Mart Raudsepp posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:27:48 +0300 as excerpted:
> Geode LX700 (433MHz) with 256MB RAM MAKEOPTS=-j2 (single core system)
> gcc (Gentoo 4.5.2 p1.1, pie-0.4.5) 4.5.2
>
> ebuild prepare done before as well.
>
> 1. time ebuild foo configure — real time value
> 2. time ebuild fo
Walter Dnes posted on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:19:13 -0400 as excerpted:
> Note that a fork will have to be be "bug-compatable" to Redhat's
> version, just like DR-DOS had to be bug-compatable to MS-DOS, way back
> when. And what happens when that "compatability" requires not just
> systemd and dbus
On N, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > > As a first crude datapoint, I compared the build times
> > > (configure+make) of udev-171-r6 and -188 on our dev
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:37:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> What I see as the most likely thing to lead to change is if/when
> GnomeOS actually starts to exist. When you can't run Gnome without
> systemd I'd expect to see a lot more Gentoo users running it. Then
> again, if Gnome jumps the sh
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> does it actually ? are DEPEND variables not allowed to be expanded in
>> pkg_* src_* funcs ?
>
> Nope. We don't guarantee that the metadata variable gets exported back
> to the ebu
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:24:45 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> Ciaran only shoots at people for checking $DEPEND at inherit time. I
> think that checking $DEPEND in prune_libtool_files, which is called
> from src_install, shouldn't be a problem.
Naah, I shout at people for thinking that the fan
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> does it actually ? are DEPEND variables not allowed to be expanded in
> pkg_* src_* funcs ?
Nope. We don't guarantee that the metadata variable gets exported back
to the ebuild environment.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descriptio
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 00:02 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other criteria
> > > allows it to classify the particular .la file a
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> >> > In
On 29/08/2012 15:16, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> > > Also, some people are probably going to try to get some pkgconf
>>> > > support directly into gcc, in form of '-something libfoo' to make
>>> > > it grab everything magically, I think.
>> >
>> > You have a future as a comedian.
> Sir, you are going
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:06:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 29/08/2012 15:02, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Also, some people are probably going to try to get some pkgconf
> > support directly into gcc, in form of '-something libfoo' to make
> > it grab everything magically, I think.
>
> You hav
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> > In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other crite
On 29/08/2012 15:02, Michał Górny wrote:
> I'd add it to @system because a lot of packages actually need to DEPEND
> on pkgconfig because they use libraries using .pc files. And the number
> is going to increase, hopefully.
And yet it shouldn't be part of system because it's not necessary to run
a
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other criteria
>> > allows it to classify the particular .la file as suitable
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other criteria
> > allows it to classify the particular .la file as suitable for
> > removal or not. Sadly, it's rather, ehm, unfrien
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other criteria allows
> it to classify the particular .la file as suitable for removal or not.
> Sadly, it's rather, ehm, unfriendly to ebuild developers who obviously
> don't even read the releva
Hello, fellow developers.
I'd like to note that the prune_libtool_files() in eutils.eclass has
a pretty specific dependency on pkg-config. Whenever it is used
in an ebuild, it should depend on virtual/pkgconfig if all
of the following conditions are met:
1. The ebuild installs at least a single s
Hi!
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > As a first crude datapoint, I compared the build times
> > (configure+make) of udev-171-r6 and -188 on our dev Alpha. This
> > is a machine that's on the speedier side of off-main
On 29/08/2012 09:05, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> Except for the fact that they are two different backends for async DNS
> and some packages (wireshark) support both. Doesn't make sense to merge
> them and take the choice away from the user.
They should behave like ssl: if only one is suppor
Then it's like the ssl: openssl gnutls nss case :)
--
Gilles Dartiguelongue
Gentoo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/29/2012 01:10 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 28 August 2012 05:11, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> $ quse -D adns ares
>> global:adns: Adds support for the adns DNS client library
>> local:ares:dev-libs/ecore: Enables support for asynchronou
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Vaeth wrote:
> > I doubt that most people consider udev's stand-alone build-time a big
> > issue.
>
> The real issue is not the build-time but the dependencies needed
> at build-time (and in future versions perhaps also at run-time):
> Currently, these are
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> As a first crude datapoint, I compared the build times
> (configure+make) of udev-171-r6 and -188 on our dev Alpha. This
> is a machine that's on the speedier side of off-mainstream
> architecures, but as a datapoint, it should be
I doubt that most people consider udev's stand-alone build-time a big
issue.
The real issue is not the build-time but the dependencies needed
at build-time (and in future versions perhaps also at run-time):
Currently, these are essentially libcap and dbus.
Now that some projects (e.g. hardened
Hi!
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Duncan wrote:
> So in practice, just what are the sorts of times, relative to stand-alone-
> build udev, we're talking about? In all this discussion, what, hundreds
> of posts by now?, I've not seen ANYONE actually ask, let alone answer,
> THAT. But it would seem to b
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> And
> by 2-3 years out, if Linux/FLOSS history is any guide, the whole
> ecosystem will look different, and we'll have a whole list of new changes
> and challenges to worry about,
Agreed. I suspect the status quo will remain
Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:06:29 +0800 as excerpted:
> For now udev is still usable without systemd, even tho upstream is
> making it difficult to build udev separately (and avoid unnecessary
> build-time dependencies). Upstream is also unwilling to work with us to
> make this easi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2012 04:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I meant 'require only newest slot supported by package' vs 'any
> older slot would work'.
>
hmm, imo that depends on the question if we can safely assume that the
application compiles with boost 1.35.0
28 matches
Mail list logo
