[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH v2] profiles: promote USE=vulkan to global USE flag

On 22/05/23 22:41, Nick Sarnie wrote: On 5/22/23 16:40, Matt Turner wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James wrote: Thanks to leio for this improved phrasing. Signed-off-by: Sam James ---   profiles/use.desc | 1 +   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/profiles/use.desc

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] profiles/targets/desktop: disable USE=xvid by default

On 12/01/22 03:45, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > it's an ancient codec that is barely used nowadays > so let's disable it by default. > Users are free to re-enable if required. > It is fine, btw this mpeg4 dialect is still supported by libavcodec so only people wanting to encode using the original

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Proposed dates for Python 3.10 switch and Python 3.8 removal

On 11/11/21 17:05, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to > the implementation timeline [1]. > > Unless I'm mistaken, CPython is following a yearly release cycle these > days. I think it would make sense to also aim for a yearly cycle >

[gentoo-dev] Re: Guidance on adding kernel config checks to ebuilds

On 27/09/21 18:10, Mike Gilbert wrote: > I'm looking to solicit opinions on when it is appropriate for an > ebuild to check for kernel config options using linux-info.eclass. I > don't think we have any guidelines documented, instead leaving it up > to the "common sense" of package maintainers. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation

On 22/08/21 22:14, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Yes! It is time to finally deprecate eudev! sys-fs/udev now builds > under musl! My original purpose for maintaining eudev was because > systemd + musl did not play well together when udev was absorbed into > the sytemd repo. Now

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing SHA512 hash from Manifests

On 24/07/21 17:16, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I've been asked to repost the idea of removing SHA512 hash from > Manifests, effectively limiting them to BLAKE2B. > > The 'old' set of Gentoo hashes including SHA512 went live in July 2012. > In November 2017, we have decided to remove

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] kernel-install.eclass: Warn about linux-firmware in pkg_pretend()

On 17/06/2020 12:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 17 Jun 2020, Michał Górny wrote: +# @FUNCTION: kernel-install_pkg_pretend +# @DESCRIPTION: +# Check for missing optional dependencies and output warnings. +kernel-install_pkg_pretend() { + debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}" + +

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eclass/cargo.eclass: add cargo_src_configure

On 12/06/2020 18:24, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: On 6/12/20 4:16 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: On 12/06/2020 11:04, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: +# cargo_src_configure --no-default-features Shall we default in not-defaulting so we can spare some boilerplate? I don't think so. Let me explain. First

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eclass/cargo.eclass: add cargo_src_configure

On 12/06/2020 11:04, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: +# cargo_src_configure --no-default-features Shall we default in not-defaulting so we can spare some boilerplate? lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] eclass/cargo.eclass: drop EAPI=6 support

On 12/06/2020 05:15, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: This will also allow me to start adding cross support to cargo.eclass with new cross-friendly variables. experimental cross support landed in rust-1.44.0 today [1] Yes please :) lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-python/llvmlite update to 0.32

On 10/05/2020 13:21, Aisha Tammy wrote: On 5/10/20 2:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote: W dniu sob, 09.05.2020 o godzinie 22∶39 -0400, użytkownik Aisha Tammy napisał: Hey all, I was hoping to upgrade the dev-python/numba jit compiler in proxy- maint but it depends on dev-python/llvmlite >=0.31

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app-admin/kube-bench: convert to go-module go.sum

On 09/02/2020 22:16, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: It is left as an exercise for the reader, who is transgressing here... I warned you [once][1] that this kind of banter is not welcome. This is the second warning. lu [1]:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] linux-mod.eclass: pass proper arch to kernel's build system

On 03/01/2020 12:52, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: A user reported that when compiling modules for a system with a 64-bit kernel and a 32-bit userland, there were linker errors. This patch here is an attempt to fix that by making sure that we always use the kernel ABI when giving target build

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] ruby-ng.eclass: Include (-) in RUBY_TARGETS USE-dependencies

On 03/01/2020 23:34, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: On 03/01/20 10:36, David Seifert wrote: On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 21:54 +, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: On 02/01/20 21:08, Michał Górny wrote: On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 21:15 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Thu, 02 Jan 2020, Michał

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Perspectives on improving (dis-hacking) python-single-r1

On 23/11/2019 16:48, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, Some aspects of the current design of python-single-r1 are gross hack. I'd like to discuss potential alternatives to them. Preamble For the purpose of this mail, let's establish two terms. 'Single' will refer to packages allowing the

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI 2 must die

On 06/06/2019 09:05, Matt Turner wrote: On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Agostino Sarubbo wrote: On giovedì 6 giugno 2019 08:25:54 CEST Luca Barbato wrote: Anybody has hardware to test it? I can do it on timberdoodle. The issue is that the package is for "OldWorld" Macs (like

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI 2 must die

On 06/06/2019 07:06, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hi all, for the package maintainers among you, here's the list of remaining EAPI=2 packages. Please help getting the number down to zero soon!!! Cheers, Andreas sys-apps/powerpc-utils-1.1.3.18-r2 This is ancient in many different ways :)

[gentoo-dev] Re: How to handle ROC forks of llvm and clang

On 14/12/2018 21:00, Craig Andrews wrote: Since ROC will eventually upstream all of it's work, (2) is ideal - but I have no idea what the timeline on that upstreaming effort may be, and I can't find anything that gives a hint. I'd rather go with 1 and update the deps once llvm upstream gets

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global use flag: opus

On 13/10/2018 11:28, Michał Górny wrote: > Two cases are unclear: > > media-video/libav: Use the external opus library for encoding and > decoding. > virtual/ffmpeg: Use the external opus library for encoding and > decoding. > > They should be renamed libopus I'm afraid

[gentoo-dev] Re: The state of libav stabilisation

On 12/09/2018 12:38, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > Is there anyone still working on libav support? It appears to me that > transition[1] and stabilisation[2] trackers are stuck for a long time without > activity. Missing libav-12 stabilisation means that in several stable > packages, USE=libav

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add rust eclass to support multi-target compilation

On 31/07/2018 09:35, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:02 PM gibix wrote: > > As far as I know, the Rust ecosystem is largely bimodal: stuff is either > compatible with stable and later, or it works only on nightly. It seems > very rare that code is actually tied to a

[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestions for simplifying VIDEO_CARDS situation

On 17/06/2018 06:40, Matt Turner wrote: > I would like to somehow get rid of the 'classic' and 'gallium' USE > flags entirely, but I'm not totally sure how. Maybe I can enable them > dependent on VIDEO_CARDS... But shouldn't mesa have a software fallback for a good deal of those features?

[gentoo-dev] Re: Current status with openssl-1.1

On 09/06/2018 10:22, Lars Wendler wrote: > Hello dear Gentoo Devs, > > this is somewhat written out of frustration so please bear with me ;) > > CCing crypto@ in case they can provide some valuable input to the > topic. If not, sorry guys for wasting your time. > > As you might have noticed,

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

On 18/09/2017 11:56, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: So glibc-2.26 is already out for some time, but we still haven't keyworded it yet. Why? * I want to use the opportunity to make the long-delayed switchover from glibc-internal SunRPC (long deprecated and outdated) to external implementations

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] toolchain.eclass: add DEPEND to dev-libs/boehm-gc, bug #617788

On 5/9/17 7:15 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: > sys-devel/gcc-7.1.0 requires external dev-libs/boehm-gc, the internal > copy got removed [1]. > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=242985 > --- > eclass/toolchain.eclass | 6 ++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git

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

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]. > > I see that gcc-6.3 doesn't have keywords, so I'm > wondering when it will get them?

[gentoo-dev] Re: LLVM-3.9 news item for review

On 01/10/16 10:10, Michał Górny wrote: > explicitly selecting all targets. The item seems fine.

Re: [gentoo-dev] nftables

On 09/09/16 02:31, Ian Bloss wrote: > Anyone actively using nftables for their firewall over iptables? > Considering giving it a go as the syntax looks much nicer than iptables. > I'm using a bit and just works fine =) lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: LLVM

On 19/08/16 17:15, C Bergström wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> BTW is pathscale ready to be used as system compiler as well? > > I wish, but no. We have known issues when building grub2, glibc and > the Linux kernel at

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: LLVM

On 19/08/16 19:13, C Bergström wrote: > I finally got it to build and here's the size numbers > 952K./lib/libc++abi.a > 616K./lib/libc++abi.so.1.0 > > If the above isn't enough motivation and you really want benchmarks > which prove it's a pig... I'll try to figure something else > > Not

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: LLVM

On 19/08/16 05:11, C Bergström wrote: > I think you're getting a bit confused > > libsupc++ is the default now, from GNU > > libcxxabi is the bloated runtime from Apple > > libcxxrt is the faster c++ runtime, PathScale+David Chisnall, which > PathScale and FreeBSD use by default. We don't need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 18/04/16 00:50, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Does base-system object if I bump it to EAPI=5 before I commit the > ssl-cert patch? I'll start stabilization too obviously. > Please do.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 14:37, Rich Freeman wrote: > I've certainly haven't had many problems with dracut. When it fails > it is usually because I'm doing something ELSE that is off-the-wall > and it just doesn't have a plugin for it yet. (And in those cases it > isn't like the kernel tends to get it right

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 14:55, Rich Freeman wrote: > The purpose of a /usr merge is to get all the stateless stuff into one place. beside what you have in /etc ... usr-merge, in practice just moves early-boot/core tools where the rest of the userspace lives. > Some of the ultimate goals include: > 1. A

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 13:53, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote: >>> Thoughts on any of this? >> >> The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote: > Thoughts on any of this? The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting the very same stuff in the initrd when something different from busybox (or equivalent) is needed to get the early boot mounting. Do we have a reliable way to

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

On 16/02/16 19:05, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file > systems which happen to be pre-mounted from an initramfs [1]. Who is using

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

On 09/02/16 04:09, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> >> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work >> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. >> >> some of the criticism given here are my

Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtual: virtual/jack for jack protocol implementations

On 04/02/16 15:05, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Hi, > > We've been supporting jack sound server [1] for a long time. > Currently, we're supporting jack1 as > media-sound/jack-audio-connection-kit. However, jack2 has been out for > quite some time. > > As its name does not imply, jack2 is not really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 11/11/15 10:09, Michał Górny wrote: > I'd rather use the old standard 80. Minus 8 characters for friendly > e-mail quoting, which is also kinda 'old standard'. You can suggest as above, with this tone, and probably you would get some consensus. Personally I think 80col is nice since you can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

On 01/11/15 23:07, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/01/2015 12:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull >> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator >> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might

Re: [gentoo-powerpc] Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On 24/09/15 14:23, Leno Hou wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Leno Hou wrote: > >> >> 2. We believe to make Gentoo support ppc64le, we still need to compile >> kernel and bootloader >> >>- Which version of kernel provided by Gentoo would you suggest us to >>

Re: [gentoo-powerpc] Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On 12/08/15 11:46, Shuai Zhao wrote: 2015-08-12 15:47 GMT+08:00 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org: On 12 Aug 2015 15:20, Leno Hou wrote: **Most importantly, Any Ideas/steps of how to porting gentoo on ppc64le architecture?** do you have hardware ? then it's simply a matter of booting

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: pkg_needrebuild() API for smart-live-rebuild

On 07/08/15 19:01, Michał Górny wrote: Does this sound fine? It does Any suggestions? Having a reduced scope and not covering corner cases is fine now, so no =) [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482666

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Rebooting the Installer Project

On 18/07/15 21:01, Matthew Marchese wrote: I'd like to hear it all so please speak your mind. Looking forward to hearing from you. The plan is good, having multiple backends is a boon since then you can have large install images and tiny install images. An installer is basically covering

[gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections

On 27/02/15 08:45, Ben de Groot wrote: On 22 February 2015 at 03:43, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: To anyone within Gentoo who is interested in fonts I would like to announce a meeting to be held in #gentoo-meetings on Freenode, on Friday February 27 at 06:00 UTC, unless another date

Re: [gentoo-dev] arm64 update

On 19/02/15 01:05, Anthony G. Basile wrote: I have about $1000 in grant money. Want to recommend some equipment? The dragonboard might be good BUT there are doubts on software availability. lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

On 16/02/15 12:58, Mike Frysinger wrote: On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote: On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote: even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in Gentoo is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

On 14/02/15 19:41, Fabio Erculiani wrote: If only libav and ffmpeg developers would stop breaking their API on every release... Just break it once and for all. It's so sad that I still can't upgrade from libav-9 because of this. Feature request: could you stop breaking the API for a couple of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

On 09/02/15 10:17, Alexis Ballier wrote: (nb: you can see that this precise one is mostly fixed already.) I hope it is completely fixed already =\ lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

On 08/02/15 17:13, Alexis Ballier wrote: What we need instead of such endless debate happy bashing (been there, done that) is people doing the work. That's what will improve the distribution. I thought letting libav be the default would improve that; If nobody helps fixing the orphaned and

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

On 04/02/15 11:40, Michał Górny wrote: It's easiest to look at the trackers: - ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed, - ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more), - libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed, - libav-10 [4] -- 11/25 fixed. No offense here but in my experience, ffmpeg support in

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

On 04/02/15 14:25, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: By now it should be clear to most people that everything goes smoother, works better for the end user, and causes less breakage when *ffmpeg is the default, not libav*. Works better is a matter of perception, if I (and the few that help me not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Review: USE=libav news item

On 27/01/15 01:19, Gordon Pettey wrote: Chromaprint will work /differently/ depending on which is used. I added libav support to it, but the fingerprints are not the same as fingerprints generated when using ffmpeg. I've not gotten around to fixing that, so if such a list is being compiled it

Re: [gentoo-dev] arm64

On 25/01/15 03:57, Tom Gall wrote: Hi All, This is sort of a CFP in some ways but not quite that formal. I’ve been throttled back on arm64 for a bit as the hardware I’ve had access to has all been painfully remote and configured in ways that was less than optimal for massive key wording

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: USE=libav as replacement for broken || ( libav:= ffmpeg:= )

On 20/01/15 03:07, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 01/19/2015 05:44 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: I agree with your suggestion but I would prefer the Remi's approach of letting people to know if they want ffmpeg or libav, otherwise it is not so obvious to know what disabling/enabling one of that USE flags

Re: [gentoo-dev] Things one could be upset about

On 17/01/15 16:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 22:59:08 +0800 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: The problem isn't the constants, though. The problem is the resolution algorithm. There's not much point tweaking performance until the resolver is fixed to produce a correct

Re: [gentoo-dev] Things one could be upset about

On 19/01/15 16:47, hasufell wrote: I think you forgot an important point: * lack of practical QA: no review workflow and no appropriate tools for reviewing I could start a long text block about why reviewing is mandatory for QA, but let's just think about it this way: What do you think would

Re: [gentoo-dev] keywording gcc-4.9 branch

On 17/01/15 18:43, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Hi everyone, It looks like there aren't too many bugs against gcc-4.9 (bug #495124). There are a couple having to do with lto and one which is hardened specific, but its probably a good idea to start keywording on the various arches so we can get more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding my final year thesis

On 16/01/15 18:30, Jan Matejka wrote: On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:49:13 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 07/11/14 06:06, Harsh Bhatt wrote: Also make might enjoy improvements. shake? Anything written in haskell tend to be impractical to deploy. tup managed to get lots

Re: [gentoo-dev] metadata.xml unherd/-ization, v2

On 09/12/14 17:34, Michał Górny wrote: I'm all for keeping it simple. However, backwards compatibility makes it hard to keep things simple. I'd love to do, say, metadata.yml supporting stuff like: - maintainer: f...@gentoo.org, b...@gentoo.org - maintainer: - name: Foo Bar email:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make 'vaapi' USE flag global

On 28/11/14 13:20, Sergey Popov wrote: Packages that uses 'vaapi' local USE-flag: media-libs/avidemux-core media-libs/xine-lib media-tv/mythtv media-tv/xbmc media-video/avidemux media-video/ffmpeg media-video/hwdecode-demos media-video/libav. media-video/mpv media-video/vlc virtual/ffmpeg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

On 26/11/14 22:52, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:34:33 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: While it pains me to say this, unfortunately it looks like we have another toxic person situation to deal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding my final year thesis

On 07/11/14 06:06, Harsh Bhatt wrote: This idea seems bit interesting, about how the bug tracker works. In this i just need to confirm that how much mathematical aspect can be included. It's a good idea to work on. Also make might enjoy improvements. lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency

On 05/11/14 18:49, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/11/14 02:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote: When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual

Re: [gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency

On 05/11/14 02:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote: When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356 There is... some agreement, but also special cases and

Re: [gentoo-dev] terminal spreadsheet - sc fork

On 03/11/14 20:24, Andrés Martinelli wrote: Yes, Vim license was the base of it, as I noticed, at least by now, that it meets the requirements I thought necessary. About that mistake, thanks for noticing it. It will be corrected. Just: - change the name, it conflicts with another package. -

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

On 02/11/14 14:22, Pacho Ramos wrote: El dom, 02-11-2014 a las 13:07 +, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió: How do you strip the html code? I was unsure about to do that :/ You should have asked. There is no need to strip. I upload both HTML and text alike. Ah, ok. Anyway, if AxS can tell

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

On 01/11/14 11:47, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: The problem with it's trivial to do that in python so just do it is that first of all Python is not my language of choice, so the whole infrastructure is currently not written in Python at all. And all the people, including Luca, who promised they can

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of bugs blocking gcc-4.8.3

On 30/10/14 15:06, Jan Kundrát wrote: On Saturday, 25 October 2014 12:47:21 CEST, Luca Barbato wrote: The ABI mismatch is due the library not being versioned properly as usual? Please note that this would be a hard thing to do. This is not just a matter of calling an appropriate version

Re: [gentoo-dev] Clang toolchain [Was: status of bugs blocking gcc-4.8.3]

On 27/10/14 12:07, M. Ziebell wrote: Does clang compile glibc already? At the last GNU Cauldron the speaker said that clang fails because of:[1] - nested functions - VLAIS How did you avoid that problem? musl is known to work fine.

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of bugs blocking gcc-4.8.3

On 24/10/14 19:12, Anthony G. Basile wrote: bug 513386 - net-libs/webkit-gtk-2.4.3 - ./.libs/libwebkitgtk-3.0.so: undefined reference to `_ZNSt6chrono12steady_clock3nowEv@GLIBCXX_3.4.17' - This is a problem. It relates to abi mismatching with libstdc++. The ABI mismatch is due the library not

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of bugs blocking gcc-4.8.3

On 25/10/14 13:09, Matthias Maier wrote: Not sure if the llvm C++ runtime might help here or it is any better than the one provided by gnu, but might be a good time to gather volunteers to provide a mean to use clang as main compiler out of box. libc++ makes stricter ABI guarantees [1].

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: News item regarding c++98 vs c++11

On 20/10/14 00:53, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Hi everyone, I debated about whether to write a news item about c++11 abi. Usually our news items are about some change which requires user intervention. But this is just precautionary. With more packages needing c++11 because of source changes,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

On 27/09/14 15:19, Luca Barbato wrote: On 27/09/14 14:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim. Surely certain stuff might enjoy having

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

On 17/09/14 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote: The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build linux among the other stuff. Luca, bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any other package

Re: [gentoo-dev] My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

On 14/09/14 17:15, Kent Fredric wrote: On 15 September 2014 02:40, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: However, I'm wondering if it would be possible to restrict people from accidentally committing straight into github (e.g. merging pull requests there instead of to our main server).

Re: [gentoo-dev] My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

On 14/09/14 16:46, Michał Górny wrote: Of course, if we can't spare the resources to do intermediate updates, we may as well switch to cron-based update method. The mirror have a sync time, so basically regenerating the cache and pushing the tree with further toward the user can happen the same

Re: [gentoo-dev] My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

On 14/09/14 17:30, Patrick Lauer wrote: Are we going to disallow merge commits and ask devs to rebase local changes in order to keep the history clean? Is that going to be sane with our commit frequency? Which is our commit frequency? Worst case we can aggregate changes and push them in

Re: [gentoo-dev] My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

On 15/09/14 01:21, Patrick Lauer wrote: On Sunday 14 September 2014 15:42:15 hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer: Are we going to disallow merge commits and ask devs to rebase local changes in order to keep the history clean? Is that going to be sane with our commit frequency? You have to merge

[gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build linux among the other stuff. lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] python versioned libraries or not

On 08/12/13 00:44, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: yac y...@gentoo.org writes: Shouldn't pkg-conifg --libs handle this? Oh, good idea. But boost doesn't have pkg-config entries. Then I see this one, an upstream issue https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1094 Are you willing to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

On 29/09/13 04:12, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: It's just a starting point, though. I still don't have a clear plan yet. After reading carefully the thread Ulrich pointed out, it seems that refactoring ebuild/eclass is invevitable, which calls for an overlay to carry it on. That would be much

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in libreoffice ebuild

On 13/08/13 10:10, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: [3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take patches from a mailing list or provide some sane alias to cope with it's specific ways... lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.8 unmasking

On 14/08/13 01:40, Ryan Hill wrote: On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:13:13 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 13/08/13 03:41, Ryan Hill wrote: I don't see any reason to keep this masked other than bug #416069, which needs to be fixed anyways. How does Friday sound? https

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in libreoffice ebuild

On 14/08/13 17:56, Peter Stuge wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: [3] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/gerrit And all boils down to the fact gerrit needs to be fixed to take patches from a mailing list Usually Gerrit just needs an OpenID in order to accept git push via SSH

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.8 unmasking

On 13/08/13 03:41, Ryan Hill wrote: I don't see any reason to keep this masked other than bug #416069, which needs to be fixed anyways. How does Friday sound? https://bugs.gentoo.org/416069 xorg-2.eclass: add --disable-selective-werror to configure https://bugs.gentoo.org/461954 GCC 4.8

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

On 01/08/13 04:48, William Hubbs wrote: I would rather not carry distro-specific patches forever to support something like this, so please forward your patches upstream. The code is in a public git, it is even not written by me, anybody can forward it to upstream... lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

On 01/08/13 17:04, William Hubbs wrote: There is a hack in our udev and kmod ebuilds that makes it possible to build the static libraries, but I think we should remove that hack since upstream bans building them. linking statically makes the problem apparent, I guess isn't that wise hiding it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote: So esystemd and ekmod now? You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a jumble of bad and interesting ideas not so soundly implemented, I do not have much time or will to play with that thing. kmod on the other hand had a pressing issue and getting it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

On 01/08/13 19:46, Pacho Ramos wrote: El jue, 01-08-2013 a las 18:11 +0200, Luca Barbato escribió: On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote: So esystemd and ekmod now? You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a jumble of bad and interesting ideas not so soundly implemented, I do not have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

On 01/08/13 19:54, Samuli Suominen wrote: still, first the patch goes upstream and after upstream review and commit to git it goes in tree otherwise we opt to the fallback and disable udev from lvm2/cryptsetup when USE=static is enabled (like cryptsetup upstream suggested to me)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

On 01/08/13 23:53, Michał Górny wrote: That would be a lot of effort if upstream doesn't accept it and we end up patching it all the way... kmod isn't complex and probably could be made even a bit more compact, considering also the pace of its development and the kind of changes in the last

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

On 01/08/13 04:03, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as static builds. Robin, I'm curious what

Re: [gentoo-dev] new category: games-adventure/

On 07/14/2013 07:47 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 14/07/2013 18:42, Peter Stuge wrote: I bet you a tasty beverage that it will grow over time! :) I don't believe in the future until I can see it. I'm pretty sure that's the same thing that they said about app-antivirus at some point (can

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item preceding net-print/cups-1.6 stabilization

On 06/29/2013 12:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: script to your default runlevel). By default cups-browsed uses the basically the functionality got split in a stand alone daemon?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: eselect init

On 06/22/2013 12:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: After talking with WilliamH yesterday, I have this opinion: - Playing with /sbin/init (instead of /sbin/einit) has two interesting advantages: 1. For example, I now have init=/sbin/e4rat-preload in my grub.conf, if I do a typo, it would fallback to

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 06/21/2013 01:26 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: Thanks for the explanation. But I think that, currently, the only remaining objection is whether play with /sbin/init (that needs sysvinit to be changed if I don't misremember) or with /sbin/einit. Looks like mgorny has shown some problems on relying

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 06/21/2013 05:23 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: Fix the reason why the wrapper got broken then. If the wrapper broke, it is most likely a symptom of a bigger problem. I think that sysvinit's /sbin/init should be renamed to /sbin/sysvinit (or /bin/sysvinit?), anyway... /bin/init lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 06/21/2013 06:50 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:13:33PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: On 21 June 2013 16:29, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Dnia 2013-06-21, o godz. 10:16:10 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:23:28PM +0200,

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >