Re: [gentoo-dev] Why adding python3_8 to Gentoo sucks?

On 2019-11-13 4:16 p.m., Michał Górny wrote: [ Snip! ] Can automation help with this at all, or is automation being used already? Also to clarify, is the issue here the way that we specify python versions syntactically in all of the ebuilds in the repo, or is it just the way the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to samba project being disbanded

On 2019-03-27 4:25 p.m., Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 12:18 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:04 AM Michał Górny wrote: >>> The samba project will most likely be disbanded shortly. While >>> the current project members may stay as fallback maintainers, >>>

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

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: >>> >>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:08:22 +0200 >>> Mart Raudsepp wrote: >>> It is not GStreamer fault that ffmpeg breaks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

On 2018-07-24 1:55 p.m., Dennis Schridde wrote: > Am Dienstag, 24. Juli 2018, 19:15:19 CEST schrieb Ian Stakenvicius: >> >> This is getting a little scary as to what is overriding what, within a >> repo. > > I also tried to untangle this in my email from Sat, 21 Jul 201

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

On 2018-07-22 1:52 p.m., Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > [...] > > It looks to me like *within (sub)profiles*, a USE="-foo" should undo > USE=foo, rather than adding "-foo" to the list of tokens that get pushed > down via USE_ORDER. > ...except that we often want the sub-profile containing "-foo"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

On 2018-07-21 9:33 a.m., Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:33 AM Zac Medico wrote: >> >> Sure, why not? So ^flag would mean that the flag state propagates from >> the settings in IUSE. > > Presumably this could be overridden in subsequent profiles, or > /etc/portage. That is, one

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 7 in Portage needs YOU!

On 2018-02-19 07:19 PM, Michael Lienhardt wrote: > > > Il 19/02/2018 20:38, Michał Górny ha scritto: >> W dniu pon, 19.02.2018 o godzinie 21∶32 +0200, użytkownik Mart Raudsepp >> napisał: >>> On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 18:34 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: It is explained in section 8.2.4:

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 7 in Portage needs YOU!

On 2018-02-19 12:34 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Michael Lienhardt wrote: > >>> 2. ||= (binding any-of) dep groups. > >> I don't understand what this group means, and the PMS-7 is >> unclear as well: "binding-any-of A binding-any-of group, which >> has the same format as

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

On 2018-01-22 05:28 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Montag, 22. Januar 2018, 08:01:08 CET schrieb Zac Medico: >> >> According to Gentoo policy, future ebuild dependency changes need to be >> accompanied by a revision bump in order to trigger rebuilds for users. >> Therefore, you should only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Open Build Service

On 14/11/17 02:33 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Samuel Bernardo > > > wrote: > The only feature that would be useful for now is emerge obtaining the > > precompiled binary packages to install in

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-libs/ncurses: erronious deletion of *.dll.a files; possibly other packages affected

On 28/09/17 10:23 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Hi, > > sounds like we should convert to prune_libtool_files usage from > ltprune.eclass. > > However, the eclass says > >> # Discouraged. Whenever possible, please use much simpler: >> # find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die > > So this

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

On 11/06/17 04:02 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, P, 11.06.2017 kell 13:08, kirjutas William Hubbs: >> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 07:14:52PM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >>> Ühel kenal päeval, P, 11.06.2017 kell 11:12, kirjutas William >>> Hubbs: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 05:35:53PM

Re: [gentoo-dev] Of death and prerm

On 30/08/17 10:04 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/30/2017 09:46 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> For adding this to FEATURES and RESTRICT, are we moving into PMS >> modification territory? And if so, is this something we want to do >> just for this? >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Of death and prerm

On 30/08/17 09:40 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >>> This rather sounds like a case for package manager support with >>> some property like RESTRICT="uninstall". > >> Would it still be possible to override with >> I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING=yes then?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On 08/08/17 01:23 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:11:18 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> it can already be controlled through env files. > > I was thinking it might, but having used them to skip other hooks. I > was thinking they could not be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 10/07/17 04:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks >> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's significantly >> more complex to

Re: [gentoo-dev] mingw-w64 crossdev prefix?

