Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] sys-apps/portage: add native-extensions USE flag (bug 571444)

On 02/01/2017 04:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> SLOT="0" >> -IUSE="build doc epydoc +ipc linguas_ru selinux xattr" >> +IUSE="build doc epydoc +ipc linguas_ru native-extensions selinux >> xattr" > > Wouldn't it be better to enable it by default? > Please don't enshrine personal preferences into

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 12:25:37PM -0500, james wrote: > On 02/01/2017 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > >>> As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] sys-apps/portage: add native-extensions USE flag (bug 571444)

On 02/01/2017 01:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu 01.02.2017, śro o godzinie 09∶06 -0800, użytkownik Zac Medico > napisał: >> The native-extensions USE flag will enable building of the >> libc bindings. This is not enabled by default because it does >> not support cross compilation. >> >>

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] sys-apps/portage: add native-extensions USE flag (bug 571444)

W dniu 01.02.2017, śro o godzinie 09∶06 -0800, użytkownik Zac Medico napisał: > The native-extensions USE flag will enable building of the > libc bindings. This is not enabled by default because it does > not support cross compilation. > > X-Gentoo-bug: 571444 > X-Gentoo-bug-url:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] sys-apps/portage: add native-extensions USE flag (bug 571444)

On 02/01/2017 09:57 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:06:37 -0800 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> The native-extensions USE flag will enable building of the >> libc bindings. This is not enabled by default because it does >> not support cross compilation. >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:03:49AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:54:41AM +0100, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, William Hubbs wrote: > > > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I > > > see. > > > > > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 01/02/17 10:39 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've > been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start > generating manual release tarballs again because I would need to put the > autotools generated cruft in them.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 02/01/2017 10:39 AM, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as build time dependencies, but I think the upside

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 02/01/2017 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as build time dependencies, but I think the upside

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:08:42PM -0600, Dustin C. Hatch wrote: > On 2017-01-30 14:04, William Hubbs wrote: > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > > meson build system [3]. > > > > … > > > > What do folks think here? > > > > I looked at Meson a bit, and I

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:46:12 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:55:17PM +, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:39:34 -0600 > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:55:17PM +, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:39:34 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've > > been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:39:34 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've > been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start > generating manual release tarballs again because I would need to put > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as > > build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where > > we don't have

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:54:41AM +0100, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, William Hubbs wrote: > > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I > > see. > > > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > > meson

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 01/02/17 09:43 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:18:42PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >> W dniu 30.01.2017, pon o godzinie 14∶04 -0600, użytkownik William Hubbs >> napisał: >>> All, >>> >>> I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like >>> what I >>> see.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:18:42PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu 30.01.2017, pon o godzinie 14∶04 -0600, użytkownik William Hubbs > napisał: > > All, > > > > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like > > what I > > see. > > > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Profile cleanup, pt. 2: multilib mess

W dniu 21.01.2017, sob o godzinie 23∶59 +0100, użytkownik Michał Górny napisał: > The main goal was to reduce the role of features/* subtree that > served > as some kind of weird all-in-one middleware for multiple profiles. > These > patches: > > a. kill features/*bit-* completely -- all stuff is

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

W dniu 30.01.2017, pon o godzinie 14∶04 -0600, użytkownik William Hubbs napisał: > All, > > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like > what I > see. > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > meson build system [3]. > > As I said on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

Hi! On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, William Hubbs wrote: > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I > see. > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > meson build system [3]. > > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > And we should be keeping the @system essentials set required for new > installations > to be as minimal as possible without losing functionality. > Keep in mind that it is pretty safe to put openrc in package.provided,