Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 27/02/13 01:39, Pavlos Ratis wrote: I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday event. I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to express my support. I'm told that it is useful to be supportive of people and that they like

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/busybox: busybox-1.21.0.ebuild busybox-9999.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Markos Chandras
On 27 February 2013 05:44, Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org wrote: vapier 13/02/27 05:44:01 # patches go here! epatch ${FILESDIR}/${PN}-1.19.0-bb.patch - epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-*.patch + #epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-*.patch cp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Theo Chatzimichos
On Tuesday 26 of February 2013 22:28:13 Alec Warner wrote: On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: On 27/02/2013 11:39, Pavlos Ratis wrote: Hello everyone, I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday event. As most of the open

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

2013-02-27 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 24/02/13 16:17, hasufell wrote: -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? Sounds good to me. ABCD

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Peter Stuge
Alexander Berntsen wrote: I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday event. I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to express my support. Yeah! Me too! :) //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo GPG key policies

2013-02-27 Thread Luis Ressel
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:10:56 +0700 (NOVT) gro...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello *, I am stuck and have many questions. [In the process of becoming a dev, I've generated a gpg key, of course. It vwas on an old notebook. When I switched to a newer notebook, I forgot to copy it, because I don't use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Evaluating a new malloc()

2013-02-27 Thread Peter Stuge
Ryan Hill wrote: I think I see a lot of our upstream bug reports being closed as invalid/unsupported. I think that if upstreams wanted to use jemalloc they would just do so. If they don't then obviously what they have is working fine for them. It can make sense to try further discussion,

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread hasufell
I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and fixing on your fellow devs b) just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread hasufell
On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what I actually think makes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 27/02/2013 18:10, hasufell wrote: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and fixing on your fellow devs I'd say the only real mistake has been not keeping it masked to begin with. Just so we're clear with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that conflict is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Pavlos Ratis
Unfortunately I didn't have much time to 'refresh' the website. As Theo said, he gave me the code of the site but I think it would be great to have something new. If anyone wants to join, ping me on irc. We could create a new repo at our Github and start developing. Also if you want to add new

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Peter Stuge
Pavlos Ratis wrote: Unfortunately I didn't have much time to 'refresh' the website. As Theo said, he gave me the code of the site but I think it would be great to have something new. If anyone wants to join, ping me on irc. We could create a new repo at our Github and start developing. Don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo GPG key policies

2013-02-27 Thread Robin H. Johnson
Thanks for the partial response Luis. On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 04:12:14PM +0100, Luis Ressel wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:10:56 +0700 (NOVT) gro...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello *, I am stuck and have many questions. New addition to the instructions: 0. Copy /usr/share/gnupg/gpg-conf.skel to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread hasufell
On 02/27/2013 07:27 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2013.02.27 00:39, Pavlos Ratis wrote: Hello everyone, I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday event. As most of the open source projects have their own bugday, I thought it would be great to have this event back. For those who don't know, its a monthly 24h event

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:58 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Afaiu this seems to be mainly a PMS thing. And changing PMS is slow and painful, so no wonder people rather want to go for eclass based solutions. Eh, the only reason it's slow and painful for multilib is that no-one seems

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:00:44 +0100 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Pavlos Ratis wrote: Unfortunately I didn't have much time to 'refresh' the website. As Theo said, he gave me the code of the site but I think it would be great to have something new. If anyone wants to join, ping me on

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

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:01:51 +0200 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 24/02/13 16:17, hasufell wrote: -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

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

2013-02-27 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 15:01 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió: On 24/02/13 16:17, hasufell wrote: -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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:10 +0100, hasufell escribió: I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for the consumers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: [...] The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear. What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :) I also read that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Evaluating a new malloc()

2013-02-27 Thread Sergei Trofimovich
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:33:44 -0500 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies between what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc allocated: http://www.sintel.org/development/memory-jemalloc/ Results such as these led

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:20:46 +0100 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: About PM-solution... I can't remember how many years we are waiting it for being approved, and neither remember what was blocking it for inclusion in eapi5 (as that threads usually end up being fairly long and ending with

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo GPG key policies

2013-02-27 Thread Alec Warner
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: Thanks for the partial response Luis. On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 04:12:14PM +0100, Luis Ressel wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:10:56 +0700 (NOVT) gro...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello *, I am stuck and have many questions.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Thomas Sachau
Alexis Ballier schrieb: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that conflict is solved, even if it means a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Thomas Sachau
Pacho Ramos schrieb: El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: [...] The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear. What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:08:45 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Alexis Ballier schrieb: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Peter Stuge
Tom Wijsman wrote: We could create a new repo at our Github and start developing. Don't start developing, plz work on bugs instead. Then who will develop useful tools to handle bugs more efficiently? Don't get me wrong: I am not hating on useful tools! I am saying that working on

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] multibuild.eclass -- a generic pluggable framework to handle multi-variant builds

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
Hello, Recently python-r1 and multilib-build started to share a few bits of code related to running the build process for multiple 'variants' of the same package. Over time, the code extended and it is a bit cumbersome to maintain the two copies and keep them in sync. Therefore, I'd like to

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/8] Initial version of multibuild eclass.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
Based on the code from python-r1. --- gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass | 172 ++ 1 file changed, 172 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass b/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass new file mode

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/8] Avoid writing outside WORKDIR if S=${WORKDIR}.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
--- gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass b/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass index d42b8a7..a4d5d11 100644 --- a/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass +++ b/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass @@ -99,6 +99,10 @@ multibuild_foreach() {

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 4/8] Convert multilib-build to use multibuild.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
--- gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass | 45 ++- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass b/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass index b1afd85..4321e45 100644 --- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/8] Use bash redirection to run 'tee' rather than simple pipes.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
This allows us to spawn 'tee' as separate process while keeping the function code executed in the main shell. --- gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass | 19 ++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass b/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 5/8] python-r1: calculate final list of enabled impls for foreach.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
--- gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 61 +++- 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass index 310859e..a1d9228 100644 --- a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 6/8] Convert python-r1 to use multibuild.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
--- gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 74 +--- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass index a1d9228..fb9032e 100644 --- a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 7/8] Move run_in_build_dir() to multibuild.eclass.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
--- gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass | 19 +++ gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 19 --- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass b/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass index a4d5d11..e15b74e 100644 ---

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 8/8] fftw: example use of multibuild in ebuild.

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
Just a quick, dirty example. Not even tested thoroughly ;). --- gx86/sci-libs/fftw/fftw-3.3.3-r1.ebuild | 38 + 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/gx86/sci-libs/fftw/fftw-3.3.3-r1.ebuild b/gx86/sci-libs/fftw/fftw-3.3.3-r1.ebuild index

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:30:38 +0100 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Tom Wijsman wrote: We could create a new repo at our Github and start developing. Don't start developing, plz work on bugs instead. Then who will develop useful tools to handle bugs more efficiently? Don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Peter Stuge
Tom Wijsman wrote: I am saying that working on tools that help you work on open bugs is not orthogonal to fixing open bugs, it helps you fix them efficiently. Sure, but on the bugday itself it sounds on the name like the idea is to work on bugs with currently available tools, rather than work

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

2013-02-27 Thread hasufell
On 02/24/2013 11:39 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:20:01 +0100 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Sure, but on the bugday itself it sounds on the name like the idea is to work on bugs with currently available tools, rather than work on tools to work on bugs .. some other time. Neither of us did suggest such thing.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Bugday

2013-02-27 Thread Pavlos Ratis
@neddyseagoon: Yeah it would be great to have it back, I think the day should remain as is. Every first Saturday of every month. Thanks. @TomWij and Peter: Well guys, I think you should not expand the topic so much, lets stay to the bugday. As I said in my first post, bugday's goal is to close as