On 18/05/17 12:08 AM, Marty Plummer wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 06:46:24AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> Hi, >> You can emerge crossdev and then run crossdev -t x86_64-w64-mingw32 or >> crossdev -t i686-w64-mingw32 >> Alon >> > I'm aware of that, using it. Its simply the fact that its fairly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-6.x status inquiry

On 03/05/17 02:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:00:26PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 03/05/17 01:58 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: On 5/3/17 6:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote: Hey all, I am asking about this because I have been asked to look into packaging software that has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-6.x status inquiry

On 03/05/17 01:58 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: On 5/3/17 6:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote: Hey all, I am asking about this because I have been asked to look into packaging software that has a specific requirement for >=gcc-6 in order to build [1]. As I said few times, we should dump gcc-5 sooner than

Re: [gentoo-dev] eclass-manpages are now versioned (snapshotted)

On 24/03/17 11:19 AM, Michał Górny wrote: Hi, everyone. With a little delay I would like to announce that the eclass-manpages package is now properly versioned, starting this Tuesday. Most importantly, this means that users will no longer have to periodically rebuild the package in order to get

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to deal with package forks?

On 09/03/17 10:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > The second group (patch sets) is more unclear. AFAICS some people argue > that packages with major patch sets applied should be distinguished by > separate package names. Others see that applying them via USE flags is > easier. > > Separate packages are

[gentoo-dev] Eix and deps up for grabs

Hey all - since I have never really been maintaining these properly and as the last commits to these packages have been from other devs, its time for the metadata to properly reflect this. If anyone's interested, could you please take up these packages? app-portage/eix app-shells/push

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 07/02/17 12:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide > when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, > because you will break all of the packages whose defaults are either > critical to the package, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 03/02/17 02:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 10:30 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> ok you lost me. Could you provide an explicit example of what you >> would want to see enabled in the profile (while everything else is >> disabled) that you don

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 03/02/17 08:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 08:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> >>> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists who >>> don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in pursuit >>> of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/17 10:14 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky >>> wrote: If (base == minimal), then

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/17 08:21 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 06:41 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. >> >> On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: >>> " >>> I'm not saying that we sho

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: > " > I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, > only that the base profile should result in an effectively-minimal set > of USE flags. Adding IUSE defaults is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: > > 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. > >* Example: force the "unix" module for apache. > This is not what IUSE defaults are for, this should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 01/02/17 10:39 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've > been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start > generating manual release tarballs again because I would need to put the > autotools generated cruft in them.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 01/02/17 09:43 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:18:42PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >> W dniu 30.01.2017, pon o godzinie 14∶04 -0600, użytkownik William Hubbs >> napisał: >>> All, >>> >>> I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like >>> what I >>> see.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Cron <gmirror@dipper> /usr/local/bin/pidlock -s rsync-gen /bin/bash /usr/local/bin/mastermirror/rsync-gen.sh

On 26/01/17 06:48 PM, Doug Freed wrote: > This is the email I get when a Manifest is missing DIST entries; it's > more verbose than it needs to be, but I'd rather have more than less. > In this particular case, the developer that made the bad commit likely > had something they were working on in

Re: [gentoo-dev] tinfo flag

On 07/12/16 05:40 AM, konsolebox wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:16:45 +0800 >> konsolebox wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 6 Dec 2016

Re: [gentoo-dev] tinfo flag

On 05/12/16 06:13 AM, konsolebox wrote: > Hi, > > Please consider promoting the use of tinfo flag in packages that > depend on sys-libs/ncurses so that they would synchronize properly > with sys-libs/ncurses[tinfo]. > > It could be as simple as: > > IUSE="tinfo" > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

> On Dec 5, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:47:48 -0800 > Daniel Campbell wrote: >> Compliance with what? If others desire Quickbook support, they can >> make a tool to convert from ledger. There's no good

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uppercase characters in package names

On 02/12/16 01:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:24:29 -0500 > Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh >> wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:02:48 -0500 >>> Mike Gilbert

Re: [gentoo-dev] Revision bumps vs git commits atomicity

On 02/12/16 10:32 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> What about the following forkflow: >> - version bump first with minimal changes required, but without >> pushing commit to the tree; >> - make each logical change as a

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 17/11/16 03:50 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:07:32 -0500 > Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> OpenRC's init scripts all do that already, more or less. tmpfiles.d >> *.conf files are not used for this purpose -- definitely not by &

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 17/11/16 02:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:10:28 -0500 > Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 17/11/16 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:46:41 +0100 >>> Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wr

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 17/11/16 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:46:41 +0100 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:02:25 -0500 >> Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 17/11/16 12:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:02:25AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600 >>> William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 17/11/16 01:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600 > William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:04:11PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> On 16/11/16 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>>> On

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 16/11/16 09:19 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 16/11/16 06:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>>> On

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 16/11/16 06:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 16/11/16 06:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:09:59PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>>> On 16/11/16 03:21 PM, William Hubbs

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 16/11/16 06:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:09:59PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 16/11/16 03:21 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> >>> I can make the service scripts call the systemd-tmpfiles service if it >>> is avail

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 16/11/16 03:21 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > I can make the service scripts call the systemd-tmpfiles service if it > is available or if not call the opentmpfiles implementation. > > I'm not sure whether it is worth having a separate package for the > service scripts in this case. That would

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 16/11/16 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:14:02AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 16/11/16 10:08 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> opentmpfiles will be updated to install the service scripts which >>> will be run when OpenRC boots

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 16/11/16 10:08 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:57:57AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 15/11/16 02:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> On 15/11/16 02:42 PM,

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 15/11/16 02:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 15/11/16 02:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:57:14 -0500 >>> Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 15/11/16 02:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:57:14 -0500 > Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 15/11/16 12:56 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> OpenRC itself doesn't install any tmpfiles.d files, and my plan is to >>> make su

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

On 15/11/16 12:56 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 05:56:27PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:49:22 -0600 >> "Dustin C. Hatch" wrote: >> >>> On 2016-11-14 23:09, Michał Górny wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:23:10 -0600 William

Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting version-related tree policies

On 03/11/16 01:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> 1. Revision number must be no longer than : >> 1a. to make <=X-r reliable, >> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. >> > > Let's just hope nobody

Re: [gentoo-dev] Optimizing toe stepping

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Nick Vinson wrote: >> Just doing that one little thing would have prevented or shutdown the >> arguments I have seen. > > Yes, obviously of course. > > But

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab and localmount update, round 4

On 01/11/16 05:31 PM, Ilya Tumaykin wrote: > On Tuesday 01 November 2016 16:13:34 William Hubbs wrote: >> Title: Inportant fstab and localmount update > > 'iNportant' > NIT: There is also double-whitespace on paragraph 2, line 2: "symbolic links will" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab and localmount update, round 3

On 01/11/16 04:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:13:28 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> If "/dev/disk/by-*" source paths are used for mount points in > > s/source/device/. Source sounds weird to me. device path works, i used 'source' as in the mount

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Problems and limitations of the current version dependency specs

On 31/10/16 08:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > I would like to work on a major version depedencny specification > improvements as part of the next EAPI. For this reason, I'd like to > first gather some research on how developers are using the current > system, what they find

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 28/10/16 12:56 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 10/25/2016 10:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >> >> this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to >> move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles. >> >> I do have a question about the newsitem -- how do I make it

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 27/10/16 09:54 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote: > 2016-10-28 3:32 GMT+02:00 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org > <mailto:a...@gentoo.org>>: > > On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL= is not &

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL= is not > good? I realize that s are not required when doing a mkfs, but > if the admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter, why should > it be "deprecated"? I don't think

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 26/10/16 11:43 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org > <mailto:a...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > On 26/10/16 04:49 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > >> O

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

Here's a revised possibility -- it diverges a little from the original message but I think its more inclusive as to the issue. Thoughts? - Title: Important fstab and localmount update Author: William Hubbs Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2016-10-28 Revision: 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] LLVM News item

On 25/10/16 06:44 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 16:07 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 25/10/16 04:02 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>>> >>&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 25/10/16 05:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> Title: Inportant fstab update >> Author: William Hubbs >> Content-Type: text/plain >> Posted: 2016-10-28 >> Revision: 1 >> News-Item-Format: 1.0

Re: [gentoo-dev] LLVM News item

On 25/10/16 04:02 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> >>> On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:1

Re: [gentoo-dev] LLVM News item

On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:32:22 + >>> Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com> wrote: >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] LLVM News item

On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:32:22 + >> Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> >>> >>> Noticed todays 2016-10-25-llvm_3_9_with_llvm_targets news item and read: >>> .. >>> In

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 25/10/16 01:10 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > If this is about the udev-settle issue for OpenRC, I would urge you to > reconsider that. > +1 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 25/10/16 01:07 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to >> move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles. > > "Inportant" typo in the title. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] need for autotools

On 25/10/16 11:34 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 25/10/16 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote: >> On 10/25/2016 07:11 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >>> Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages? >> >> Theoretically no. When autotools is used correct

[gentoo-dev] need for autotools (was: Commented packages in the @system set)

On 25/10/16 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote: > On 10/25/2016 07:11 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >> Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages? > > Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball > has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 17/10/16 10:54 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided > optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build > process, > last I checked...but that was a few years ago. > Mozilla project has a dev that's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Local workarounds with no reported bugs

On 17/10/16 03:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > I'd like to point out a major problem in Gentoo: there's a fair number > of developers who add various local workarounds to problems they meet > and don't bother to report a bug. Worst than that, this applies not > only for upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 16/10/16 10:43 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:19:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> *IF* we were going to make use of upstream vs gentoo-generated binary >> packages in the tree, they *WOULD* block one-another as they would >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 16/10/16 06:30 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 4:10:51 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote: >> >> Yeah, I get the intent, but I don't see it being likely we'd ever have >> a real usecase for having both a -bin and a -gbin in tree together. > > You actually came up with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 14/10/16 01:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> Problem >>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. Howe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Problem > 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is > not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by > compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

On 14/10/16 10:22 AM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > On 10/13/2016 10:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 13/10/16 10:13 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez >>> <cyklon...@gmail.com <mailto:cyklon...@gmail.com>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

On 13/10/16 10:13 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez > > wrote: > > On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > This would actually be another reason to get rid of grub-0, if it

Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)

On 20/08/16 08:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel >> wrote: >>> 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to >>> normal bug resolution. >>> * There

Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI="gogdownloader://..."

On 02/10/16 04:59 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:48:04 +0100 > James Le Cuirot wrote: > >> SRC_URI="gogdownloader://tomb_raider_1/en1installer1 -> >> setup_tomb_raider_${PV}.exe" IUSE="gogdownloader" >> RESTRICT="!gogdownloader? ( fetch ) mirror" >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

On 16/09/16 11:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > AFAICS that proposal goes into a direction which is somewhat opposite > to what we have pursued in EAPI 6. There, we have allowed directories > as arguments to eapply, in order to simplify application of patchsets. > Now maintainers would have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] questions about small fixes/cleanups

On 14/09/16 12:20 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:41:54 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> >> So, to sum it up, I have to: >> - Open a browser, go to github (*) >> - Find out latest commit hash, copy it >> - (*) Copy the ebuild, setting a 8 digit version

Re: [gentoo-dev] libpcre.so.3 - Compatibility with Debian

On 11/08/16 10:57 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 11.08.2016 kell 12:56, kirjutas Ulrich Mueller: >>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, James Le Cuirot wrote: >> Have you asked Debian why they are doing that? >> >>> I did find out but had since forgotten. Here it is: >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: grub2 multislot use flag is being disabled

On 08/08/16 10:12 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > The multislot use flag in sys-boot/grub-2.x, which has been enabled by > default, is being switched to disabled by default. > > This means that, for all new systems, and for anyone who doesn't take > action, all of the binaries and documentation in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] depend.apache.eclass - fix for EAPI6

On 14/07/16 04:44 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 07/14/2016 04:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> Hey all -- depend.apache.eclass currently calls get_libdir() in global >> scope due to _init_apache2 being called by need_apache*() functions. >> This patch drops _init_apache2 f

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] depend.apache.eclass - fix for EAPI6

Hey all -- depend.apache.eclass currently calls get_libdir() in global scope due to _init_apache2 being called by need_apache*() functions. This patch drops _init_apache2 from these need_apache*() functions on all EAPIS other than 0-5, and calls it during depend.apache_pkg_setup(). FYI, there are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [tangent] Re: [gentoo-automated-testing] BROKEN: repository became broken!

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Callen <jcal...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 06/17/2016 06:22 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> On 17/06/16 06:17 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>>> On 17/06/16 05:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>> On Sat, 18

[gentoo-dev] [tangent] Re: [gentoo-automated-testing] BROKEN: repository became broken!

On 17/06/16 06:17 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 17/06/16 05:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 00:06:10 +0300 >> Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:42:18 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >>>> Hello,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-automated-testing] BROKEN: repository became broken!

On 17/06/16 05:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 00:06:10 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:42:18 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Since this is a major issue involving a lot of packages, and it needs >>> to be fixed

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user >> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it. > > Are you saying that bugs that

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 10/06/16 03:53 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > ... Their repositories > would likely be amalgamations of our curated and reviewed > repositories ... Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? When I read it, it sounds like you're saying people will copy ebuilds/packages from the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 08/06/16 08:30 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dale wrote: > >> Just a thought here. Is there a way to do a news announcement for >> people that have a package installed from the overlay? If that >> could be done, then users who don't use it won't be bothered by it >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 07/06/16 10:19 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 07/06/16 05:19 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 06/06/2016 04:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> >>> This -can- be simplified using a REQUIRED_USE to force just-one-of >>> gtk3,qt4,qt5 , but you can tech

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 07/06/16 05:19 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 06/06/2016 04:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> This -can- be simplified using a REQUIRED_USE to force just-one-of >> gtk3,qt4,qt5 , but you can technically do the same with USE=gui too -- >> all you'd nee

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 04/06/16 01:40 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 06/03/2016 09:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 03/06/16 11:26 PM, Nick Vinson wrote: >>> >>> [ Snip! ] In cases where there's more than 1 option, you have to >>> either introduce RESTRICTED_USE as Patrick

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 03/06/16 11:26 PM, Nick Vinson wrote: > > [ Snip! ] In cases where there's more than 1 option, you have to > either introduce RESTRICTED_USE as Patrick alluded to, or decide a > pecking order (or decide who gets to decide the pecking order). Which dev's already need to do, without USE=gui

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 02/06/16 09:48 PM, Nick Vinson wrote: > On 06/02/2016 08:08 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >> use case: Telling a package to build a gui without deciding which one >> to build. Also helps in cases where you have package A that can only >> build a qt gui, and package B that can build both qt and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 02/06/16 05:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > To play devil's advocate, can we get a citation on "users don't want to > care"? Which users? Does Gentoo have a lot of users who don't care, or > does it attract a more passionate audience that enjoys the control that > comes with being source-based?

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >