Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:07:21 +0100 Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Why can't we use "ALLARCHES" stabilization for that? Because that experiment basically failed. Bugs with that flag, basically were treated (repeatedly) like that flag wasn't there. And that approach still has the weakness of it

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:54:42 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see > how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. > > Thanks, I'm just gonna say I disagree with this proposal as stated. Stability and arch support,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
Hi, please don't introduce another keyword. Why can't we use "ALLARCHES" stabilization for that? However, this will getting more complicated than it will help. Any Python package which compiles something can fail. During my x86 work I have seen a lot of problems when it comes to anything math

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 + James Le Cuirot wrote: > Not quite. Tools like repoman will need to be updated to understand > that an ebuild with KEYWORDS="amd64" can depend on another ebuild with > only KEYWORDS="noarch". I do think the idea has merit though. But the inverse is _not_ true,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:59:25 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > Sure, but if you run into something like that you just don't use the > noarch keyword for those packages. But as soon as this happens, all dependent packages that are noarch will need to also transition to not using no-arch. So it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] profiles: Enable USE=user-session on systemd profiles

2020-03-18 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > -# Copyright 1999-2014 Gentoo Foundation > > +# Copyright 1999-2020 Gentoo Foundation > > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 > > > > -USE="systemd udev" > > +USE="systemd udev

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] profiles: Enable USE=user-session on systemd profiles

2020-03-18 Thread Mart Raudsepp
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > -# Copyright 1999-2014 Gentoo Foundation > +# Copyright 1999-2020 Gentoo Foundation > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 > > -USE="systemd udev" > +USE="systemd udev user-session" > > BOOTSTRAP_USE="${BOOTSTRAP_USE} systemd udev" Seems

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] profiles: Enable USE=user-session on systemd profiles

2020-03-18 Thread Matt Turner
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner --- .../linux/amd64/17.0/desktop/plasma/systemd/package.use| 7 --- .../linux/amd64/17.1/desktop/plasma/systemd/package.use| 7 --- .../linux/arm/17.0/desktop/plasma/systemd/package.use | 7 ---

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see > how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. I'm pretty sure we already discussed this in very much detail in the past at least once, and came to the conclusion that there are problems with that approach.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2020, 19:40:57 CET schrieb William Hubbs: > There would be no need to cc all arches on the bug, just make noarch@g.o > an alias that emails to all arch teams. We might as well just make an allarches@... alias. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-backup/buttersink

2020-03-18 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2020-03-18) # Unmaintained. Version bump pending. No Python 3 support upstream. # Removal in 30 days. Bug #708268. app-backup/buttersink -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 07:12:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:47 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > this came up again on the recent thread

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:52:25PM +, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:47:53 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > this came up again on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:47 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > > support for python packages, and I

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread James Le Cuirot
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:47:53 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > > support for python packages, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own > > thread. > > > > How

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own > thread. > > How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like > perl,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:11:17PM +0100, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > Am 2020-03-18 15:54, schrieb William Hubbs: > > All, > > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own > > thread. > > > > How

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Rolf Eike Beer
Am 2020-03-18 16:10, schrieb Jaco Kroon: Hi, I'd be in support.  Especially for "data only" kind of packages, like: net-misc/asterisk-moh-opsound net-misc/asterisk-extra-sounds net-misc/asterisk-core-sounds My immediate target was aspell dictionaries and fonts.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Rolf Eike Beer
Am 2020-03-18 15:54, schrieb William Hubbs: All, this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own thread. How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like perl, python etc? From

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Jaco Kroon
Hi, I'd be in support.  Especially for "data only" kind of packages, like: net-misc/asterisk-moh-opsound net-misc/asterisk-extra-sounds net-misc/asterisk-core-sounds For all three these I've already dropped the DEPEND on net-misc/asterisk anyway, and upgraded the PDEPEND on net-misc/asterisk

[gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
All, this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own thread. How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like perl, python etc? From what I've seen they are pretty rare. Not to