Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:22:43 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Before people start asking I should explain why I started this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458638 I think having such an eclass has several advantages over autootools-multilib.eclass (which depends on

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 24/02/2013 11:06, Michał Górny wrote: Then don't put 'autotools' in the name. +1 Yes, everyone sees 'a bit more' but nobody so far was able to point what it is exactly. Or people simply don't know what PMS does nowadays. I've been trying to get myself to use autotools-utils more often

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-util/ciabot-svn

2013-02-24 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (24 Feb 2013) # Not functional as cia.vc is gone # No maintainer, dead upstream, last bump in 2005 # See #445644. Removal in 30 days dev-util/ciabot-svn - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/24/2013 11:11 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 24/02/2013 11:06, Michał Górny wrote: Then don't put 'autotools' in the name. +1 That would be multilib-minimal.eclass then? I find that name silly, but I don't have a better idea. ABCD

[gentoo-dev] About adding systemd to profiles/default/linux/x86/13.0/use.stable.mask

2013-02-24 Thread Pacho Ramos
I would like to ask about adding systemd USE flag to use.stable.mask to let us stop needing to revbump packages with optional systemd support when stabilizing them. Are you ok with that? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, hasufell escribió: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/24/2013 11:11 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 24/02/2013 11:06, Michał Górny wrote: Then don't put 'autotools' in the name. +1 That would be multilib-minimal.eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding systemd to profiles/default/linux/x86/13.0/use.stable.mask

2013-02-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: I would like to ask about adding systemd USE flag to use.stable.mask to let us stop needing to revbump packages with optional systemd support when stabilizing them. Are you ok with that? Am I interpreting the impacts of

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding systemd to profiles/default/linux/x86/13.0/use.stable.mask

2013-02-24 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 09:35 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: I would like to ask about adding systemd USE flag to use.stable.mask to let us stop needing to revbump packages with optional systemd support when stabilizing

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:22:43 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Before people start asking I should explain why I started this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458638 I think having such an eclass has several advantages over autootools-multilib.eclass (which depends on

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding systemd to profiles/default/linux/x86/13.0/use.stable.mask

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:23:52 +0100 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: I would like to ask about adding systemd USE flag to use.stable.mask to let us stop needing to revbump packages with optional systemd support when stabilizing them. Are you ok with that? Ok, committed that myself ;).

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding systemd to profiles/default/linux/x86/13.0/use.stable.mask

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:35:27 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: I would like to ask about adding systemd USE flag to use.stable.mask to let us stop needing to revbump packages with optional systemd support when

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/24/2013 03:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:22:43 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Before people start asking I should explain why I started this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458638 I think having

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 15:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: [...] d) the previous point will also allow to convert go-mono.eclass packages without introducing yet another eclass for that So you're introducing a hacky eclass just because you're too lazy to convert go-mono packages properly

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding systemd to profiles/default/linux/x86/13.0/use.stable.mask

2013-02-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't there any way to unmask systemd USE flag on your local setup (running testing systemd)? Wasn't aware that could be done. That makes sense all-around - it even allows you to run the stable packages with the unstable

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:12:18 +0100 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 15:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: [...] d) the previous point will also allow to convert go-mono.eclass packages without introducing yet another eclass for that So you're introducing a

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 16:53 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:12:18 +0100 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 15:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: [...] d) the previous point will also allow to convert go-mono.eclass packages without

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:34:47 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Some people seem to feel uncomfortable with autotools-multilib, because it depends on autotools-utils. To be honest, I don't particularly like autotools-utils, I tend to consider it a useless bloat. However, Michal's work

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:53:02 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: - prune_libtool_files in src_install() which most people want to do anyway, so that doesn't hurt -- and the pkg-config dep is going to be removed, by the patch I sent already. A bit OT but that's one of the things I

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread hasufell
On 02/24/2013 05:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:34:47 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Some people seem to feel uncomfortable with autotools-multilib, because it depends on autotools-utils. To be honest, I don't particularly like autotools-utils, I tend to

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 24/02/13 17:53, Michał Górny wrote: I still try to use plain ebuilds without inheritting autotools-utils.eclass as I usually don't need it, probably others do the same and refuse to have to inherit it only for multilib support :/ How do you plan to solve this problem? You generally have two

[gentoo-dev] Re: New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Jonathan Callen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/24/2013 10:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I think that base.eclass is silently intended for removal at some point in the future. While we're here, we should probably mark it deprecated. The problem with deprecating base.eclass and telling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:05:51 -0500 Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/24/2013 10:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I think that base.eclass is silently intended for removal at some point

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:42:26 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] I have no idea if it makes sense for this package (since it also installs binaries), but as an example I have converted dev-libs/serd. yes, that's the kind of usage of your eclass I was thinking about :) (it might

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:58:08 +0200 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 24/02/13 17:53, Michał Górny wrote: I still try to use plain ebuilds without inheritting autotools-utils.eclass as I usually don't need it, probably others do the same and refuse to have to inherit it only

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/24/2013 07:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote: It's that Plus part that is my problem with autotools-multilib.eclass currently, it adds EXPORT_FUNCTIONS of src_prepare() from autotools-utils.eclass which is irrelevant to the autotools-multilib.eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Python eclasses -- a summary and reminder

2013-02-24 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Looks like great work so far. On 11.02.2013 01:20, Michał Górny wrote: Secondly, I'd like to make it clear that the old python.eclass is 'almost' deprecated. We're in process of converting the in-tree packages to use the new eclasses but that's a lot of work [3]. [..]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Python eclasses -- a summary and reminder

2013-02-24 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 20:52:45 +0100 Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: Looks like great work so far. On 11.02.2013 01:20, Michał Górny wrote: Secondly, I'd like to make it clear that the old python.eclass is 'almost' deprecated. We're in process of converting the in-tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

2013-02-24 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 24/02/13 02:34, hasufell wrote: Some people seem to feel uncomfortable with autotools-multilib, because it depends on autotools-utils. Instead of arguing whether it makes sense or not I'd propose a similar autotools related eclass. I also attach an example conversion of media-libs/libexif

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2013-02-24 23h59 UTC

2013-02-24 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2013-02-24 23h59 UTC. Removals: www-apache/mod_vhs 2013-02-20 23:31:04 pinkbyte dev-haskell/wash2013-02-22 09:27:03 moult dev-libs/libole2

[gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Michael Mol
(I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed here, so...) So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to enable kerberos system-wide on my server. No joy, as net-fs/nfs-utils has an

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed here, so...) So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Michael Mol
On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed here, so...) So I'm playing with

[gentoo-dev] Re: kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Duncan
Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted: I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions of the library to be installed in one ROOT? I would not advocate this approach. You

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Michael Mol
On 02/24/2013 10:40 PM, Duncan wrote: Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted: I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions of the library to be installed in one ROOT? I

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Michael Mol
On 02/24/2013 10:46 PM, Alec Warner wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right

[gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-24 Thread Ryan Hill
I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to take a look at them. https://bugs.gentoo.org/390247 -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgetslearn a language baby, it's that kind of

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-24 Thread Alex Alexander
On 25 Feb 2013 06:53, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to take a look at them. https://bugs.gentoo.org/390247 Can't you just smell all

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Matthew Thode
On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed here, so...) So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to enable kerberos system-wide on my

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-24 Thread Matthew Thode
On 02/24/13 23:45, Alex Alexander wrote: On 25 Feb 2013 06:53, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to take a look at them.

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Eray Aslan
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 09:25:37PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: 2) Is it possible to slot mit-krb5 and heimdal instead of pulling them through a virtual? My suspicion is no, but I don't know enough about kerberos to say whether or not it would work, even as a hack. You can't eselect the kerberos

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Matthew Thode prometheanf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed here, so...) So I'm playing with

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

2013-02-24 Thread Matthew Thode
On 02/25/13 01:43, Alec Warner wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Matthew Thode prometheanf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed