Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 15:55:17 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On pią, 2017-06-02 at 13:27 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 23:31:25 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > [...] > > > > There

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 17:33:09 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On sob, 2017-06-03 at 13:00 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > This whole thing definitely needs more thought and feedback but for > > now those extra restrictions seem quite natural to me, allow easy

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

Here's a quick n dirty code to play with, based on yours: https://github.com/aballier/required-use On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 18:58:35 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > 1. ^^ ( pst1 pst2 pst3.. ) pst1? ( pt1 ) pst2? ( pt2 ) pst3? ( pt3 > > ).. $ python3 ./ns

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 16:10:25 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On pon, 2017-06-05 at 09:55 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:59:38 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > Here's a quick

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 19:39:04 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > [...] > > > > > The question is whether we want to: > > > > > > > > > > a. actually try to solve this nesting insanity, > > > > > > > > > > b. declare it unsupported and throw REQUIRED_USE mismatch on > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:27:59 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On śro, 2017-06-07 at 10:17 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > Also, do I presume correctly that for all supported cases (i.e. > > > those which your nsolve does not reject), solve and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:02:24 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On śro, 2017-05-31 at 19:39 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > Again, you *need* to process the constraints in order. '!a? > > > > ( b ) !b? ( a )' is not deterministic when no

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:59:38 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Here's a quick n dirty code to play with, based on yours: > https://github.com/aballier/required-use I've run that on the whole tree (considering all ebuilds with non empty REQUIRED_USE), some stats: $

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > 2.4. Backwards compatibility > Considering the discussions in that thread, a natural way to move forward now seems to be: 1. Define a way to solve constraints deterministically 2. Get a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:54:07 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On pią, 2017-06-09 at 13:41 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:19:20 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On śro, 2017-

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:17:16 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On pon, 2017-06-12 at 11:08 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:05:18 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > I think this handles

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > The best way to convince me is through valid examples. > > > > It is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:22:26 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:19:04 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.c

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:59:13 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On śro, 2017-06-14 at 16:09 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:57:38 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > [...] > > > > [...] >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:38:48 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On czw, 2017-06-15 at 18:07 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:59:13 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On śro, 2017-

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:04:35 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:55:45 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > The guarantee comes from the fact that the output is always in the > > space of all pos

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:48:42 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:30:02 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:04:35 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.c

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] toolchain-funcs.eclass / toolchain-glibc.eclass - gcc-6 bugfixes and updates

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:25:02 +0100 "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > On 16/06/17 09:27, Matthias Maier wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017, at 18:15 CDT, Matthias Maier > > wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> > >> this is a series of patches against the toolchian-funcs and >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hardening a default profile

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 14:43:24 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:52:07 -0500 Matthias Maier wrote: > > > there should be a way of turning these off systematically. the > > > advantage of the current hardened gcc specs is that one can switch > > > between

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:19:20 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On śro, 2017-06-07 at 11:56 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:27:59 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On śro, 2017-

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricting allowed nesting of REQUIRED_USE

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 00:30:07 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > As you may or may not know, PMS says rather little about REQUIRED_USE > [1,2]. The largest past of the definition is shared with other > dependency-like specifications [3]. > > Similarly to regular

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:21:50 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > (cut off the parts where I agree and there's nothing to add) > > On pią, 2017-06-09 at 16:16 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > [...] > > > > In your example above, we'd call 'nsolve

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:05:18 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > I think this handles all the cases. I'll try to update the repo with > that algo. I've updated my fork. It'd be good to merge it and rebase solve() on top of the output of to_impl.convert_to_implicatio

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:57:38 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > No. I have already spent too much time on this. We're already long > past all useful use cases Also, if you feel that way, then please stop working on this entirely for now. You're not bringing any good to anyone,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:57:38 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: [...] > > [...] > > > > > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:ReqUse > > > > > > > > > > > > I really don't like the reordering thing. Even the > > > > > > restricted syntax does not fix the issue

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:24:48 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On śro, 2017-06-14 at 11:06 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:13:42 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On wto, 2017-

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:32:40 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:30:10 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:22:26 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.c

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:45:09 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:37:16 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > So you're saying that at the end of this, there's an ENFORCED_USE > > > solver

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:13:42 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On wto, 2017-06-13 at 12:27 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:17:16 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > I've actually started

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass: automatically move configure.in to configure.ac

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:20:49 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 06/11/2017 05:17 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > >> We can always patch the eclass at that point if that is still a big > >> concern, but I fundamentally agree with William on this, starting > >> point > >> should

Re: [gentoo-dev] crossdev: installing _host_ build dependencies not automatic?

On Wed, 3 May 2017 22:47:18 +0100 James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:56:43 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 May 2017 12:05:48 +0200 > > "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan...@gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Tue, 30 May 2017 20:11:38 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: [...] > > > Of course, we could just validate all the possible cases via > > > repoman, and reject the ebuild if there's at least one conflict > > > between them. Not sure how to express that properly in the spec > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:10:12 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: [...] > > > Stand-alone makes little sense (and little trouble) but as you > > > could have seen it's used nested in other thingies: > > > > > > 1. || ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) > > > > > > 2. ?? ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.26 and changes with SunRPC, libtirpc, ntirpc, libnsl (NIS and friends), ...

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:56:30 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Porting a package means adding a dependency in the style of > || (

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:07:18 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu czw, 21.09.2017 o godzinie 15∶41 -0700, użytkownik Matt Turner > napisał: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Michał Górny > > wrote: > > > Given that sandbox is utterly broken by design, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:38:54 +0100 Sergei Trofimovich <sly...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:57:21 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:07:18 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:20:23 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu pią, 22.09.2017 o godzinie 12∶57 +0200, użytkownik Alexis > Ballier napisał: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:07:18 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 19:39:16 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu pią, 22.09.2017 o godzinie 19∶15 +0200, użytkownik Alexis > Ballier napisał: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:20:23 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.26 and changes with SunRPC, libtirpc, ntirpc, libnsl (NIS and friends), ...

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:56:30 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > sunrpc - build against glibc Now that I think about it: What about other libcs ? musl, uclibc, freebsd or even the prefix ones ? [...] > Porting a package means adding a dependency in the style of > || (

Re: [gentoo-dev] Of death and prerm

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:38:15 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > What should happen if an ebuild calls "die" in pkg_prerm? > > The issue arose while trying to create a package that could not be > uninstalled except as part of an upgrade. The first thing that came to > mind was to

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-libs/zlib/

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 21:07:02 + (UTC) "Lars Wendler" wrote: > commit: b5f0471fe97de820f888702e1938989b9fd25522 > Author: David Seifert gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Wed Sep 6 11:48:56 2017 + > Commit: Lars Wendler gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sat Sep 9

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:00:16 -0500 "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote: > On 2017-12-17 14:21, Michał Górny wrote: > > Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be > > larger than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, they > > should be put into

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:34:14 -0500 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:00:16 -0500 > > "Aaron W. Swenson" <titanof...@gentoo.org> wrote: &

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] preserve-libs.eclass: Split off preserve_old_lib from eutils.

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:35:23 -0500 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > I have seen this is only used by: > > app-arch/xz-utils > > dev-libs/gmp > > dev-libs/libpcre > > dev-libs/mpc > > dev-libs/mpfr > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: Portage Dynamic Deps

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:08 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > Please review. > > Title: Portage Dynamic Deps > Author: Zac Medico > Posted: 2018-01-28 > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 2.0 > Display-If-Installed: > Beginning with Portage 2.3.20, the previous

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: [QA] Ban policy introduction SLIPUP

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:36:37 +0100 Amy Liffey wrote: > Hello folks, > > I apologize to everyone for sending this proposal before it was > finished. It was not voted on by the QA team hence it was not an > official proposal by the QA team. There was probably some > misunderstanding in

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass and EAPI 7

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 21:36:56 +0300 Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 16.08.2018 kell 14:27, kirjutas Brian Evans: > > There are currently a handful of ebuilds using EAPI 7 and the > > autotools > > eclass. > > > > I believe that this eclass should be reviewed for adding BDEPEND or >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What means bup?

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:20:56 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/18/2018 02:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > I often find myself in the > > need to use/invent some abbreviation in order to fit the limit. > > Considering this is an error, this sends the message that s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What means bup?

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:35:41 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Matthew Thode wrote: > > > On 18-07-18 09:16:07, Johannes Huber wrote: > >> english is not my mother language, so please clarify what bup > >> means, just seen here: > >> > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to provide a recent TeXLive for Gentoo for our users?

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:57:49 +0200 Jonas Stein wrote: > An installation via tlmgr provides many updates per day, but > our distributed TeXLive is unfortunately always behind. > Typically TeXLive on gentoo is 6-12 months behind upstream, because we > have to bump a lot manually.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper dependencies for TeX related ebuilds

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:40:12 +0200 Jonas Stein wrote: > Hi, > > I just read > https://bugs.gentoo.org/625908#c5 > and saw that we do not have a good documentation on this and many > packages in the tree ship with strange tex dependencies. > > I started a documentation on

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to provide a recent TeXLive for Gentoo for our users?

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:07:07 +0200 Jonas Stein wrote: > > [...] > >> This is not a very nice solution, but it works so far. One > >> difficulty is, that there is no 1:1 relation between the texlive > >> distribution and dev-texlive/* at the moment. > > There is a 1:1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking >=media-video/ffmpeg-4.0

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:09:17 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:57 AM Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:08:22 +0200 > > Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > > > > It is not GStreamer fault that ffmpeg breaks API and ABI with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking >=media-video/ffmpeg-4.0

On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:38:58 -0500 Craig Andrews wrote: > I think it's time to remove the mask on >=media-video/ffmpeg-4.0 > > ffmpeg 4 is in many distros (including Debian, Arch) and FreeBSD. > Upstreams are starting to require it, too. For example, Kodi 18 and >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking >=media-video/ffmpeg-4.0

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:57:36 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 2018-11-06 11:21 a.m., Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:09:17 -0500 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:57 AM Alexis Ballier > >> wrote: > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking >=media-video/ffmpeg-4.0

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:08:22 +0200 Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, T, 06.11.2018 kell 12:00, kirjutas Alexis Ballier: > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:38:58 -0500 > > Craig Andrews wrote: > > > > > I think it's time to remove the mask on >=media-video

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking >=media-video/ffmpeg-4.0

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 11:04:17 -0500 Craig Andrews wrote: > On 06.11.2018 06:00, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:38:58 -0500 > > Craig Andrews wrote: > > > >> I think it's time to remove the mask on >=media-video/ffmpeg-4.0 > >> &

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] opam.eclass: unbreak on EAPI=7

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 21:27:29 -0800 Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > Since D, ED, ROOT, EROOT no longer have a trailing slash in EAPI=7 > This eclass is terribly broken, installing things into > imageusr/... You might want to check https://github.com/aballier/ml-overlay

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] opam.eclass: unbreak on EAPI=7

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 13:42:21 -0800 Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > On Monday, February 4, 2019 2:52:37 AM PST Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 21:27:29 -0800 > > > > Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > > > Since D, ED, ROOT, EROOT no longer have a trailing sla

Re: [gentoo-dev] Announcing RISC-V

On Wed, 29 May 2019 10:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Mon, 20 May 2019 02:44:18 PDT (-0700), aball...@gentoo.org wrote: > > On Sat, 18 May 2019 20:47:28 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 23:34 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >> > * We will initially

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

On Wed, 8 May 2019 11:08:47 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:19 AM Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Announcing RISC-V

On Sat, 18 May 2019 20:47:28 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 23:34 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > * We will initially add two profiles to profile.desc: > > default/linux/riscv/17.0/rv64gc/lp64d (non-multilib, 64bit > > hardfloat) default/linux/riscv/17.0/rv64gc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

On Tue, 07 May 2019 23:47:30 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > While the large number of flags is practically invisible to user with > all the USE_EXPAND hiding, it negatively impacts pkgcheck. When > the number reached 10, CI became unusable. We're currently back down > to 8, thanks to powerpc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass > > change, but I'd guess the number of packages and flags is > > constantly growing, so sooner or later you'll be hit by this again > > and no multilib killing will help you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:31:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 12:19 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] [PATCH] Correct the definition of ESYSROOT as EPREFIX isn't always applicable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:26:27 +0100 James Le Cuirot wrote: > > Admittedly without a full understanding of the problem, but this > > looks wrong to me: SYSROOT, EPREFIX and BROOT are only relevant in > > build phases (src_*); (EPREFIX is a little

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] [PATCH] Correct the definition of ESYSROOT as EPREFIX isn't always applicable

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:37:35 +0100 James Le Cuirot wrote: [...] > -& \t{BDEPEND} & > \t{DEPEND} & \t{RDEPEND}, \t{PDEPEND} \\ > +& \t{BDEPEND} & > \t{DEPEND}& \t{RDEPEND}, \t{PDEPEND} \\ >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] [PATCH] Correct the definition of ESYSROOT as EPREFIX isn't always applicable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:40:19 +0100 James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:51:58 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:26:27 +0100 > > James Le Cuirot wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] virtualx.eclass: Append RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" by default

On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 12:14 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:02 PM NP-Hardass > wrote: > > On 12/11/19 9:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Append RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" in the default case when > > > virtualx > > > is conditional to USE=test. This fixes 440

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > + > +# > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but > not > +# masked yet). It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other > +# packages depend

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:36:58PM +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > + > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > + > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 19:04 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 03:23 -0500, Tim Harder wrote: > On 2019-12-05 Thu 17:00, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for > > > > producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different > > > > problem > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500 Tim Harder wrote: > On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did push ;) > > it will never be perfect but i really like repoman commit to refuse > > to even commit if there'

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:41:56 -0500 Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:51 AM Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500 > > Tim Harder wrote: > > > > > On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 21:28 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2019-12-06 21:10, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > Just so we're on the same page, a recent example of what some > > people > > suggesting to keep py27 ad nauseam are asking users to deal with: > > [...] > > WARNING: One or more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/* leaf packages

On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 19:15 -0500, Aaron Bauman wrote: > * Removal in 30 days > IMHO masking with unfixed, or much later, removal date will better help achieve your goal: You are making your point by having them masked so that it will make enough noise for interested people to understand py2

Re: [gentoo-dev] [EAPI 8 RFC] Install-time dependencies

On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 20:40 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Here's another potential EAPI 8 feature I'd like to discuss. Please > note that this is about *new dependency type*, so please don't hijack > it > into the big 'let's steal Exherbo syntax' debate. > > Bug:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [EAPI 8 RFC] Install-time dependencies

On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 18:55 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Should we use this to drop RDEPEND from pkg_*inst/rm phases ? > > PMS states "RDEPEND (unless the particular dependency results in a > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/4] elt-patches: support wrapped Win32 MSVC toolchain

On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 09:06 +0100, ha...@gentoo.org wrote: > As this native Win32 support is considered highly experimental still, > I > would like to apply the libtool patches for parity via elibtoolize > only, > without applying them in sys-devel/libtool itself yet. > IIRC you need to do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/4] elt-patches: support wrapped Win32 MSVC toolchain

On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 20:59 +, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:23:04 +0100 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 09:06 +0100, ha...@gentoo.org wrote: > > > As this native Win32 support is considered highly experimental > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] musl doesn't provide execinfo.h

On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 08:03 -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 3/26/20 9:25 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 3/23/2020 04:21, Jaco Kroon wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/713668 relates. > > > > > > * Searching for /usr/include/execinfo.h ... > > > sys-libs/glibc-2.29-r7

Re: [gentoo-dev] musl doesn't provide execinfo.h

On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 19:07 -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 3/27/20 3:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 08:03 -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > > On 3/26/20 9:25 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > > On 3/23/2020 04:21,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should NATTkA reject keywordreqs for packages with -arch (-*) keywords?

