Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote: > > On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > >> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 > >> Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > >>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. > >> > >> It indeed is, this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Ben de Groot
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 >> Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. >> >> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, >> some of which can be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Markos Chandras
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. > > It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, > some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). > The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to coop

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:10:50 +0100 Markos Chandras wrote: > On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 > > Markos Chandras wrote: > > > >> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig > >> files instead of communicating that to upstrea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 > Markos Chandras wrote: > >> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig >> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that >> properly? > > Yes, when your "instead of .

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Markos Chandras
On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 > Markos Chandras wrote: > >> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig >> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that >> properly? > > Yes, when your "instead of ..." is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 Markos Chandras wrote: > I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig > files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that > properly? Yes, when your "instead of ..." is not an option. > What other distributions do? Or are we

[gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-09 Thread Markos Chandras
Hi, (please avoid cross-list e-mails in the future if possible. Makes threading horrible) On 05/09/2014 07:21 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: > On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote: >> I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would >> be added or renamed downstream (at least this will

[gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files (was: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014)

2014-05-09 Thread Matti Bickel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote: > I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would > be added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new > violations). I want to repeat my stance from the linked bug that making thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH cmake-multilib] Use multilib-minimal phase functions.

2014-05-09 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-04-30, o godz. 20:14:35 Michał Górny napisał(a): > The goal is to make overriding parts of build process easy. Before, > the eclass called cmake-utils directly via multilib_foreach_abi, > therefore user overriding a phase function needed to call > multilib_foreach_abi himself, and likel