On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 8:07 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 16:31 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID
> > setting
> > for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
> >
> > Here are my
> On 29 Nov 2021, at 00:06, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 23:39 +, Sam James wrote:
>>
>> Whissi and others raised some points that I think you may have some views on
>> (and I'm interested in hearing them).
>>
>
> I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think
> On 28 Nov 2021, at 19:23, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
> How about if we also add a GO_DEPEND variable, so that eclasshi consumers can
> do something like BDEPEND="go? ( ${GO_DEPEND} )" ?
> --
My preference is to go with what we've been doing more recently (do _OPTIONAL)
so that
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:52 AM William Hubbs wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:23:16AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 11/21/21 02:57, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > Following the pattern found in other eclasses, add GO_OPTIONAL to the
> > > go-module eclass. This allows to inherit the eclass
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 16:31 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting
> for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
>
> Here are my thoughts about it.
>
> - As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to
> On 29 Nov 2021, at 01:45, 2b57 <2...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry all, it seems that I've confused the lists. I'll forward this to user
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, November 29th, 2021 at 2:42 AM, 2b57 <2...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm in the
Default emerge --ignore-soname-deps=n, in order to enable
soname dependencies by default. As always, soname dependencies
remain inapplicable in the absence of the --usepkgonly option
(or --getbinpkgonly). Therefore, this change only affects
commands that specify --usepkgonly or --getbinpkgonly.
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 23:39 +, Sam James wrote:
>
> Whissi and others raised some points that I think you may have some views on
> (and I'm interested in hearing them).
>
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Whissi takes issue
with using the package manager to manage users,
> On 28 Nov 2021, at 23:26, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> [sinp]
> The only problem that anyone has put forth is one that does not exist.
> UIDs and GIDs are still assigned dynamically in Gentoo. The number you
> type in the ebuild is only a hint: it's the first number that will be
> tried during
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 16:31 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting
> for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
>
> Here are my thoughts about it.
>
> - As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to
All,
I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting
for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
Here are my thoughts about it.
- As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to care about UIDS/GIDS
most of the time.
- I realize that our settings
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:46:24PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 08:15:13PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 13:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021,
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:42:23PM -0600, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 2:27 PM William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:57:39PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > > We don't even do static allocation.
>
> > There are a few exceptional cases where a user or group
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 08:15:13PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 13:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 2:27 PM William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:57:39PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > We don't even do static allocation.
> There are a few exceptional cases where a user or group needs a
> > specific identifier; but those were always statically allocated
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 3:26 PM William Hubbs wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:57:39PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 2021-11-28 11:06:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >
> > > While the rationale for static allocation that made it into GLEP 81 [1]
> > > is rather weak, several people had
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:57:39PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 2021-11-28 11:06:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > While the rationale for static allocation that made it into GLEP 81 [1]
> > is rather weak, several people had argued in favour of it on the mailing
> > list [2].
> >
>
> We
On 2021-11-28 11:06:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> While the rationale for static allocation that made it into GLEP 81 [1]
> is rather weak, several people had argued in favour of it on the mailing
> list [2].
>
We don't even do static allocation. The UIDs and GIDs in the ebuilds
are
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:23:16AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/21/21 02:57, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > Following the pattern found in other eclasses, add GO_OPTIONAL to the
> > go-module eclass. This allows to inherit the eclass without pulling
> > its dependencies. See, e.g., bug #775779 for
On 11/21/21 02:57, Florian Schmaus wrote:
Following the pattern found in other eclasses, add GO_OPTIONAL to the
go-module eclass. This allows to inherit the eclass without pulling
its dependencies. See, e.g., bug #775779 for the motivation.
Signed-off-by: Florian Schmaus
---
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 13:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > > > 1/ Static allocation does not really
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> >> 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not
> >> nowadays
> >> 2/ We cant keep adding
# Volkmar W. Pogatzki (2021-11-28)
# Libraries without consumers. Removal in 30 days.
dev-java/commons-pool
dev-java/dict4j
dev-java/felix-gogo-command
dev-java/jama
dev-java/janino
dev-java/jchardet
dev-java/jcommon
dev-java/jdynamite
dev-java/jfreesvg
dev-java/jgrapht
dev-java/jmdns
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
>> 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not
>> nowadays
>> 2/ We cant keep adding new IDs to a distribution as new software gets
>> added - one side is
# Volkmar W. Pogatzki (2021-11-26)
# Library without consumers. Removal in 30 days.
dev-java/jss
Signed-off-by: Miroslav Šulc
---
eclass/java-pkg-2.eclass | 4 ++--
eclass/java-pkg-simple.eclass | 4 ++--
eclass/java-utils-2.eclass| 4 ++--
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/java-pkg-2.eclass b/eclass/java-pkg-2.eclass
index
hi devs,
here is a part eapi8 support for java, in this case java-pkg-simple.eclas and
all the eclasses in the chain. i will continue on the other eclasses once this
gets merged.
i did test these eclasses on several java packages and all seems fine.
any comments or improvements are welcome.
27 matches
Mail list logo
