21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between
could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and
less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on
sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch
the leaf and less important
Now that Gentoo is much better in handling multilib libraries, but
Gentoo is source-based, there's the question of which header files are
used between different ABI builds.
As I understand it, only the headers from the default ABI are installed.
That means that building for abi_x86_32 on a
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 10:56:10
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com napisał(a):
Now that Gentoo is much better in handling multilib libraries, but
Gentoo is source-based, there's the question of which header files are
used between different ABI builds.
As I understand it, only the
On 22/08/13 11:16, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 10:56:10
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com napisał(a):
Now that Gentoo is much better in handling multilib libraries, but
Gentoo is source-based, there's the question of which header files are
used between different ABI builds.
Dnia 2013-08-21, o godz. 12:33:14
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
Proposed implementation follows:
einstalldocs() {
if ! declare -p DOCS /dev/null ; then
local d
for d in README* ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS TODO
Dnia 2013-08-21, o godz. 14:49:45
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 14:35 +0200, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Could appending to DOCS be allowed? I have seen a lot of time of me
needing to install all docs manually
Second version:
einstalldocs() {
if ! declare -p DOCS /dev/null ; then
local d
for d in README* ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS TODO CHANGES \
THANKS BUGS FAQ CREDITS CHANGELOG ; do
[[ -s ${d} ]] dodoc ${d}
done
elif [[ $(declare -p DOCS) ==
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
Second version:
Looks good to me.
One minor non-technical point: Could you use double quotes instead of
single quotes around declare -a, for better readability? Last time
we had single quotes they ended up as backquotes in the devmanual and
from there
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
exp. I can't
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Is there an
On 22 August 2013 18:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Is there an
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
might still keep
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
would get dropped on
On 08/22/2013 01:28 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think the result of a policy like this would
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
granularity moot.
It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
or
22.08.2013 16:26, Markos Chandras пишет:
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
granularity moot.
It's like nailing them to debian
22.08.2013 06:05, Albert Hopkins пишет:
This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
Try Prefix[1], it works very well in some cases ;-)
[1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/
On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
granularity moot.
It's like nailing them to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/08/13 06:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system
provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start
pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable
Dnia 2013-08-21, o godz. 22:05:21
Albert Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org napisał(a):
This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
I doubt it. Especially that those features actually require root
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:47:18 +0200
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not
encourage this. Users are free to do whatever they want.
Actually every other post is about keywording special
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
running ~arch on most
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-misc/gnote/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.34
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -r1.34 -r1.35
--- ChangeLog 22 Aug 2013 16:14:52 - 1.34
+++ ChangeLog 22 Aug 2013 16:36:24 - 1.35
@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
# ChangeLog for app-misc/gnote
#
Am Donnerstag, 22. August 2013, 13:28:24 schrieb Markos Chandras:
Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
running ~arch on most libs.
Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:03:35AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
between could be done:
Hi,
It seems to be a pattern now to mask the language target USE flags
for unstable versions, such as python_targets_python3_3 and
php_targets_php5-5.
This is very handy since e.g I do not need two revisions of
dev-php/xdebug:
- one that can be stabilised, supporting stable php5.3 and php5.4and
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 19:13:25
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-misc/gnote/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.34
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -r1.34 -r1.35
--- ChangeLog 22 Aug 2013 16:14:52 - 1.34
+++ ChangeLog
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 21:08:52
Ole Markus With olemar...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
working great except that I cannot remove php_targets_php5-5 from
use.stable.mask until all arches have stabilised php. For those arches
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ole Markus With olemar...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
working great except that I cannot remove php_targets_php5-5 from
use.stable.mask until all arches have stabilised php.
You could have separate
On 22/08/13 21:27, Zac Medico wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ole Markus With olemar...@gentoo.org
wrote:
However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
working great except that I cannot remove php_targets_php5-5 from
use.stable.mask until all arches have
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Ole Markus With
olemar...@olemarkus.org wrote:
On 22/08/13 21:27, Zac Medico wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ole Markus With olemar...@gentoo.org
wrote:
However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
working great except that
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
33 matches
Mail list logo
