Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 03:22:37 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 10/19/15 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > >>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:34 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > >> So the question is if we should add a sentence like the following > >> to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:04:22 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:34 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/19/15 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: So the question is if we should add a sentence like the

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI Cheat Sheet for review

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 17/10/2015 21:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > In addition to the EAPI 6 specification, a draft of the "EAPI > Cheat Sheet" is ready. > Great idea, I love it! Thanks for your time on this >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 > > > Ulrich Mueller

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/19/15 3:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 Ulrich Mueller

[gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

I'd like to discuss whether we should allow/encourage stabilization commits to be less atomic. They often bloat the history, make it hard to skim through the summaries list and people who are looking for stabilization probably do 'git log -- ' anyway, no? In addition, I'm not sure the bug

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-java/commons-attributes and dev-java/xjavadoc

# James Le Cuirot (19 Oct 2015) # Dead projects with no revdeps. Removal in 30 days. dev-java/commons-attributes dev-java/xjavadoc -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell wrote: >> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: >> """ >> amd64 stabilizations >> >> >> """ >> possibly pre-pending the rough domain like

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell wrote: > I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: > """ > amd64 stabilizations > > > """ > possibly pre-pending the rough domain like "kde", if any. I think kde > herd already does that, no? Sounds sane to me. Cheers,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > But there is something important we've overlooked: should eclasses that > export src_prepare call eapply_user ? I think yes, otherwise they'd > make packages inheriting them violate the 'at least once rule'. This sort

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI Cheat Sheet for review

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 09:52:25 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > In addition to the EAPI 6 specification, a draft of the "EAPI Cheat > Sheet" is ready. Awesome! Thank you. > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/6-draft/eapi-cheatsheet.pdf >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Anthony G Basile wrote: > Why can't you just do something like this in the implementation of > eapply_user()? I must be missing some subtle point. > foo() { > if [[ -z $DONE ]]; then > DONE="all done" > echo "in foo" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:09:41 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:04:22 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:34 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200 > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:25:29 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Anthony G Basile wrote: > > > Why can't you just do something like this in the implementation of > > eapply_user()? I must be missing some subtle point. > > > foo() { > > if [[

[gentoo-dev] Re: Github PR commenting policy

On 21.09.15 02:53, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > On Monday, September 21, 2015 12:00:28 AM James Le Cuirot wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:54:24 -0400 >> Fernando Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, September 20, 2015 11:33:34 PM James Le Cuirot wrote: On Sun,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:38:49 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > But there is something important we've overlooked: should eclasses > > that export src_prepare call eapply_user ? I think yes, otherwise >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

(To avoid repeating the same exception over and over, please understand that nothing said below is intended to apply to the do-everything eclasses used by KDE/etc, where the eclass and ebuilds are carefully maintained in conjunction with each other.) On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Alexis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:20 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: [...] > > > >> I'd say the best approach for compatibility if you have an existing > >> eclass and it already exports src_prepare is to not call > >> eapply_user unless it firmly falls into the #2 category above. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 10:04 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> >> >> It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and >> hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits less >> atomic" conversely. >> >> Just so i make sure i'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > > It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and > hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits less > atomic" conversely. > > Just so i make sure i'm understanding this right, hasufell's > suggestion is to,

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 19/10/15 11:04 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> >> >> It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and >> hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits >> less atomic"

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 19/10/15 08:21 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell >> wrote: >>> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:13 PM, hasufell wrote: > > We already know that. But if e.g. ago runs his scripts at 00:00 with > ~300 packages stabilized, the history (without git command line) on > github/gitweb will be fun to read (and people DO that). > It doesn't seem like it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:17:13 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:20 -0400 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > [...] > >> > > >> >> I'd say the best approach for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:20 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > [...] >> > >> >> I'd say the best approach for compatibility if you have an existing >> >> eclass and it already exports src_prepare is to

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. > The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really > diminish the impact of each one. Any of them could break a system or > need to be reverted. > Since when do

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. >> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really >> diminish the impact of each one.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > However, as you say, putting it in cmake-utils needs to be properly > thought so that it doesn't conflict with other eclasses: Hence the need > to properly define what eclasses should call eapply_user and apply >

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. >>> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote: >>> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: However, stabilizing a single package really is

[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.22 now in ~arch

the masked testing has been pretty stable, so i've bumped 2.22-r1 into ~arch -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

Am Montag, 19. Oktober 2015, 09:58:34 schrieb Michał Górny: > > Why do you assume I overlooked something? I thought exactly of this > case, and decide that will force developers to finally write sane > eclasses. > Can we adapt the gravitational constant of the universe for this special case

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple > unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so > comfortable with that idea.. Nor am I. A commit should be a set of related changes.

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple >> unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so >> comfortable with that idea.. > > Nor