Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff > > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon. > > the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all > grown to love, and are no

[gentoo-dev] removing of autotools from system set

now that we have autotools.eclass to ease regenerating of autotools in ebuilds and people have generally adopted this tree-wide, i'd like to look at dropping autoconf, automake, and libtool from the system set. i'll wait for the current stage-breaking issue to get sorted out (/dev nodes in stage3)

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

probably not worth getting into -mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wr

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was > >> long ago decided as the canonical public entry p

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

2011/6/28 Olivier Crête: > As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need > these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a > separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright > systemd future. systemd is limited (acknowledged by

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was >> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts >> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path i

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:12, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was > long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts > external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in /sbin/). it isnt > going anywhere, and painting it as s

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote: >> >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to prov

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote: > >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience > >> function library, independent of OpenRC

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote: >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience >> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal >> scripts of a random package is just br

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote: > Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience > function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal > scripts of a random package is just broken by concept. except it hasnt been random and has clearly

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:03:34 -0430 "Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)" wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman > wrote: > > Hi guys, > [...] > > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like > > to know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:10:42 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > the reason for this email is > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 and the bugs that > currently depend on it. I'm sure there will be more of those. > > The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to > /lib/rc/func

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 15:58:46 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:04:00 -0400 Nathan Phillip Brink wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:24:26PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote: > > > ?? ??, 28/06/2011 ?? 12:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger ??: > > > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

On 14:38 Tue 28 Jun , Peter Volkov wrote: > 1. add a use flag to control runtime dependency > 2. add elog message into pkg_postinst to notify users that some > features depend on installing package A, B, etc. I've got a suggestion that builds a little bit on what both you and Ciaran have sai

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

Hi, On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:07:12PM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to > > /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc. > > > > Other init systems, like systemd, are c

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

Hi, On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to > /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc. > > Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely > replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scrip

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Hi guys, [...] > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to > know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the > Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a > number

[gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

All, the reason for this email is http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 and the bugs that currently depend on it. I'm sure there will be more of those. The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc. Other init systems, like sys

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:04:00 -0400 Nathan Phillip Brink wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:24:26PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote: > > ?? ??, 28/06/2011 ?? 12:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger ??: > > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03 Micha?? G??rny wrote: > > > > emake CC="$(tc-getCC)" CFLAGS=

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Tuesday 28 of June 2011 05:26:29 Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 08:02:57AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: > > > > First, standardise sets. We probably want to go with a format along the > > > > lines of: > > eapi = 4 > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:24:26 +0400 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Втр, 28/06/2011 в 12:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03 Michał Górny wrote: > > > emake CC="$(tc-getCC)" CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"... > > > > this is easily dangerous when it comes to packages (and many do) >

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:24:26PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote: > ?? ??, 28/06/2011 ?? 12:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger ??: > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03 Micha?? G??rny wrote: > > > emake CC="$(tc-getCC)" CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"... > > > > this is easily dangerous when it comes to package

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:37:41 justin wrote: > On 6/28/11 6:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03 Michał Górny wrote: > >> I think that also a good idea may be to provide an Makefile example, > >> showing that often sed is unnecessary, and it's enough to do things

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

В Втр, 28/06/2011 в 12:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03 Michał Górny wrote: > > emake CC="$(tc-getCC)" CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"... > > this is easily dangerous when it comes to packages (and many do) that append > in the Makefile. specifying on the command line bloc

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update

On 6/28/11 6:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03 Michał Górny wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:16:06 +0400 Peter Volkov wrote: >>> But still our documentation explicitly suggests ':' for CFLAGS cases >>> and example allows bash substitution. >>> >>> http://devmanual.ge

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 08:25:50 Peter Volkov wrote: > +Sometimes a package will not use the user's ${CFLAGS} or > +${LDFLAGS}. there are more flag vars than this. you should use language like: Sometimes a package will not use the user's build settings (such as CFLAGS or LDFLAGS). > -sed

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 02:54:03 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:16:06 +0400 Peter Volkov wrote: > > But still our documentation explicitly suggests ':' for CFLAGS cases > > and example allows bash substitution. > > > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_compil

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 08:02:03 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Сбт, 25/06/2011 в 13:24 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, justin wrote: > > >> Another question, do we have a rule, how the metadata.xml has to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] ldconfig symlink updates -- do we need that?

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:31:11 +0200 Cyprien Nicolas wrote: > On 28/06/11 10:53, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:48:48 +0200 Michał Górny > > wrote: > > I'm a noob in Python, but I disagree with this patch. for two reasons: > > First, the -X option is already available, and contr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:53, Peter Volkov wrote: > В Пнд, 27/06/2011 в 20:26 -0700, Brian Harring пишет: >> > Second, make a bunch of sets named kde-tag, editors-tag, xml-tag, >> > monkeys-tag etc. > > I'd like avoid editing multiple files. Much better will be keep tags > with package. > > Also

Re: [gentoo-dev] ldconfig symlink updates -- do we need that?

On 28/06/11 10:53, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:48:48 +0200 Michał Górny > wrote: I'm a noob in Python, but I disagree with this patch. for two reasons: First, the -X option is already available, and controlled by makelinks, so why not change the default value of makelinks to Fa

Re: [gentoo-dev] demanual update (was: Don't use / when applying sed with CFLAGS)

Thank you Fabian, Michał. Added note on Makefile and mentioned other tools as well. Updated patch is in attachment. -- Peter. >From 9d24f4bab09be481e70ab04c85f20a246162dc0a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Volkov Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:05:17 +0400 Subject: [PATCH] Use | as a separator for

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

В Сбт, 25/06/2011 в 13:24 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, justin wrote: > >> Another question, do we have a rule, how the metadata.xml has to be > >> indented? Tabs or n spaces? > > > > There's no rule, but w

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

В Вск, 26/06/2011 в 17:20 +0200, Maciej Mrozowski пишет: > I never understood the reason after keeping deps not sorted alphabetically > where order doesn't matter - it's like someone purposely made ebuild harder > to > read - it's counter productive. Like with perl modules with well written con

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

В Пнд, 27/06/2011 в 20:26 -0700, Brian Harring пишет: > > Second, make a bunch of sets named kde-tag, editors-tag, xml-tag, > > monkeys-tag etc. I'd like avoid editing multiple files. Much better will be keep tags with package. > Counter proposal; use what you're proposing as a cache. metadata.x

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 13:48, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > Yes, but with slotting you allow different packages to pull in different > slots of python. Furthermore, when you slot a package and mark more than > one slot stable, you're saying that all the stable slots work and don't > "break"

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 28-06-2011 07:19, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:54, Joshua Saddler wrote: >> This would be nice, but unfortunately the python maintainer forced >> 3.x on everyone, despite the fact that nothing uses it and no one >> really w

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:19:43 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:14:40 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:03:28 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Have you seen how Exherbo solved the same problem? exheres-0 has > > > 'suggested' and 'recommended' depen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling

В Втр, 28/06/2011 в 07:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: > There was going to be a really simple, elegant, ebuild-controllable and > provably working fix for that in EAPI 4 in the form of := deps, but > they got dropped because Portage couldn't implement it. > > Which is strange, because it should

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:14:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:03:28 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Have you seen how Exherbo solved the same problem? exheres-0 has > > 'suggested' and 'recommended' dependencies, which are variations on > > post dependencies. Suggested depend

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

On 06/28/11 12:38, Peter Volkov wrote: > Hi guys. We've had discussion on optional runtime dependencies in bug > 361255, but I think it's worth to have broader discussion of this issue. > [SNIP] > Comments? I like the USEflag approach. It integrates well with the rest of the machinery. Speaking

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:38:19 +0400 Peter Volkov wrote: > Starting with EAPI=X new prefix ~ is allowed in IUSE use flag > definition. Use > flags prefixed with ~ are not allowed to be used anywhere but only > inside > PDEPEND dependency specification. This USE flags are used during > dependency >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:03:28 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Have you seen how Exherbo solved the same problem? exheres-0 has > 'suggested' and 'recommended' dependencies, which are variations on > post dependencies. Suggested dependencies are displayed (along with a > description explaining what

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:38:19 +0400 Peter Volkov wrote: > Hi guys. We've had discussion on optional runtime dependencies in bug > 361255, but I think it's worth to have broader discussion of this > issue. Have you seen how Exherbo solved the same problem? exheres-0 has 'suggested' and 'recommended

[gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

Hi guys. We've had discussion on optional runtime dependencies in bug 361255, but I think it's worth to have broader discussion of this issue. = Abstract Optional runtime dependencies are dependent packages that are not required to r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:43:21PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > A. Storing tag data in metadata.xml ( package -> tag association ) > B. Developing a tool that aggregates the contents of metadata.xml to > produce a cache for the data going the other way ( tag -> package ) > > People searching for

Re: [gentoo-dev] ldconfig symlink updates -- do we need that?

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:48:48 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > I have created a patch which makes 'env-update' always pass '-X' to > ldconfig, to not let it update the symlinks in system-wide libdirs. > I'm testing it right now to see if it doesn't cause any breakage. And, as always, forgot to attach

[gentoo-dev] ldconfig symlink updates -- do we need that?

Hello, As you may or may not know, right now env-update calls 'ldconfig' by default, describing that in the terms of 'Regenerating /etc/ld.so.cache'. In fact, it does a little more -- it updates library symlinks to use the newest library version available. In other words, if we've got libfoo.so.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:04:58 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 21:31, Michał Górny wrote: > > Working targets. USE_PYTHON is junk. What python.eclass does now > > with ABIs is a PITA, and requires manually providing a lot of > > redudant information (namely, RESTRICT_PYTHON_

[gentoo-dev] Re: REMOVE

Stelios Boulios posted on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:51:41 +0300 as excerpted: [blank, see subject] See the headers for any post forwarded by this list. They all contain the following information: List-Post: List-Help: List-

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 22:46, Petteri Räty wrote: >> Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package >> in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure >> that's the best trade-off. > > And why can't this be handled by the eclass? If the ebuild is able to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 21:31, Michał Górny wrote: > Working targets. USE_PYTHON is junk. What python.eclass does now with > ABIs is a PITA, and requires manually providing a lot of redudant > information (namely, RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS). Please clarify *why* it is a PITA, and what information is r

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 20:23, Benedikt Böhm wrote: > the way python applications are built currently renders all binary > packages useless, since portage does not know which version of python > it was built against. the explicit selection with RUBY_TARGETS or > PHP_TARGETS solves this problem at

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:54, Joshua Saddler wrote: > This would be nice, but unfortunately the python maintainer forced > 3.x on everyone, despite the fact that nothing uses it and no one > really wanted it made the default. So now it's shipped with all the > stage tarballs, in addition to 2.7.