system-sqlite (mail-client/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Angelo Arrifano
On 05-10-2010 13:49, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 10/5/10 9:52 AM, Angelo Arrifano wrote: > >> By removing .la files, you are taking away that choice from the user. >> For you they might be useless, for some user (or entire software house) >> it can be its holly grail for library versioning and linkin

[gentoo-dev] Re: issue with gentoo-x86 cvs repo

2010-10-05 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 01.35 +, Robin H. Johnson ha scritto: > > Which is a date of 2010/10/02, that just rolled up a few hours ago. > A constant value that was set >5 years ago come up :-). > > All LDAP and the script are fixed now. fl...@yamato rar % cvs up Connection closed by 81

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Angelo Arrifano
On 05-10-2010 13:28, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno mar, 05/10/2010 alle 13.25 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò ha > scritto: >> Definitely not from /usr/lib/libGL.la given that libGL is part of mesa >> and mesa did not use libtool for linking until very recently, > > Actually, scratch that, mesa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Luca Barbato
On 10/5/10 9:52 AM, Angelo Arrifano wrote: By removing .la files, you are taking away that choice from the user. For you they might be useless, for some user (or entire software house) it can be its holly grail for library versioning and linking. I don't really feel like forcing users to change

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 10/05/2010 02:04 PM, Angelo Arrifano wrote: > You can extract from a .la things like the library name, version and > linking information (lib dependencies and paths). The information is > there and nothing prevented anyone from using it. >> >> Can you provide any specific use case, or are you no

[gentoo-dev] suspicious code snipped in gcc-4.5* ebuilds

2010-10-05 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
I was just looking at some random ebuilds recently, and noticed this snippet in gcc-4.5* ebuilds: SSP_STABLE="amd64 x86 ppc ppc64 arm # uclibc need tls and nptl support for SSP support" SSP_UCLIBC_STABLE="" Please note how the #-starting comment is inside the SSP_STABLE variable declaration. It l

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno mar, 05/10/2010 alle 13.25 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto: > Definitely not from /usr/lib/libGL.la given that libGL is part of mesa > and mesa did not use libtool for linking until very recently, Actually, scratch that, mesa IS NOT USING LIBTOOL AT ALL. So you hit the jackpot: yo

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno mar, 05/10/2010 alle 13.04 +0200, Angelo Arrifano ha scritto: > There are a lot of packages that need this information to correctly link > against libtool managed libraries, for example, there are packages that > linked against GL but didn't set -lGL -lGLU because it was relying on > libt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Angelo Arrifano
On 05-10-2010 12:03, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno mar, 05/10/2010 alle 09.52 +0200, Angelo Arrifano ha scritto: >> >> Like Richard said "Gentoo is about choice... >> >> By removing .la files, you are taking away that choice from the user. >> For you they might be useless, for some user (or

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno mar, 05/10/2010 alle 09.52 +0200, Angelo Arrifano ha scritto: > > Like Richard said "Gentoo is about choice... > > By removing .la files, you are taking away that choice from the user. > For you they might be useless, for some user (or entire software > house) > it can be its holly grai

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: .la files and their future on Gentoo

2010-10-05 Thread Angelo Arrifano
On 05-10-2010 03:55, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno lun, 04/10/2010 alle 11.19 -0400, Richard Freeman ha scritto: >> >> That said, supporting this use case should not interfere with more >> mainstream use of the distro. I like the USE flag proposal because it >> lets us have our cake and ea