[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags. --- gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass b/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass ind

[gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes WAS: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: ChangeLog toolchain.eclass

Hi folks, this commit changes the set of USE flags on the just stabled gcc-4.6, running a huge number into an rebuild of an freshly updated package. (emerge --newuse recaclulates from "go disabled" to "go missing") Wouldn't it be possible to a) refrain from this change (really, who has USE=go tur

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH eutils] Introduce run_in_build_dir() used in a few ebuilds.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 03:20:20 AM Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:09:51 -0500 as excerpted: > > >>> + [[ ${BUILD_DIR} ]] || die "${FUNCNAME}: BUILD_DIR not set." > >> > >> really should use -n there > > > >> Doesn't matter. > > > > the point wasn't "will it w

[gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg

I'm trying to make Chromium be more compatible with more versions of ffmpeg: (although not stated there, that includes libav). Now the initial response there is not enthusiastic (which doesn't surprise me), but

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH eutils] Introduce run_in_build_dir() used in a few ebuilds.

Mike Frysinger posted on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:09:51 -0500 as excerpted: >>> + [[ ${BUILD_DIR} ]] || die "${FUNCNAME}: BUILD_DIR not set." >> >> really should use -n there > >> Doesn't matter. > > the point wasn't "will it work". it's more "how easy is it to glance at > code and know what it i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:25:01AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: > William Hubbs wrote: > > I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering > > to discuss whether we want the new names for new installs. > > IMO yes we do. > > What's that bug - or what is the good way to thumbs up/down?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

William Hubbs wrote: > I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering > to discuss whether we want the new names for new installs. IMO yes we do. What's that bug - or what is the good way to thumbs up/down? //Peter pgpswXbIiseJI.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH eutils] Introduce run_in_build_dir() used in a few ebuilds.

On Monday 14 January 2013 12:55:29 Dan Douglas wrote: > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 01:28:42 PM Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday 13 January 2013 08:29:43 Michał Górny wrote: > > > + [[ ${BUILD_DIR} ]] || die "${FUNCNAME}: BUILD_DIR not set." > > > > really should use -n there > > Doesn't matte

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lifting the HOMEPAGE requirement for ebuilds

On Monday 14 January 2013 15:15:03 Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 14-01-2013 a las 18:15 +0100, hasufell escribió: > [...] > > > >> +1 to allow empty/missing HOMEPAGE variable > > >> > > >> dead homepage => useless > > >> http://gentoo.org => useless > > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org => too obvious >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lifting the HOMEPAGE requirement for ebuilds

El lun, 14-01-2013 a las 15:49 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 14/01/13 03:15 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El lun, 14-01-2013 a las 18:15 +0100, hasufell escribió: [...] > +1 to allow empty/missing HOMEPAGE variable > > dea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lifting the HOMEPAGE requirement for ebuilds

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 03:15 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 14-01-2013 a las 18:15 +0100, hasufell escribió: [...] +1 to allow empty/missing HOMEPAGE variable dead homepage => useless http://gentoo.org => useless https://bugs.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[CC'ing this to core so noone can complain afterwards.] Since 48h did not lead to any responses positive or negative, I'll start implementing the procedure as given in the original e-mail (quoted below). As also said below, each arch will get a mail before I touch their profile tree and after I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lifting the HOMEPAGE requirement for ebuilds

El lun, 14-01-2013 a las 18:15 +0100, hasufell escribió: [...] > >> +1 to allow empty/missing HOMEPAGE variable > >> > >> dead homepage => useless > >> http://gentoo.org => useless > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org => too obvious > >> > > > > An empty homepage usually means the package is dead. I'd rat

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH eutils] Introduce run_in_build_dir() used in a few ebuilds.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Dan Douglas wrote: > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 06:02:26 PM Michał Górny wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 07:36:59 -0800 >> Alec Warner wrote: >> > local -i ret >> > ? >> >> Looks good. I didn't even know bash has something like that. >> > > Useless use of -i is usu

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd/udev split

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > The only time I see eudev replacing udev as our default is if the > systemd guys actually kill udev on non-systemd systems. > Seems likely to me, but anticipating about 300 replies to your post, I think we're all agreed that we'll do what ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd/udev split

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:59:14PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 14/01/13 01:06 PM, Oleksii Shevchuk wrote: > > Hi list! > > > > After introducing eudev, is there any reason to do systemd/udev > > split? > > > > Ask in 6 months to a ye

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:04:01AM +, Steven J. Long wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 William Hubbs wrote: > > Steven J. Long wrote: > > > If you're certain that every user with a current simple setup, who > > > uses the kernel default names, and has such a firewall setup isn't > > > going to sudd

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd/udev split

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 01:06 PM, Oleksii Shevchuk wrote: > Hi list! > > After introducing eudev, is there any reason to do systemd/udev > split? > Ask in 6 months to a year, after eudev is fully established and has a solid track record. -BEGIN PGP SIGNAT

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-multilib: wrapper eclass for multilib builds.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:04:45 -0300 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:44:58 +0100 > Thomas Sachau wrote: > > > Please keep in mind, that the USE flags are different, depending on > > your arch. E.g. on amd64, you may additionally have x86 and x32, > > while on ppc64, you may have pp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

> William is packaging upstream udev for Gentoo. > > You are shooting the messenger. I expect there is 0 blame meant for William. P.s. Is it William that Lennart dished some blame in the direction of. I completely disagree. It's not the job of every distro to look for all build flags to fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd/udev split

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > I don't want systemd and I don't want eudev. And I'm not alone I'm sure. ++ If it costs me 1200 seconds of CPU time and 40 millicents in electricity twice I year I can live with that... Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd/udev split

2013/1/14 Diego Elio Pettenò : > I don't want systemd and I don't want eudev. And I'm not alone I'm sure. You are definitely not alone (though I'm not a gentoo dev). I think it makes sense to keep it split as long as udev is buildable without systemd and until eudev proves to be stable enough. Af

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd/udev split

Yes. I don't want systemd and I don't want eudev. And I'm not alone I'm sure.

[gentoo-dev] systemd/udev split

Hi list! After introducing eudev, is there any reason to do systemd/udev split?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-multilib: wrapper eclass for multilib builds.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:44:58 +0100 Thomas Sachau wrote: > Pacho Ramos schrieb: > > El mar, 25-09-2012 a las 10:21 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió: > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:49:13 +0200 > >> Thomas Sachau wrote: > >> > >>> It is not hard by itself to inherit an eclass. There is just the > >>> li

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH eutils] Introduce run_in_build_dir() used in a few ebuilds.

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 01:28:42 PM Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 13 January 2013 08:29:43 Michał Górny wrote: > > + [[ ${BUILD_DIR} ]] || die "${FUNCNAME}: BUILD_DIR not set." > > really should use -n there > Doesn't matter. Only zsh requires it (and pointlessly disagrees with every othe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 14/01/2013 18:32, Zac Medico wrote: > Ah, right! So, those packages also need to be patched to use /run > directly, instead of relying on the symlink. Or the symlink should just stay for however long that's going to take, which is probably a good idea, as it does not bother anyone. I don't thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 01/14/2013 09:23 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 14/01/2013 18:14, Zac Medico wrote: >> It might be a lot simpler to just go and patch all the ebuilds that >> installed stuff in /var/run with a one-liner like this at the end of >> src_install: > > It's a good idea to do so to avoid the check

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH eutils] Introduce run_in_build_dir() used in a few ebuilds.

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 06:02:26 PM Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 07:36:59 -0800 > Alec Warner wrote: > > local -i ret > > ? > > Looks good. I didn't even know bash has something like that. > Useless use of -i is usually unhelpful. In Bash (but not all shells), it's slower, becaus

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 14/01/2013 18:14, Zac Medico wrote: > It might be a lot simpler to just go and patch all the ebuilds that > installed stuff in /var/run with a one-liner like this at the end of > src_install: It's a good idea to do so to avoid the check coming from portage to happena nd waste time, but ... > O

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lifting the HOMEPAGE requirement for ebuilds

On 01/14/2013 11:06 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 13 January 2013 18:06, hasufell wrote: >> On 01/13/2013 07:03 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >>> On 01/13/2013 09:43 AM, hasufell wrote: On 01/13/2013 03:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > Right now an attempt to commit an ebuild with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 01/14/2013 09:00 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > At least then we can see if there really is a benefit to changing how > it is now. I can probably hack an install so that the /var/run > migration can be redone, for testing.. It might be a lot simpler to just go and patch all the ebuilds that ins

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-emulation/qemu-user mask

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: > В письме от 14 января 2013 00:38:06 пользователь Doug Goldstein написал: >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> > For cross-chroots its needed to have static qemu-$arch user translators. >> > May be you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 11:36 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/14/2013 08:26 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 14/01/13 10:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >>> On 01/14/2013 07:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote: On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > OK i'm a lit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 01/14/2013 08:26 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 14/01/13 10:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 01/14/2013 07:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >>> On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: OK i'm a little confused. Putting my earlier note aside, if the symlink will be auto-cleaned after no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 10:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/14/2013 07:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> OK i'm a little confused. Putting my earlier note aside, if >>> the symlink will be auto-cleaned after no pack

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 01/14/2013 07:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> OK i'm a little confused. Putting my earlier note aside, if the >> symlink will be auto-cleaned after no packages use it, what's the >> point/need for the original message from portage then?? Is it just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 14/01/13 09:57 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 01/14/2013 06:46 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> This particular symlink was put there by openrc though, wasn't >>> it? > >> Yeah, openrc uses the migrate_to_run function from >> /etc/init.d/bootmisc. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 09:57 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/14/2013 06:46 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> This particular symlink was put there by openrc though, wasn't >> it? > > Yeah, openrc uses the migrate_to_run function from > /etc/init.d/bootmisc. > >> S

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 01/14/2013 06:46 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > This particular symlink was put there by openrc though, wasn't it? Yeah, openrc uses the migrate_to_run function from /etc/init.d/bootmisc. > So > I'd expect that on the whole this should be left for openrc to deal > with or otherwise left to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 04:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/14/2013 01:33 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> I've seen this pop up a lot recently: >> >> * One or more symlinks to directories have been preserved in >> order to * ensure that files installed via these

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

Steven J. Long wrote: > What I'm not in favour of is making the simple cases more > difficult, to deal with the complex ones. It's completely > brain-dead thinking. This is exactly what some people think or say when they learn that I use Gentoo. I appreciate Gentoo because I am able and willing t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lifting the HOMEPAGE requirement for ebuilds

On 13 January 2013 18:06, hasufell wrote: > On 01/13/2013 07:03 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 01/13/2013 09:43 AM, hasufell wrote: >>> On 01/13/2013 03:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, >>> Right now an attempt to commit an ebuild with no HOMEPAGE results in: >>> HOMEPAGE.missing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

On 01/14/2013 01:33 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > I've seen this pop up a lot recently: > > * One or more symlinks to directories have been preserved in order to > * ensure that files installed via these symlinks remain accessible. This > * indicates that the mentioned symlink(s) may be obsolete

[gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

I've seen this pop up a lot recently: * One or more symlinks to directories have been preserved in order to * ensure that files installed via these symlinks remain accessible. This * indicates that the mentioned symlink(s) may be obsolete remnants of an * old install, and it may be appropriate

Re: [gentoo-dev] About using a CONFIGURATION (or SETUP) file under /usr/share/doc for configuration information

On 01/13/2013 04:59 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El dom, 13-01-2013 a las 04:54 -0800, Zac Medico escribió: >> On 01/13/2013 04:18 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> What about this approach? >> >> You should use ${SLOT%/*}, in order to exclude the sub-slot, because you >> don't care about the sub-slot and the