Re: [gentoo-dev] net-tools: relocation in profiles/

On Sunday 13 November 2011 12:26:25 Mike Frysinger wrote: > i noticed that we have net-tools listed in base/packages. considering this > is a Linux-only tool, this doesn't make sense anymore. so i'll be > relocating it to default/linux/packages. relocated -mike signature.as

Re: [gentoo-dev] elibtoolize/eautoreconf interactions and lazy eclasses/ebuilds

http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.109&r2=1.110 http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/libtool.eclass?r1=1.94&r2=1.95 -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Monday 14 November 2011 04:39:50 Patrick Lauer wrote: > Why do y'all want to make it harder for me to figure out you've already told you how to put it into verbose mode (it's all of one line in your make.conf). you do it once, and then you're done. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Sunday 13 November 2011 19:57:05 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Mike Frysinger schrieb: > >>>>> until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to > >>>>> be there. > >>>> > >>>> After net-too

Re: [gentoo-dev] conversion of USE=nocxx to USE=cxx

On Sunday 13 November 2011 16:42:39 Mike Gilbert wrote: > If I understand you correctly, you are just going to add a "cxx" use > flag to gcc for some transitional period? If so, I can simply switch it > at some point after you add the new flag? transition period: http://sources.gentoo.org/www-clie

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:50:25 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Mike Frysinger schrieb: > > On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:04:57 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Mike Frysinger schrieb: > >>> until we have replacement for all of its tools, it&#x

[gentoo-dev] conversion of USE=nocxx to USE=cxx

now that we have USE=cxx, and base/make.defaults has USE=cxx, i'd like to migrate gcc away from USE=nocxx. since this can be a pickle, i'd propose toolchain.eclass grow the checks: - use cxx && use nocxx && die - use !cxx && use !nocxx && die this way when i do cut over from USE=

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:04:57 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Mike Frysinger schrieb: > > until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be > > there. > > After net-tools is no longer needed for basic setups (which I understand > wil

Re: [gentoo-dev] elibtoolize/eautoreconf interactions and lazy eclasses/ebuilds

On Sunday 13 November 2011 12:45:50 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 11/13/2011 07:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > but i've hit this since with cross-compiling Linux targets: > > - pygobject ebuild inherits gnome2 eclass > > - pygobject's src_prepare

[gentoo-dev] elibtoolize/eautoreconf interactions and lazy eclasses/ebuilds

it seems we have some cases where eclasses/ebuilds interact poorly. for example, if an eclass runs eautoreconf or elibtoolize, and then the ebuild does some stuff where it ends up running eautoreconf, subsequent elibtoolize calls are skipped. this means that the work done by the earlier elibtooli

[gentoo-dev] net-tools: relocation in profiles/

i noticed that we have net-tools listed in base/packages. considering this is a Linux-only tool, this doesn't make sense anymore. so i'll be relocating it to default/linux/packages. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Sunday 13 November 2011 10:16:31 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Mike Frysinger schrieb: > > for basic setups, it is completely redundant. which is the only case > > we're talking about here. > [...] > > you keep saying "net-tools" when you actua

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Sunday 13 November 2011 05:48:40 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 11/12/11 11:24 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Most devs will be unhappy as it makes it harder to view the log while > > building. > > We can have a different default in the developer profile. the original reason for not doing this vi

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Friday 11 November 2011 17:01:43 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Do you need iproute2 at all? I think you could fall back to busybox if > iproute2 is not installed. that introduces an unnecessary level of instability for us to worry about imo. if we want iproute, we should execute `ip`

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Friday 11 November 2011 16:53:44 William Hubbs wrote: > has prompted a discussion of whether or not we should use ifconfig in > openrc to configure networking on linux systems. no, the discussion is whether we should continue to have ifconfig be an option at all, not "always use ifconfig". as

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Saturday 12 November 2011 20:26:54 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Joshua Saddler schrieb: > > if net-tools isn't being dropped from the system set, don't force our > > users to install redundant utilities. > > ip is not redundant. You need it for e.g. GRE tunnels. for basic setups, it i

