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 es

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 t

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 all of the upstream defaults need to

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 >>>

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 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 pre

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 wrote: >> On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide >>> when they are approp

[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 app-shells/

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

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] 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] 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 a

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 b

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 check for. >> >> As f

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 used as such for b

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] 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] 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 +0

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 would

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 > mailto:samuelbernardo.m...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > The only feature that would be useful for now is emerge obtaining the > > precompiled binary packages to install in containers/VMs from http > ra

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 need

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] 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: http

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Eclasses: postgres and postgres-multi

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 23/01/16 10:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Aaron W. Swenson >> wrote: >> >> >> I would like some feedback on the documentation/comments in >> the eclass. I'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/02/16 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 Patrick Lauer > wrote: > >> Ohey, >> >> I've opened a bug at: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 >> >> The idea here is to change the order of the provi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/02/16 11:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > However, I think we're actually missing the bigger issue here. > Why is this virtual even in @system to begin with? When I set up > a chroot or some kinds of containers I don't need udev, or > sysvinit (or

Re: [gentoo-dev] python-exec2 C wrapper is looking for a new name!

On 09/02/16 02:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > After all those boring, meaningless and violent mailing list threads, > here's something nice and simple. I'd like to find a new nice name for > the C wrapper part of python-exec2, and I would like to ask you for > ideas. > > For so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/02/16 12:09 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:26:12 -0600 William Hubbs > wrote: > > >>> Often the decision to procrastinate is a decision that is >>> rewarded. That should be considered carefully. >> >> + 1. >> >> I als

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/02/16 08:46 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:00:15AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >> Oh, eudev also doesn't handle network link setup given that >> external tools already do this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 17/02/16 12:30 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:19:52 -0500 Rich Freeman > wrote: > >> Is dracut still not widely used? I know that it was all the >> fashion for a decade or two for every distro to build their own >> initramf

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/03/16 03:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries > generated in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we > had only a total of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs > were introd

Re: [gentoo-dev] pokit (was: usr merge)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/04/16 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and > its predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux > system? > > Possibly crossing posts here, so apologies in advance .. ! :] >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:20:24PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> Based on what I've read here in the thread, merging /bin and /sbin >> into /usr/{sbin,bin} is a matter of convenience by putting most of the >> static parts of a running s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/04/16 01:18 PM, »Q« wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote >> >>> It was simply a recognition that we were already in a state >>> where booting

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/7] xorg-2.eclass: drop autotools-utils

Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML... > On Apr 17, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > @@ -487,10 +497,17 @@ xorg-2_src_configure() { > xorg-2_src_compile() { >debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "$@" > > +local makeargs=( "$@" ) > + >if [[ ${XORG_MULTILIB} == yes ]]; the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/7] Dropping autotools-utils from xorg-2

> On Apr 17, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > The xorg-2 eclass currently uses the deprecated autotools-utils and > autotools-multilib eclasses, which are banned in EAPI 6. > > This patchset attempts to remove any trace of autotools-utils from ebuilds > using xorg-2. > > Note that I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/7] xorg-2.eclass: drop autotools-utils

> On Apr 17, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> >> Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML... >> >>> On Apr 17, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> >&

[gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

lists the necessary changes to profile/ as well as the addition of USE=win32 to *ONE VERSION* of gtk+:2, gtk+:3 and cairo (the actual commit will include more versions). Comments? commit 120335a6721cbcee6f92303c8a6d7cb6cc77b36e Author: Ian Stakenvicius Date: Tue Apr 19 15:00:07 2016 -

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/04/16 02:17 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 20 Apr 2016 21:01, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> On 20 April 2016 at 18:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> After doing some experimentation with a mingw crossdev, I >>> found t

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/04/16 02:22 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 20/04/16 19:17, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> agreed ... we have kernel_Winnt & elibc_Winnt already. i >> think those represent a mingw environment (vs a cygwin env). > Surely 'winnt' is a somewhat out-of-d

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/04/16 03:18 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 21.04.2016 kell 06:53, kirjutas Kent > Fredric: >> On 21 April 2016 at 06:38, Ian Stakenvicius >> wrote: >>> Well so far the only needs I have run into

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/04/16 03:01 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > The way I think of it is > > the operating system (ie kernel) = kernel_Winnt the system > libraries (=~libc)= elibc_Winnt the executable binary format > = win32 > > I don't know that we need a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

On 20/04/16 03:41 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 4/20/16 3:30 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 20/04/16 03:01 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> >>> The way I think of it is >> >>> the operating system (ie kernel) = kernel_Winnt the system >>> li

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Andrew Udvare wrote: > >> On 20/04/16 12:58, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 20/04/16 03:41 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>>> According to 'file' the binary format is actually "PE32 executable >>>> (console) I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

On 21/04/16 11:31 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, K, 20.04.2016 kell 22:18, kirjutas Mart Raudsepp: >> Basically the only real point I have is that anything kernel_* to >> control this probably doesn't make sense. >> > > Oh, just to clarify and avoid misunderstanding: > I did not int

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is X86 uclibc environment supported?

On 29/04/16 09:34 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:19:53PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote > >> 1) i support uclibc across many arches. see >> >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Hardened_uClibc >> >> >> 2) you can file uclibc bugs and i will look at them. i know a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is X86 uclibc environment supported?

Quote: blueness: > > The big problem is going to be the migration. You can't just unmerge > uclibc and emerge uclibc-ng. The two hard block one another for that > reason. The migration path I took is really really dirty but works: > > 1. ebuild uclibc-ng-.ebuild clean install > 3. Copy .so fil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is X86 uclibc environment supported?

On 02/05/16 05:27 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > Let me know offline if/when you need a beta tester. I have QEMU and > an ancient 32-bit-only Atom netbook that could really use a smaller > libc. > Is musl a good choice perhaps? iirc it's support right now is better than uclibc... signa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re : Cannot see my eclass modifications

> On May 3, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Farid BENAMROUCHE wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm still searching for the reason why I'm not seeing my eclass > modifications... no luck so far. > > What can I do to debug portage's behavior? > > Thank you > > > En date de :

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES

On 04/05/16 02:01 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 4 May 2016 at 16:46, Matt Turner wrote: >> Having built many stages for an "unstable" arch (mips) has taught me >> one thing: it's awful being unstable-only. There's no end to the >> compilation failures and other such headaches, none of which have >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re : Cannot see my eclass modifications

On 04/05/16 02:30 PM, Farid BENAMROUCHE wrote: > hum... yes I've setup all the relevant settings in my /etc/portage... > I've also read the man, and still not understanding why. > > But At least you are confirming me that directly modifying the user.eclass in > /usr/portage/eclass should work! >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES

On 04/05/16 03:43 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > emerge --keyword-write > > ... similar to "emerge --autounmask-write", but have it write to > package.accept_keywords, rather than package.unmask? > > That would achieve the effect that people are looking for, with less > work. > --auto

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-writing/variables: better describe ROOT

On 10/05/16 05:25 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > * dmraid does > > einfo "Appending pkg.m4 from system to aclocal.m4" > cat "${ROOT}"/usr/share/aclocal/pkg.m4 >>"${S}"/aclocal.m4 || \ > die "Could not append pkg.m4 I'm pretty sure dmraid was me, and that code likely predates

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 20/05/16 11:49 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:40:39 -0400 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> On 05/20/2016 11:34 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> >>> ...and the user has this in their install.mask file: >>> >>> [bash-completion] >>> path=/some/other/path >>> desc=some other descrip

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation

On 27/05/16 10:21 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > [ Snip! ] Agree on all other portions above; its the Applications part below that is most contentious though and is also what I care most about: > * Applications may only use a gtk2 based stack or gtk3 based stack in a > given version/revision. gtk3

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation

On 27/05/16 02:23 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > If gtk2 support is removed though, then per gnome policy gtk3 component > should come with USE=gtk and per QA policy USE=gtk3. > > The QA policy is not finalized and completely contradicts our side of > things, hence discussions are needed, but did not

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] improper use of X

On 27/05/16 02:44 PM, rindeal wrote: > > It also clearly shows how is this flag misused: > > dev-python/PyQt4:X - Build bindings for the QtGui module > dev-python/pyside:X - Build QtGui and QtTest modules > media-gfx/fbida:X - Install the Motif based image viewer "ida" > media-video/aravis:X - Bu

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

On 01/06/16 11:19 AM, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 06/01/2016 10:29 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >> Hello, >> >> So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags. >> >> Global USE=gui for >> gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool >> >> Essentially, if it's an optional GUI, it'd b

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

On 01/06/16 10:13 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:56:41PM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote > >> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: >> >>> I see this as at least a redundancy, if not a problem. First, let's >>> look at the general case. An optional "UI" (User Interface) is als

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On 02/06/16 11:42 AM, james wrote: > On 06/01/2016 06:20 PM, Justin Bronder wrote: >> Due to a lack of time and the fact I don't use any of these packages >> anymore, they are all up for grabs. >> >> - media-gfx/openmesh [no project] >> - sys-cluster/ganglia [cluster] >> - sys-cluste

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

On 02/06/16 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote >> >> IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for >> users who don't want to care about X/wayland/mir and do not want to care >> about gtk/qt, they just want

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?

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 g

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 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 Pa

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 > > wro

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 need to d

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] 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 >> bu

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 core/review

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 haven't been marked

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 *quickly*, I'm forwarding t

[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 wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:42:18 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >&g

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

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Callen 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 Jun 2016 00:06:10 +0300 >

[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] [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

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 grub

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: >>> https://bugs.d

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

On 11/08/16 03:56 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:05:00 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> On 11/08/16 10:57 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >>> Ühel kenal päeval, N, 11.08.2016 kell 12:56, kirjutas Ulrich >>> Mueller: >>>>>

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 representing the date >>

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 lis

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" >> DEPEND="games-util/lgogdown

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 is one version to be sta

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 > mailto:cyklon...@gmail.com>> 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 can't > > build on

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 >>> mailto:cyklon...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>&

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 > sy

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. However it >

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 o

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] 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 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 supportin

[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 g

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 corre

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. > > Even before you pos

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] 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 order to enable all targets, add

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 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> No

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] 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 >> >> If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* pa

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

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >