Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On 19 September 2012 04:40, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:27:17 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200 >> Michał Górny wrote: >> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100 >> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200 >> > > Micha

Re: [gentoo-dev] example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies

On 16 September 2012 21:15, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:39:22PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> Thanks. I have given it a quick overview for the qt herd. I still >> don't see what using DEPENDENCIES adds to what we do now with separate >> *DEPEND vari

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On 19 September 2012 14:01, Matt Turner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>> Readability is more important, and there I sti

Re: [gentoo-dev] media-video/vlc looking for a new maintainer

On 15 September 2012 04:01, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Hi, > > After more than 5 years maintaining it (sh*t I'm old), I've > progressively lost interest in it, to the point that I consider it is > better that someone else takes care of it. So far I have dropped > maintainership to the video herd but

[gentoo-dev] Inspiration

I just came across this again, and I think it could inspire us in some of our recent conversations: The Zen of Python Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] Generate python depstrings in python-r1 (updated).

On 20 September 2012 05:43, Michał Górny wrote: > I've renamed PYTHON_DEPEND to avoid confusion with python.eclass. > --- > gx86/eclass/python-distutils-ng.eclass | 20 ++- > gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 35 > -- > 2 files changed, 35 i

Re: [gentoo-dev] A more natural (human-friendly) syntax for dependencies

On 23 September 2012 00:13, Luca Barbato wrote: > Please try not fix/break what is not broken. +1 -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-multilib: wrapper eclass for multilib builds.

On 23 September 2012 18:40, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:33:58 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> El dom, 23-09-2012 a las 11:56 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: >> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:07:30 +0200 >> > Thomas Sachau wrote: >> > >> > > Matt Turner schrieb: >> > > > On Sat, Sep 22,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Initial python-r1.eclass & distutils-r1.eclass

On 29 September 2012 18:20, Markos Chandras wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 09/29/2012 09:53 AM, Micha? Górny wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent >> earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P) >>

[gentoo-dev] CIA replacement

Since CIA.vc is dead [1], I think we should be looking into a replacement service, or host our own [2]. Is infra already looking into this? 1: http://shadowm.rewound.net/blog/archives/245-CIA.vc-is-dead.html 2: http://www.donarmstrong.com/posts/switching_to_kgb/ -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: CIA replacement

On 1 October 2012 17:48, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Ben de Groot posted on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:14:25 +0800 as excerpted: > >> Since CIA.vc is dead [1], I think we should be looking into a >> replacement service, or host our own [2]. >> Is infra already lo

Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS -> git, list of where non-infra folk can contribute

Thank you so much for taking the time to give us this clear list of things that need to be done to take this forward! -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: CIA replacement

On 2 October 2012 23:56, Peter Stuge wrote: > Ben de Groot wrote: >> The -commits ML is okay (tho I don't want to subscribe to such a >> high-volume ML), but we miss an IRC interface. The website and >> statistics of cia.vc were nice too. > > What is the source

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: CIA replacement

On 3 October 2012 00:51, Peter Stuge wrote: > Ben de Groot wrote: >> > What is the source data, > > Still unanswered. I'll ask something which would be equally helpful: > > Where is the software that currently sends out emails to the -commits list? I don't kno

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: CIA replacement

On 3 October 2012 08:21, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > Responding to no one in particular, but to the sub-thread about IRC > bots: > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:32:26 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > >> On 02-10-2012 12:40:20 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> > The irker prox

Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS -> git, list of where non-infra folk can contribute

On 3 October 2012 04:51, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: > One of the things that would be nice to have before the Git migration is > Documentation. Feel free to submit docs in the wiki, and I'll help a lot after > the conference as well. Can you be more specific as to what kind of docs are needed? --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies

> On 30/09/12 06:15 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > > yngwin has a point that I've not seen addressed. > > What /is/ wrong with the whole CDEPEND intermediate var idea? > The problem appears as we introduce more DEPEND variables (which is what prompted the proposal, IIRC).

Re: [gentoo-dev] packages which won't support x32

On 5 October 2012 22:28, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > This is the case with dev-lang/v8: it doesn't build on x32 > (), and upstream said they *won't* > support x32 > (). > > Note that with v8 it's no

Re: [gentoo-dev] About unresolved bugs assigned to voip for ages

On 6 October 2012 22:06, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Hello > > I am noticing for a long time that bugs related with ekiga, opal, > yate... are completely unattended by voip team for years. If nobody from > that team is willing to maintain them, please move them to > maintainer-needed to, at least, reflec

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About unresolved bugs assigned to voip for ages

On 7 October 2012 04:37, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Pacho Ramos schrieb: >> Hello >> >> I am noticing for a long time that bugs related with ekiga, opal, >> yate... are completely unattended by voip team for years. If nobody >> from that team is willing to maintain them, please move the

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictness

On Oct 17, 2012 6:57 AM, "Robin H. Johnson" wrote: > > Hi all, > > One of the items that has come up in the Git conversion, and needs some > attention. > > Previously, the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY variable has allowed ANY argument, and > passed it to GPG, letting GPG use that. This was intended to explicit

Re: [gentoo-dev] About DESCRIPTION in ebuilds needing to end with a dot "."

On 20 October 2012 03:01, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Hello > > At least in spanish, it's mandatory to end phrases with a dot ".", would > you agree with trying to enforce this trivial change with a repoman > warning? In English, phrases don't end with a full stop. As has been argued elsewhere in this t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Documenting touching of arch profiles' files

On 2 November 2012 18:01, Markos Chandras wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote: [...] >> With the exception of hppa which explicitly says its use.mask shouldn't >> be touched without permission, and now I can't enable pypy on flaggie >> because that arch is slacking. Great,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 100 bugs

On 31 October 2012 23:17, Chris Reffett wrote: > Basically, I would rather the user get too many > elog messages than not enough, since I feel that a lot of people skip > over them anyway and so the "only display once" method makes it far > too easy for important messages to get lost in the shuffl

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 100 bugs

On 4 November 2012 08:28, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> 03.11.12 09:04, Ben de Groot написав(ла): >>> I think we need to come up with a better policy regarding elog >>> messages, which would improve the signal to noise ratio. >>> > As of EAPI=4 (i think? maybe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Merging the devrel handbook into the devmanual

On 4 November 2012 05:15, Markos Chandras wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Michael Palimaka > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In bug #304435[1], hwoarang suggested merging the devrel handbook[2] into >> the devmanual[3]. >> >> As the project has grown, so has the amount - and dispersion - of >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-

On 1 November 2012 21:50, Jamie Learmonth wrote: > Firstly, why are you guys always so mad, We're not, honestly. But you do see some of the worst we can do on this list (which is why some people tend to ignore this list). Altho on the other hand, some of the best cooperation happens here too. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake, > > etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only > > E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds

On 3 December 2012 03:30, Markos Chandras wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2012 6:09 PM, "Rich Freeman" wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote: > > > Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and > fix > > > stuff. > > > From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we tho

Re: [gentoo-dev] Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

On 11 August 2016 at 04:22, NP-Hardass wrote: > Looks to me like we can't edit that eclass in place, so if we are to > keep it, we should probably revbump it, update the -r1 to L10N, and add > a deprecation warning to the old eclass to help maintainers migrate over. > > Any opinions? I'd be happy

Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds

On 4 December 2012 17:19, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 4 December 2012 01:18, Ben de Groot wrote: > > In my opinion we should limit the amount of places where we document > > policies and best practices. I suggest we keep only devmanual and PMS as > > authoritative docum

Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)

On 5 December 2012 02:51, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > wrote: > > On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > >> Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we always > >> set the proxied maintainer as assignee, and the pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defaulting for debug information in profiles

On 17 December 2012 18:26, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > 2012/12/17 Diego Elio Pettenò : > > On 17/12/2012 11:11, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >> Since we already have splitdebug for quite time (and I suppose quite > >> few of us are using it) how about making it to default profiles > >> default enabled and a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving our/portage stuff to var

On 17 December 2012 18:27, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > 2012/12/17 Diego Elio Pettenò : > > On 17/12/2012 11:19, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >> > >> I've always myself override these defaults in make.conf to point for > >> /var/portage/ (not /var/lib because I never bothered enough how to > >> make world an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defaulting for debug information in profiles

On 17 December 2012 18:55, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > 2012/12/17 Ben de Groot : > > Please don't. For most users this is a waste of resources. > > > On first look it seems like waste of resources. > On second hand it makes stuff easy wrt bugreports provided by users. > A

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

On 27 December 2012 00:39, Kent Fredric wrote: > Can we short cut the whole quiz process and have some "Inbound" repository > until we're full git, which people can fork/commit/pull and trusted people > can review submitted branches and apply them to CVS? This is why I started https://github.com/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

On 30 December 2012 00:13, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 16:42 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> On 27 December 2012 00:39, Kent Fredric wrote: >> > Can we short cut the whole quiz process and have some "Inbound" repository >> > until we're f

[gentoo-dev] What did we achieve in 2012? What are our resolutions for 2013?

Happy New Year to all of you! Looking back at 2012, I wonder what we consider our achievements for this past year. What is the state of Gentoo? How have we brought it forward and improved it this past year? And what do we want to see in the coming year? How can we make Gentoo more awesome in 2013

Re: [gentoo-dev] What did we achieve in 2012? What are our resolutions for 2013?

On 5 January 2013 07:28, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Coming to my mind: > > > There have been continued regular releases of genkernel integrating > patches from various people: > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/genkernel.git;a=tags > > And there has been a constant stream of people as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation?

On 9 January 2013 20:23, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 09/01/2013 13:20, Duncan wrote: >> Are the git migration blockers at such a point that we can get an ETA >> yet? > > PLEASE ALL STOP DETOURING EVERY DAMN TOPIC OUT THERE WITH THE GIT > MIGRATION, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. > > And yes I know it's n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation?

On 9 January 2013 23:16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:23:13 +0100 as excerpted: > >> On 09/01/2013 13:20, Duncan wrote: >>> Are the git migration blockers at such a point that we can get an ETA >>> yet? >> >> PLEASE ALL STOP DETOURING EVERY

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On 16 January 2013 22:16, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > We have a base profile, we have a desktop profile... wouldn't that make > the base the minimal profile that would likely be fit for a server? If > not, we really should move that way. Having a base, desktop, and server > profile seems si

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild

Ideally we would have had a discussion here, and we could still have one. On the other hand I have used libav and mplayer2 for a long time, and have not run into any problems. The only thing missing is mencoder. I'm not opposing this change, but I also don't know enough of the details of upstream

[gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

Hi guys, Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library packages in x11-libs. With the arrival of Qt5 upstream has gone a lot further in modularization, so we expect the number of packages to grow much more. We, the Gentoo Qt team, are of the opinion that the time has come to split

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 17 January 2013 22:05, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 17/01/2013 14:57, Ben de Groot wrote: >> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming >> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then >> also be dropping the qt

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 17 January 2013 22:09, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Ben de Groot schrieb: >> This category is >> to be used for the various modules and applications that belong to the >> upstream Qt Framework only (these include e.g. assistant and >> linguist). Third-party

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On 19 January 2013 04:49, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > During the server profile discussion, it became clear that we could clean up > the base profiles a bit. This is unrelated to the profile versions, as the > change would affect all versions (well, at least without bigger changes). > > What I s

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On 19 January 2013 08:01, Christopher Head wrote: > I understand that enabling flags only affects packages if they’re > installed. I’m just saying that, in my opinion, sane-but-minimal should > have CUPS disabled because there are plenty of computers that would > want LibreOffice and/or Chromium i

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> People who do have printers can always enable it themselves. I don't >> see any reason for cups to be enabled by default, especially not on a >> minima

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 19 January 2013 03:22, Christoph Junghans wrote: > 2013/1/17 Ben de Groot : >> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming >> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then >> also be dropping the qt- prefix in p

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 17 January 2013 22:45, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > How many packages are we talking about? Especially if you don't want qwt > to join there, I assume we're way below 50? If so I would vote nay to > any new category at all, to be honest. Roughly 40 is the current estimate. This is above the med

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it? These are libraries and applications that are used by developers of end-user applications. If there is too much opposition to a simple "qt" category (at least there seems to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 19 January 2013 23:38, Michael Weber wrote: > We have a fixed number of exact 2 tags (foo and bar), > This limitation has proven it's usability in the past of Gentoo, but > there are reasons to break it up (Like making up funny points like regex > and it has always been this way). foo-bar-baz m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: new "qt" category

On 20 January 2013 00:48, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > * In general, yes, I'm in favor of a dedicated qt-* category, but... Good :-) > *** (VERY strongly!) Please avoid namespace pollution! Don't drop the > hyphenated qt-pkg names. As a user, most of the time I DO only refer to > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 20 January 2013 05:03, Philip Webb wrote: > 130119 Ben de Groot wrote: >> On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it? >> These are libraries and applications >> that ar

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 20 January 2013 06:59, Francesco Riosa wrote: > 2013/1/19 Michał Górny >> Just a completely different idea -- how about putting those libraries >> into different categories appropriate to the topic? We have a bunch of >> categories like dev-libs, media-libs, etc. -- and I wonder how many of >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: new "qt" category

On 20 January 2013 15:59, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Just a user with a suggestion here. Since portage already has kde-base and > kde-misc, why not qt-base and qt-misc (and qt-something is the need arises.) > Qt5 will have standard core modules and extensions. qt-base and qt-misc > look like the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: new "qt" category

On 20 January 2013 17:09, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 20/01/13 10:39, Ben de Groot wrote: >> There is no need for multiple qt categories. We want everything that >> the upstream Qt Project considers to be part of the Qt Framework to be >> in one category. Besides that the

Re: [gentoo-dev] About dropping comm-fax herd

On 20 January 2013 17:10, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Only one package is inside it: > net-misc/capi4hylafax > > It should probably be moved to kingtaco (if he is still interested... > are you?) or maintainer-needed until any other steps up as maintainer. > > What do you think about removing this herd?

Re: [gentoo-dev] About completely dropping lcd herd

On 20 January 2013 17:21, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Looks like it's still listed in herds.xml even being empty and with no > packages inside it. Probably it's time to safely remove it completely. > > OK with that? > Best regards Yes please -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: new "qt" category

On 20 January 2013 21:35, Dale wrote: > Same here. I have had to re-emerge qt packages several times myself. > It seems that when I do, I have to do them all one at a time too. In which case you're better off with something like: emerge -a1 `eix --only-names -IC qt` -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On 20 January 2013 23:22, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Andreas K. Huettel schrieb: >>> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to >>> targets/desktop/make.defaults > > I must say that I am unhappy about this. The packages in question should > not be built with dri disabled

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On 21 January 2013 10:42, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > So that's what I (and others, but less explicitly) propose, leaving > USE=dri where it is in the old and soon-to-be-deprecated 10.x profiles so > nobody gets broken, while in the new 13.0 profiles, USE=dri is moved from > base to desk

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge wrote: > Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: >> I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be >> much appreciated if they could respond here. > > I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless > for me; I have USE=-* and t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

On 22 January 2013 03:28, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch > wrote: >> The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use >> default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use >> directories have dozens of -flag entr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

On 22 January 2013 10:36, Walter Dnes wrote: > I think we may have to admit that "one size does not fit all". There > are just too many individual scenarios. A truly minimal build should be > sufficient to boot to a text console, and have networking and portage to > be able to build further up

Re: readme.gentoo.eclass: use echo -e instead of plain echo (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] readme.gentoo.eclass: Add a DISABLE_AUTOFORMATTING variable=

On 28 January 2013 12:37, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 27 January 2013 13:21:27 Pacho Ramos wrote: >> The problem is that it doesn't work so well. If I have the following at >> src_prepare (for example): >> src_prepare() { >> DOC_CONTENTS="You must create a symlink rom /etc/splash/tux

Re: readme.gentoo.eclass: use echo -e instead of plain echo (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] readme.gentoo.eclass: Add a DISABLE_AUTOFORMATTING variable=

On 29 January 2013 03:30, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 28-01-2013 a las 14:37 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: >> I've started using this eclass, but with README files, not the variable, >> because this is currently the only way I can make sure it honours my >> formatt

Re: readme.gentoo.eclass: use echo -e instead of plain echo (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] readme.gentoo.eclass: Add a DISABLE_AUTOFORMATTING variable=