On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 03:41 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2020-05-06 00:52, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Tue, 05 May 2020 22:19:59 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > WDYT? > > > > Play it safe. -* is frequently used for binary packages where an > > arch > > will simply either work or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please port your packages to Python 3.8

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:00:27 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 2020-09-02 14:08, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 19:42:33 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> New USE flags generally change dependencies (as is the case here), > >> so a new revision ensures that people

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group.eclass: declare the missing dependency on shadow

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:54:14 -0400 David Michael wrote: > Hi, > > This fix might not be so straightforward. A configuration I tested > hit a dependency loop with shadow -> pambase -> systemd -> a bunch of > groups -> shadow. It is possible to bootstrap around by emerging > shadow with no USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group.eclass: declare the missing dependency on shadow

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 09:48:04 -0400 David Michael wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:37 AM Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:54:14 -0400 > > David Michael wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This fix might not be so straightforwar

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 21:39:54 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:14:52 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > However, please > > +do not include it in the package.mask entry as users do > > not need > > +to be forced to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please port your packages to Python 3.8

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 09:06:46 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 2020-09-04 08:54, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > py37 will (*) still be installed as it cannot be depcleaned because > > of 1. emerge won't fail since deps are satisfied. > > > > > > (*) or r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please port your packages to Python 3.8

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:17:06 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 2020-09-03 12:38, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > if some upgrade wants a package with unmatched deps (e.g. not > > installed at all or py38 usedep not satisfied), $PM will surely try > > to satisfy it by in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving warnings on packages.g.o

On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 18:57 +, Max Magorsch wrote: > Hi all, > > Good news regarding packages.g.o! > > While the new packages.g.o version went into production some time > ago, > this also led to some false warnings about outdated package versions. > This is because we currently take

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-libs/x265/

On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 14:14 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: [...] > > > > > Assuming that the pic performance penalty is really only relevant > > on > > legacy arches (like x86), here are a couple of options: > > > > 1. Disable pic on arches where tie performance penalty is small. > > 2. Force pic

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-libs/x265/

On Tue, 26 May 2020 23:41:28 +0200 zo...@gentoo.org wrote: > tisdag 26 maj 2020 kl. 19:54:51 CEST skrev Alexis Ballier: > > On Tue, 26 May 2020 10:45:39 -0400 > > > > Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > Note that having the 'pic' useflag should be considered >

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-libs/x265/

On Sun, 24 May 2020 20:25:11 + (UTC) "Thomas Deutschmann" wrote: > commit: eba596db8a926adb18595549c89294ed0a1e929e > Author: Thomas Deutschmann gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sun May 24 15:07:04 2020 + > Commit: Thomas Deutschmann gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sun May 24 20:23:50

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-libs/x265/

On Sun, 24 May 2020 20:25:11 + (UTC) "Thomas Deutschmann" wrote: > commit: 6e149596cc76f1bbcee6720828c8c8c92420f2a3 > Author: Thomas Deutschmann gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sun May 24 19:47:08 2020 + > Commit: Thomas Deutschmann gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sun May 24 20:23:53

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-libs/x265/

On Mon, 25 May 2020 11:26:26 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 9:13 AM Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 24 May 2020 20:25:11 + (UTC) > > "Thomas Deutschmann" wrote: > > > > > commit: 6e149596cc76f1bbcee6720828c8

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-libs/x265/

On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 17:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:18 PM Michał Górny > wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 19:49 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 May 2020 11:26:26 -0400 > > > Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-libs/x265/

On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 21:09 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:35 PM Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 17:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:18 PM Michał Górny > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon,

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >