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 but
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 foo
Hi!
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Duncan wrote:
Now, for worst-case comparison, on the same machine, what's the
respective times for a full systemd build? (I'm not saying actually
merge it, just configure/compile, plus see the next paragraph.)
I think my first set of numbers illustrates that: just
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:12:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
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.
On 8/28/2012 4:05 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 28/08/2012 15:36, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
static-libs is for installing static libraries IN ADDITION to shared
libraries, not instead.
USE=static is for what you have in mind there.
PE is not the same as ELF so on Windows you either build one or
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:17:48 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
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,
Tobias Klausmann posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:03:59 +0200 as excerpted:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Duncan wrote:
Now, for worst-case comparison, on the same machine, what's the
respective times for a full systemd build? (I'm not saying actually
merge it, just configure/compile, plus see the next
Hello gentoo devs,
From last council meeting summary:
[snip]
Open floor
==
scarabeus suggested the change dev should use latest eapi when bumping
to dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses.
He was asked to bring it up on the mailing lists, to get a better
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org wrote:
scarabeus suggested the change dev should use latest eapi when bumping
to dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses.
He was asked to bring it up on the mailing lists, to get a better
definition of
On 08/30/2012 12:28 PM, Johannes Huber wrote:
Hello gentoo devs,
From last council meeting summary:
[snip]
Open floor
==
scarabeus suggested the change dev should use latest eapi when bumping
to dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses.
He was asked to
I can't say I'm a big fan of this. This requires forcing changes to
ebuilds that offer no actual benefit to either the maintainer or the
end-users (changes that actually have some benefit to either are
likely to be made anyway). The PM maintainers have chimed in that
there is no benefit to
Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know
any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every developer
to check a) how the behavior of the new EAPI impacts the current ebuild
and b) how the behvaior of inherited eclasses change depending on EAPI.
My
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org wrote:
EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer? No benefit for
user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy?
Then why make it a policy?
If as you say there is a benefit to the maintainer, then you won't
have to
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org wrote:
[snip]
Developers have only a limited amount of time, and this will eat into
it. The result is likely to not be new shiny ebuilds that use the new
EAPIs, but rather old rusty ones that still use the old EAPI but also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/08/12 08:37 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org
wrote:
[snip]
Developers have only a limited amount of time, and this will
eat into it. The result is likely to not be new shiny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/08/12 08:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org
wrote:
EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer?
No benefit for user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy?
Then
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you are rewriting a full ebuild as your solution, and the ebuild
you start with is EAPI4 , then Markos would appreciate it if you
changed the ebuild to be EAPI=4 (or whatever the latest EAPI is) in
addition to the fix.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/08/12 09:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
wrote:
If you are rewriting a full ebuild as your solution, and the
ebuild you start with is EAPI4 , then Markos would appreciate it
if
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when
bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and
eventually removed from the tree.
What is the benefit from removing the old EAPIs?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think you may miss the meaning of should. It's not the same as
must.
Is it a policy or not? If it is a policy we can ignore at our own
discretion, then by all means pass it, and we can all do whatever we
like, as we
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:59:07 schrieb hasufell:
Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know
any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every developer
to check a) how the behavior of the new EAPI impacts the current ebuild
and b) how the
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when
bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and
eventually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/08/12 09:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI
when bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:12:01 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
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
Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:59:07 schrieb hasufell:
Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know
any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every developer
to check a) how the behavior of the new EAPI impacts the
Michael Mol schrieb:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when
bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Michael Mol schrieb:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:05:52 -0400
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Compile a list of existing ebuilds which depend on old EAPIs, and
you've got a TODO list. (eclasses, I don't know; I don't know if
eclasses explicitly express EAPI compatibility in metadata) Once that
list is cleared, yes,
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:59:07 schrieb hasufell:
Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know
any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:11:54 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Both of the flags (except for gift AFAICS) refer to asynchronous DNS
resolution. Could we join them into one flag? I think we should retain
'adns', move appropriate 'ares' flags to it and modify the description
to make
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/30/2012 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:11:54 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Both of the flags (except for gift AFAICS) refer to asynchronous DNS
resolution. Could we join them into one flag? I think we
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
It's very simple. People will just ignore this if they disagree and
leave any bump to EAPI-latest already bugs unresolved forever.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:36:02 -0400
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
For things which are currently actually using adns, I believe
migrating USE=adns to USE=libadns to allow users to specifically pick
the (afaik deprecated) library.
I think you wanted to say 'things which
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
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
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:02 +0100 as excerpted:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:05:52 -0400 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com
wrote:
Compile a list of existing ebuilds which depend on old EAPIs, and
you've got a TODO list. (eclasses, I don't know; I don't know if
eclasses
Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:46:21 -0400 as excerpted:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
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 Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:02 +0100 as excerpted:
Some minimum time/versions (say six months) before a PM drops support for
it, on PM upgrades it starts warning about the coming drop of EAPI-X
support,
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:38:11 -0400 as excerpted:
My main concern is doing bumps all the time just for their own sake.
Yes. That's why I didn't tackle that side at all. But I've seen the
PM's can never drop support for an EAPI once adopted thing before, and
while there's
40 matches
Mail list logo