On 30 January 2013 05:47, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mar, 29-01-2013 a las 14:03 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: >> On 29 January 2013 03:30, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> > El lun, 28-01-2013 a las 14:37 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: >> >> I've started using this ecl

Re: readme.gentoo.eclass: use echo -e instead of plain echo (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] readme.gentoo.eclass: Add a DISABLE_AUTOFORMATTING variable=

On 1 February 2013 02:59, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 18:47 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: >> El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 15:00 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: >> > Currently, when people uses DOC_CONTENTS variable to place their desired >> > messages, they are automatically reformatted

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: cmake-multilib for cmake multilib package builds

On 6 February 2013 04:19, Michał Górny wrote: > The idea is the same as in autotools-multilib. The eclass > is a straightfoward wrapper for cmake-utils which inherits > multilib-build and runs cmake phase functions for all ABIs (using > out-of-source build). > > The eclass uses the same header con

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: cmake-multilib for cmake multilib package builds

On 7 February 2013 16:36, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 6 February 2013 04:19, Michał Górny wrote: >> The idea is the same as in autotools-multilib. The eclass >> is a straightfoward wrapper for cmake-utils which inherits >> multilib-build and runs cmake phase functions for all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rename Creative Commons license files?

On 8 February 2013 00:31, Alec Warner wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> I always wondered why we are using such bulky names like >> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 for the Creative Commons licenses, >> instead of CC-BY-SA-2.5 like everyone else. The latter also use

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

On 10 February 2013 10:43, Douglas Freed wrote: >> * all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the same way >> as >> 10.0 was >> * all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc >> * all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated > > Suggestion: perhaps a news item should be create

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

On 10 February 2013 20:11, Rich Freeman wrote: > Otherwise, purpose-driven overlays just make sense - they allow a > different set of contributors who are more familiar/interested in a > set of packages to maintain them. It makes more sense to let those people be proxy-maintainers and keep those

Re: News item (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations)

On 10 February 2013 23:02, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 15:15:43 schrieb Markos Chandras:> >> I suspect most people are interested in understanding what changed >> (since deprecation means that the new thing is better than the old >> one). Moreover, the news item is an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

On 13 February 2013 15:07, Michael Weber wrote: > On 02/13/2013 12:28 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12:35AM +0100, Michael Weber wrote: >>> On 02/12/2013 10:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote: If you have any questions on this, please feel free to let us know. >>> Wha

Graveyard overlay (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: games-strategy/x2, games-strategy/x2-demo)

On 14 February 2013 08:08, Florian Philipp wrote: > Am 14.02.2013 00:07, schrieb Brian Dolbec: >> >> Easy, just copy the ebuild and any patches in the files subdir to a >> local overlay. >> > > Which brings us back to the old discussion on what good it does for one > person to do the work of maski

Re: Graveyard overlay (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: games-strategy/x2, games-strategy/x2-demo)

On 14 February 2013 20:25, George Shapovalov wrote: > Um, what about the sunset overlay? IIRC, it was used/intended primarily for > this purpose. Is it still alive? (haven't heard it mentioned in a while and > layman seems to list onyl sunrise) > You probably mean kde-sunset, which is specificall

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] RFC: Graveyard project

On 15 February 2013 22:34, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > (But I would still argue that "spotting overlay usage" is not always as > simple; at least in one case I got somebody who was trying to hide their > use of proaudio.) Users editing the output of emerge --info and hiding they overlay usage is

[gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Qt Project wants your help!

The Gentoo Qt Project wants your help! == The Gentoo Qt Project is a small team responsible for maintaining the Qt libraries and associated applications within our beloved distro. Over time the number of packages we maintain has grown. Not only is there quite so

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Qt Project wants your help!

On 2 March 2013 22:35, Tom Wijsman wrote: > I first thought it was a binary, but now that I see it is actually > compiled from source in the avidemux build process, we have control > over it. Therefore, I'll step up to be the primary maintainer. > > Do you want me to keep the Qt herd in the metada

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Qt Project wants your help!

On 2 March 2013 15:57, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 02/03/2013 07:54, Ben de Groot wrote: >> 1. Get Qt5 ready for inclusion in the tree. This includes writing and >> improving ebuilds and eclasses, testing to build those, filing bug reports >> on failure, finding fixes for

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Qt Project wants your help!

On 2 March 2013 20:26, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: > 02.03.13 07:54, Ben de Groot написав(ла): > >> app-admin/keepassx >> app-text/goldendict > > If these two packages need a maintainer, I could proxy-maintain them. > I'm not a developer, but I have some experience

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Qt Project wants your help!

On 2 March 2013 20:33, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 02/03/13 08:54, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> The Gentoo Qt Project wants your help! >> sci-calculators/qalculator > > > This project died after the first betas. I propose treecleaning it. We have > plenty of mo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

On 6 March 2013 15:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote: > Hi, > Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several > categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining > easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing. > So, two questions: > 1) Do you agree with adding ne

Re: [gentoo-dev] New install isos needed

On 24 March 2013 09:17, Dale wrote: > Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> Am Samstag, 23. März 2013, 21:40:16 schrieb Markos Chandras: Why not officially recommend SystemRescueCD instead? >>> Looks really bad to recommend another installation media (even if it >>> is based on Gentoo) to people

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: media-tv/tvtime

On 24 March 2013 09:19, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 24/03/13 02:12, Markos Chandras wrote: >> >> On 24 March 2013 00:02, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> AFAIK, tvtime has no alternatives at all. If it goes, analog >>> TV >>> users can't watch TV anymore :-/ >> >> >> Nothing I can do. It has no ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-text/cuneiform

On 24 March 2013 22:48, Markos Chandras wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 03/24/2013 12:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras >> wrote: >>> I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note >>> thought that this i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Expanding categories' descriptions

On 2 April 2013 19:01, Sergey Popov wrote: > 01.04.2013 11:52, Michael Palimaka пишет: > > On 1/04/2013 04:29, Denis M. wrote: > >> I think it's a good idea to expand the categories' descriptions (found > >> in the corresponding metadata.xml files) with more accurate descriptions > >> of which pa

Re: [gentoo-dev] libpng 1.6 upgrade and subslotting (and misuse of subslotting when there is also normal slotting)

On 6 Apr, 2013 4:46 AM, "Samuli Suominen" wrote: > > libpng 1.6 is in portage, but temporarily without KEYWORDS, pending on testign and this conversion, help would be much appericiated with converting the tree to use automatic rebuilds for the upgrade > > Because there is binary-only SLOT="1.2" of

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 + (UTC) > "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" wrote: > > > Index: package.mask > > === > > RCS file: /var/cvsro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 21 April 2013 22:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Denis Dupeyron schrieb: > > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not > > propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being > > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 21 April 2013 22:59, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > > > On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 + (UTC) > > > "Ben de Groot (yngwin

Re: [OT/NIT] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 21 April 2013 23:05, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > > > > > > PS: btw, some hunks are weird in your commit, a locale issue ? > > > > > > > No, just a line in my vimrc that removes trailing white

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 21 April 2013 22:11, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not > propagate (notice the plural here). > I'm not sure exactly which behaviours you're calling immature and abrasive, but it seems to me you're overreacting again. Please stay out if t

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: emul-linux-x86-xlibs deps being replaced in gx86

On 22 April 2013 03:43, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to give you a heads up and explanation on what I'm doing > today. > > I'm in the process of converting emul-linux-x86-xlibs dependencies > in gx86 with any-of dependencies supporting both emul-linux and split > multilib packages. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: emul-linux-x86-xlibs deps being replaced in gx86

On 22 April 2013 21:51, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:21:55 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > > It should come as no surprise that I am not happy with this. While I > > applaud your efforts to attempt to improve the multilib situation, I > > don't th

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: emul-linux-x86-xlibs deps being replaced in gx86

On 22 April 2013 23:38, Matt Turner wrote: > Do I assume correctly that this is a response to the freetype and > fontconfig multilib bugs? > This thread is not directly about that, but it is related. I'm not convinced that this multilib solution is mature enough to be pushed so speedily into th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 23 April 2013 01:13, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:43:22 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > > > On 21 April 2013 22:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn < > chith...@gentoo.org>wrote: > > > > > Denis Dupeyron schrieb: > > > > I

<    1   2   3   4   5   >