Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/4] distutils-r1.eclass: Add distutils_enable_tests to ease testing

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia November 5, 2019 5:35:48 AM UTC, Joonas Niilola napisał(a): > >Beautiful work, but is there a way to integrate "esetup.py test" into >this as well?. Not sure, would use some research for that. The main question is what test runners (deps) are commonly used. I'd like to avoid people

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/4] distutils-r1.eclass: Add distutils_enable_tests to ease testing

2019-11-04 Thread Joonas Niilola
Beautiful work, but is there a way to integrate "esetup.py test" into this as well? -- juippis On 11/4/19 11:00 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Add a helpful function to handle adding common stuff for the most common > test runners. > > Signed-off-by: Michał Górny > --- >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> > TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time, > > does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage > > team? > To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, [snip since offtopic] > In this case, whether or not this is "policy" is beside

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
2. Those other files don't get installed to the root filesystem on the systems that we're talking about. I do not understand what you think I'm referring to and which files you are talking about. The way I'm thinking of a root fs is, /bin, maybe /boot, /etc, /lib* and /sbin. Most junk

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 06:17:55PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/4/19 2:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > This is a whole other thread I've been talking about for years, but if > > we want to be concerned about dumping "garbage" on people's limited root > > file systems, there are

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] kde5-functions.eclass: Drop functions/vars moved to ecm-utils

2019-11-04 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
Functions moved to ecm-utils: - _check_gcc_version - punt_bogus_dep Variable moved to ecm-utils: - KDE_GCC_MINIMAL Deprecated: - _add_category_dep() - add_frameworks_dep() - add_plasma_dep() - add_kdeapps_dep() - add_qt_dep() --- a/eclass/kde5-functions.eclass +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] kde5.eclass: Inherit ecm-utils.eclass and drop moved functions/vars

2019-11-04 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
Functions moved to ecm-utils: - All phase functions so far exported by kde5 Variables moved to ecm-utils: - ECM_KDEINSTALLDIRS - KDE_DEBUG (-> ECM_DEBUG) - KDE_DESIGNERPLUGIN (-> split into ECM_DESIGNERPLUGIN, KDE_DESIGNERPLUGIN) - KDE_EXAMPLES (-> ECM_EXAMPLES) - KDE_HANDBOOK (-> ECM_HANDBOOK) -

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] ecm-utils.eclass: New eclass

2019-11-04 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
Support eclass for packages that use KDE extra-cmake-modules. This eclass is intended to streamline the creation of ebuilds for packages that follow KDE upstream packaging conventions. It's primarily intended for the three upstream release groups (Frameworks, Plasma, Applications) but is also for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michael 'veremitz' Everitt
On 04/11/19 23:17, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/4/19 2:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> This is a whole other thread I've been talking about for years, but if >> we want to be concerned about dumping "garbage" on people's limited root >> file systems, there are other things we need to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/4/19 2:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote: This is a whole other thread I've been talking about for years, but if we want to be concerned about dumping "garbage" on people's limited root file systems, there are other things we need to re-consider, like our notion that we have to install small

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread William Hubbs
Hi Kent, On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:50:09AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the > > time it would take to vote on each of these policies formally, document > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 02:05:19PM -0600, Michael Jones wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > That way is not building static libraries at all. If we go that way as > > a distro the support for forcing static libraries into /usr/lib* is not > > needed because we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Kent Fredric
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the > time it would take to vote on each of these policies formally, document > them on the wiki, and then move the related checks to ::gentoo/metadata > where other

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/4] dev-python/pyee: Example use of distutils_enable_tests

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- dev-python/pyee/pyee-1.0.2.ebuild | 9 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/dev-python/pyee/pyee-1.0.2.ebuild b/dev-python/pyee/pyee-1.0.2.ebuild index f25af4da8a1d..dd6ccee38a9d 100644 --- a/dev-python/pyee/pyee-1.0.2.ebuild +++

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 4/4] dev-python/trustme: Example use of distutils_enable_tests

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- dev-python/trustme/trustme-0.5.2.ebuild | 9 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/dev-python/trustme/trustme-0.5.2.ebuild b/dev-python/trustme/trustme-0.5.2.ebuild index ee3f8b306297..eb4e41b0cf42 100644 ---

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/4] dev-python/cssselect: Example use of distutils_enable_tests

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- dev-python/cssselect/cssselect-1.0.3.ebuild | 6 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/dev-python/cssselect/cssselect-1.0.3.ebuild b/dev-python/cssselect/cssselect-1.0.3.ebuild index 2d91e85a4ac2..d4216abcd6e7 100644 ---

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/4] distutils-r1.eclass: Add distutils_enable_tests to ease testing

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
Add a helpful function to handle adding common stuff for the most common test runners. Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- eclass/distutils-r1.eclass | 60 ++ 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+) Example ebuild use sent in replies. diff --git

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] Fix tc-cpp-is-true to work with clang

2019-11-04 Thread Sergei Trofimovich
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:11:20 + Mattias Nissler wrote: > Clang's preprocessor likes to output a leading newline, which makes > the comparison always fail. GCC generates additional output with certain > flags (e.g. -ggdb3) as well. Hence, switch the test to trigger a > preprocessor error when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michael Jones
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs wrote: > That way is not building static libraries at all. If we go that way as > a distro the support for forcing static libraries into /usr/lib* is not > needed because we would just not allow static libraries. > As an end user, I would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread William Hubbs
Hi Michael, On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:53:44AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/4/19 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time, > > does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage > > team?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:07:43AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/4/19 11:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > I did request a QA vote to confirm it. William demands that I close it > > Take a page out of the WilliamH playbook and completely ignore him. As I said on the other list, the

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portageq not reading profile.bashrc

2019-11-04 Thread Zac Medico
On 11/4/19 10:50 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 18:35 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> >> I have a profile.bashrc in my profile where I try to set INSTALL_MASK: >> >> cat profile.bashrc >> INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} $(. $(dirname "$*")/etc_file_list)" >> export

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portageq not reading profile.bashrc

2019-11-04 Thread Zac Medico
On 11/4/19 10:35 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > I have a profile.bashrc in my profile where I try to set INSTALL_MASK: > > cat profile.bashrc > INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} $(. $(dirname "$*")/etc_file_list)" > export INSTALL_MASK > echo "profile INSTALL_MASK: ${INSTALL_MASK}" > >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portageq not reading profile.bashrc

2019-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 18:35 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > I have a profile.bashrc in my profile where I try to set INSTALL_MASK: > > cat profile.bashrc > INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} $(. $(dirname "$*")/etc_file_list)" > export INSTALL_MASK > echo "profile INSTALL_MASK: ${INSTALL_MASK}" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deja vu

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
I had a dejà vu yesterday, while bisecting mpv. I just knew upstream would close my bug report immediately. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deja vu

2019-11-04 Thread Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
В письме от вторник, 5 ноября 2019 г. 00:14:34 +07 пользователь Michael Orlitzky написал: > * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be > * installed at the same time on the same system. Check the ebuild version stored in /var/db/pkg :D

[gentoo-portage-dev] portageq not reading profile.bashrc

2019-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
I have a profile.bashrc in my profile where I try to set INSTALL_MASK: cat profile.bashrc INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} $(. $(dirname "$*")/etc_file_list)" export INSTALL_MASK echo "profile INSTALL_MASK: ${INSTALL_MASK}" PKG_INSTALL_MASK="${PKG_INSTALL_MASK} ${INSTALL_MASK}" export

[gentoo-dev] Deja vu

2019-11-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
* Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be * installed at the same time on the same system. (dev-tex/xcolor-2.12-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by >=dev-tex/xcolor-2.11 required by (app-text/texlive-2019:0/0::gentoo, installed) commit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/4/19 11:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I did request a QA vote to confirm it. William demands that I close it Take a page out of the WilliamH playbook and completely ignore him.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 10:53 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > In this case, whether or not this is "policy" is beside the point. No > one else wants to remove this check because it's useful and prevents > developers from accidentally dumping garbage onto users' (often limited) > root

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/4/19 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: Hi, TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time, does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage team? To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the time it would take to

[gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
Hi, TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time, does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage team? William Hubbs has recently attempted to remove one of Portage's QA checks [1]. Not only we disagree on the change in question, we also

Re: [gentoo-dev] acct-{group,user}/minetest request for ID 481

2019-11-04 Thread Joonas Niilola
On 11/4/19 4:20 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > Thanks, this document is pretty convenient. It looks like 480 is free; > would that work for Minetest? > > William Breathitt Gray > Sure, why not. Always try to check if Fedora & Arch Linux have UID/GID assigned for your user + group, and/or

Re: [gentoo-dev] acct-{group,user}/minetest request for ID 481

2019-11-04 Thread William Breathitt Gray
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:04:48PM +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 11/4/19 12:55 PM, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: > > You can also look up what's currently in use at > > https://api.gentoo.org/uid-gid.txt FYI :] > > > (481 was updated there after the initial mail was sent) other than

Re: [gentoo-dev] acct-{group,user}/minetest request for ID 481

2019-11-04 Thread Joonas Niilola
On 11/4/19 12:55 PM, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: > You can also look up what's currently in use at > https://api.gentoo.org/uid-gid.txt FYI :] (481 was updated there after the initial mail was sent) other than that, its a great resource. -- juippis signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] acct-{group,user}/minetest request for ID 481

2019-11-04 Thread Michael 'veremitz' Everitt
On 04/11/19 07:57, Tomas Mozes wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:50 AM Joonas Niilola > wrote: > > > On 11/4/19 1:37 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > Hello, > > > > `games-action/minetest` creates a "minetest" user and group with random > >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

2019-11-04 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 04:15 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > I also don't like your tone in your response to Zac merging the patch. > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/1abfd0499e514b7d6b70b709e9e3ae18 > > If I say out here that since I'm a council member I'm above you and zac

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

2019-11-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:37:29PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > That is a really poor argument. Something that's respected for 10+ > years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm > concerned. Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy > (at least as far as

Re: [gentoo-dev] acct-{group,user}/minetest request for ID 481

2019-11-04 Thread James Le Cuirot
On 4 November 2019 07:57:58 GMT, Tomas Mozes wrote: >On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:50 AM Joonas Niilola >wrote: > >> >> On 11/4/19 1:37 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > `games-action/minetest` creates a "minetest" user and group with >random >> > respective IDs, used for