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Saturday 12 November 2011 17:24:08 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 11/11/11 16:44, Zac Medico wrote: > >> good point. we don't want to punish old portage users. let's enable it > >> by default in portage itself then. just add `elog` output to the > >> portage ebuild to inform users of the change ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

On Friday 11 November 2011 10:50:47 Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/10/2011 10:59 PM, Duncan wrote: > > But please do at least einfo the change, and what to do to get back to > > non-quiet by default if desired. Someone mentioned a news item. I'm not > > sure it warrants that, but certainly an einfo, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Friday 11 November 2011 10:05:56 Nathan Phillip Brink wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:38:24AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > On 11/11/11 06:38 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > > sys-devel/autoconf-archive - binki > > I'll take autoconf-archive, unless if someone else wants it. i was going

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Thursday 10 November 2011 22:23:57 Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/10/2011 07:17 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 11/10/2011 06:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Thursday 10 November 2011 21:11:38 Zac Medico wrote: > >>> On 11/10/2011 05:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Friday 11 November 2011 06:38:00 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > sys-devel/autoconf-archive i'd been updating this for years ... didn't realize someone else had taken it over ;). i'll move it to base-system herd. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Thursday 10 November 2011 21:11:38 Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/10/2011 05:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:39:11 Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> if you want quiet portage output, use something like --quiet when > >> running emerge. the ve

[gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:39:11 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 10 November 2011 19:09:28 Luca Barbato wrote: > > On 11/5/11 1:58 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote: > > > I'd like to ask that we enable verbose building by default. I have > > > cmake-utils.eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] enable verbose build whenever it's possible

On Thursday 10 November 2011 19:09:28 Luca Barbato wrote: > On 11/5/11 1:58 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote: > > I'd like to ask that we enable verbose building by default. I have > > cmake-utils.eclass in mind, because it's dead easy there, but there's a > > lot of packages that support things like "make

[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.14.1 destined for ~arch

now that glibc-2.14 no longer breaks all rpc packages, i'll be adding 2.14.1 in a bit and then moving it to ~arch later this week. a package or two is broken by this, but i think we're in a good state to see wider testing. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message par

Re: [gentoo-dev] enew{user,group}: killing off [extra] argument

On Sunday 06 November 2011 13:33:48 Petteri Räty wrote: > On 03.11.2011 17:30, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/user.eclass?r1=1.8&r2=1.9 > > Less than a day is quite a short time for people to comment. Also it > would be better to include the diff

Re: [gentoo-dev] enew{user,group}: killing off [extra] argument

http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/user.eclass?r1=1.8&r2=1.9 -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] Re: portability.eclass: dead egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled funcs ?

On Wednesday 26 October 2011 19:40:24 Mike Frysinger wrote: > i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell, > is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for > keeping these before i punt them ? hmm, seems a few packages in the tree want this funct

[gentoo-dev] enew{user,group}: killing off [extra] argument

when i first wrote enew{user,group} oh-so-long-ago, the reason for the [extra] arguments was the assumption that i am short sighted. i figured someone would come up with some creative need for passing additional flags that i couldn't possibly think of. however, in the ~9 years since, all i hav

[gentoo-dev] Re: portability.eclass: dead egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled funcs ?

On Wednesday 26 October 2011 19:40:24 Mike Frysinger wrote: > i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell, > is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for > keeping these before i punt them ? http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/user.eclass?r1=1

Re: [gentoo-dev] redundant code in toolchain.eclass?

On Wednesday 26 October 2011 10:20:54 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > The second IUSE+=" nossp" seems redundant and could be removed, right? looks like a fix was committed: http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.473&r2=1.474 -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally

Re: [gentoo-dev] portability.eclass: dead egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled funcs ?

On Sunday 30 October 2011 18:33:51 Petteri Räty wrote: > On 27.10.2011 2.40, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell, > > is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for > > keeping these before i punt the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:47, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. > > I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P i wouldn't bother as it's most likely not going to be accepted at

[gentoo-dev] portability.eclass: dead egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled funcs ?

i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for keeping these before i punt them ? -mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers

hopefully i didn't break anything before i go to sleep ;D http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.474&r2=1.475 http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/eutils.eclass?r1=1.366&r2=1.367 -mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: removing newnet from openrc

i'm indifferent to the newnet status -mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH scons-utils] Support setting common SCons arguments using myesconsargs.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:46, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:42:24 + Nathan Phillip Brink wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:20:37PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: >> > --- >> >  scons-utils.eclass |   33 + >> >  1 files changed, 25 insertions(+),

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving more hardening features to default?

On Thursday 20 October 2011 23:20:35 Duncan wrote: > Magnus G suggests possibly adding PIE to amd64, which is already PIC, this isn't quite right. amd64 shared objects (i.e. libraries) are PIC. the applications are not. > Still, speaking as an ~amd64 user myself, that's certainly an acceptable

[gentoo-dev] user management mitigation

with the previously proposed/accepted GLEP 27 stalled, i'm looking into mitigating the current suckiness of enew{user,group}/egetent. the first step is simple: let's split these funcs out of eutils.eclass and into a dedicated eclass. this makes it trivial for people externally to override the

Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers

On Thursday 20 October 2011 16:01:01 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 10/20/11 9:22 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > alright, use_if_iuse. That's my last bikeshed for today. > > I think this is the best one. I didn't really like any of the previously > proposed names, but this one is good. yeah, this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more hardening features to default?

On Thursday 20 October 2011 12:47:27 Rich Freeman wrote: > I was trying to draw a contrast between passive things like > stack-protection and things that really get in your face like MAC. the trouble was in the context quoting then ... it sounded like you were proposing PaX by default i am a fan

Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers

On Thursday 20 October 2011 11:58:44 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 01:26 Thu 20 Oct , Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 October 2011 15:40:50 Brian Harring wrote: > > > Name's a bit off though considering if the host was amd64, `huse amd64` > > > would

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more hardening features to default?

On Thursday 20 October 2011 08:41:55 Rich Freeman wrote: > 2011/10/20 Tomáš Chvátal: > > I would say that most hardened features should be merged to to main > > profile as soon as they won't cause major PITA for the regular users. > > I agree - especially for stuff that doesn't require active setu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more hardening features to default?

On Thursday 20 October 2011 04:47:14 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > I've noticed > , i.e. > Debian is starting to make more and more hardening features default, at > least for most packages. seems a bit light on what actually is being us

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving more hardening features to default?

On Thursday 20 October 2011 07:46:57 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno gio, 20/10/2011 alle 06.40 -0400, Anthony G. Basile ha scritto: > > It would probably be nearly painless to bring in -D_FORTIFY_SOURCES=2 > > and ssp into mainstream though. Packages which break because of > > either > > of

Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers

On Wednesday 19 October 2011 15:40:50 Brian Harring wrote: > Name's a bit off though considering if the host was amd64, `huse amd64` > would return 1 since it's not in IUSE. good point. how about "iuse_use" ? or "use_iuse" ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message p

Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers

On Wednesday 19 October 2011 14:53:07 Brian Harring wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the > > toolchain.eclass supports multiple versions in parallel, and the IUSE > > v

Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers

On Wednesday 19 October 2011 14:05:50 Mike Frysinger wrote: > now that we have "in_iuse" in eutils.eclass (with all the caveats), i'll be > adding huse: > huse() { > in_iuse $1 || return 1 > use $1 > } actually, after p

[gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers

i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the toolchain.eclass supports multiple versions in parallel, and the IUSE value can vary greatly between them. so doing `use foo` without checking IUSE first doesn't work. since i got a request to use this in other eclasses (for t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev

On Saturday 15 October 2011 03:29:54 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:06:03 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote > > > We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to > > > make a compelling platform that "just wor

Re: [gentoo-dev] new helper: econf_build

On Friday 14 October 2011 03:08:14 Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > On 10/14/11 01:48, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so: > > CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \ > > CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:15:54 Sebastian Luther wrote: > WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency > conflict: > > dev-python/numpy:0 > (dev-python/numpy-1.6.0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts > with ~dev-python/numpy-1.5.1 required by > (sci-mathemat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: libtool.eclass documentation

On Friday 30 September 2011 11:27:18 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno ven, 30/09/2011 alle 11.06 -0400, Mike Frysinger ha scritto: > > and azarah ;) > > Right, by the way have you (or anyone else) got any news of him? > > > want to do a brain dump into

Re: [gentoo-dev] new helper: econf_build

On Thursday 13 October 2011 21:41:02 Alec Warner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so: > >CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \ > >CXXFLAGS=$

[gentoo-dev] new helper: econf_build

i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so: CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \ CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \ CPPFLAGS=${BUILD_CPPFLAGS} \ LDFLAGS=${BUILD_LDFLAGS} \ CC=$(tc-getBUILD_CC) \ LD=$(tc-getBUILD_LD) \

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev

On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:55:45 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote: > >> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev

On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote: > While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly > haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the > existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not > write a wrapper script to tr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev

On Thursday 13 October 2011 11:17:07 Olivier Crête wrote: > That said, we, the GNOME upstream, think that having a separate /usr is > a completely stupid idea. considering GNOME's track record wrt what they think is a "good idea" in the UI land, i'm not sure this statement is terribly compelling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Build dependencies and upgrades.

On Thursday 13 October 2011 01:33:07 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:20:23 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote: > > > How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to > > > `apt-get up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Build dependencies and upgrades.

On Tuesday 11 October 2011 14:50:27 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) > This can be inconvenient since security issues fixed in those left over > packages won't be applied properly. `glsa-check -f affected`. i thought there was talk of an automatic @security set at some point, but not s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Build dependencies and upgrades.

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 23:26:28 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote: > >> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to > >> `apt-get up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Build dependencies and upgrades.

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote: > How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to > `apt-get upgrade`? isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed` -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:58:31 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > Mike Frysinger schrieb: > >>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. > >> > >> by splitting my reply, you chan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:27:41 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Mike Frysinger schrieb: > >> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. > > > > by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the > > tree with a depend on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 17:42:47 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Mike Frysinger schrieb: > > otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post. > > If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it, > then it is obviously not common. you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:57:45 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > 2011/10/12 Mike Frysinger: > > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote: > >> If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \ > > > > admittedly, i hit this every onc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote: > If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \ admittedly, i hit this every once in a while, and with all the "|| die" being implicit, it doesn't get caught right away. fortunately latest portage will issue a QA war

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC upgrades, FUD and gentoo documentation

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:38:47 Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > >> Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto: > >> > - Th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:19:25 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote: > > Michał Górny wrote: > >> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves > >> readability. Simple example: > >> > >> # bug #123456, foo, bar > >> epatch "${FILESDIR

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC upgrades, FUD and gentoo documentation

On Saturday 08 October 2011 18:57:23 James Cloos wrote: > > "SV" == Sven Vermeulen writes: > SV> - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds > SV> from that version onwards should not be needed > > That is not generally true. > > I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC upgrades, FUD and gentoo documentation

On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto: > > - The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now part of the toolchain > > eclass, so > > > > doesn't need to be ran by users anymore > > Moreover, that should on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:26:12 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a > > Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in > > Redhat's direction. Our community

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Sunday 02 October 2011 16:40:18 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary > ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch > systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because > of this. yes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Sunday, October 02, 2011 16:00:30 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > I agree that a downgrade is a bit inconvenient for users. But if another > package is built later with DEPEND on newer linux-headers or emerge > --deep option, then it will get upgraded again. As no package runtime > depends

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

On Sunday, October 02, 2011 08:58:19 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Samuli Suominen schrieb: > >> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that > >> downgrades are unacceptable. > >> > >>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form. > >> > >> It set

[gentoo-dev] libtool.eclass documentation

On Friday, September 30, 2011 06:45:05 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno gio, 29/09/2011 alle 16.57 -0500, Donnie Berkholz ha scritto: > > Is this documented anywhere besides the comment immediately above the > > implementation? Would be nice for anyone who writes a libtool patch > > to > > be

Re: [gentoo-dev] libtool.eclass update to allow @...@ replacements in patches

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 17:57:27 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 13:28 Thu 29 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: > > cleaned up ELT_try_and_apply_patch a bit, and added support for > > @GENTOO_LIBDIR@ in patches > > Is this documented anywhere besides the comment

[gentoo-dev] edos2unix will now `die` for you

once i double check the tree, i'll be changing `edos2unix` to die automatically when the sed calls (since edos2unix is really just a single call to sed). -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] libtool.eclass update to allow @...@ replacements in patches

cleaned up ELT_try_and_apply_patch a bit, and added support for @GENTOO_LIBDIR@ in patches -mike --- libtool.eclass +++ libtool.eclass @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass" -inherit toolchain-funcs +inherit multilib toolchain-funcs ELT_PATCH_DIR="${ECLASSDIR}/ELT-pa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Bugzilla maintenance outage 2011/09/26 06:30 UTC

sounds like a lot of hub bub over nothing -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev and /usr

On Sunday, September 25, 2011 21:57:27 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > But neither portage, nor the portage tree, nor any of our branding are > shipped with ChromeOS. Hence it's as much a Gentoo install as $company > that uses portage to build $image for their embedded device, but > doesn't leave any tra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev and /usr

On Sunday, September 25, 2011 08:53:08 Rich Freeman wrote: > However, I can't seem to find a chromeos-meta package in portage, and > the fact that my chromeos laptop has some feature does me little good > in getting my Gentoo desktop to do the same. At best ChromeOS is a > fork of Gentoo, and the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev and /usr

On Sunday, September 25, 2011 05:53:18 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'm a bit concerned that the future of linux on the desktop is going to > >> be o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 14:18, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote: >>> Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather >>> more negative effects than one m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev and /usr

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'm a bit concerned that the future of linux on the desktop is going to be > one where your choices are things like Android, ChromeOS, Ubuntu, Gnome OS, > or a "KDE OS."  Each one would have its own package managers, repositories, > distros, APIs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:10:43 -0400 as excerpted: >> it was purely to keep people from continuing to whine with circular >> logic.  if bugzilla had a way to temporarily lock comments, i would >> have use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 09/24/2011 08:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> the defines in question are internal to zlib.  packages relying on them >> are broken, plain and simple. > > Then fix *them*, not zlib. they are being fixed already &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] zlib breakage

On Friday, September 23, 2011 17:44:50 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > I believe something needs to be done with the zlib-1.2.5.1-r1 and -r2 > packages currently in the tree. The maintainer of zlib pushed those > revisions with a patch that alters macro identifiers, making Gentoo's > zlib incompatible

Re: [gentoo-dev] zlib breakage

On Friday, September 23, 2011 18:02:50 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > It's a mess right now and it just doesn't look right. The bug that > > > > deals with it was locked from public view: > >https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383179 > > Is there any good reason why this bug is dev-only?

Re: [gentoo-dev] zlib breakage

On Friday, September 23, 2011 19:30:15 Alec Warner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > > > > wrote: > >> Because he cannot do this; the bug is dev-only now and Mike un-cc'ed him > >> after setting the group re

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: virtual/{cron,dev-manager,inetd,libc,linux-sources,man,os-headers,package-manager,skkserv,ssh,w3m}

On Thursday, September 22, 2011 14:23:55 Tim Harder wrote: > On 2011-09-22 Thu 01:53, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > In the course of the old-style to new-style transition of virtuals, > > I had taken maintainership of several new-style virtual packages. > > > > After several months have passed without

Re: [gentoo-dev] new `usex` helper

since there's been no new feedback in a while, i'll add this to eutils.eclass in a while: usex() { use "$1" && echo "${2-yes}$4" || echo "${3-no}$5" ; } then once it hits the PMS, i'll put EAPI wrapping around it. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't use IUSE=static-libs unless really necessary

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:36:57 Thomas Kahle wrote: > On 09:10 Mon 19 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:39:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 19,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please don't use IUSE=static-libs unless really necessary

On Monday, September 19, 2011 20:58:41 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday, September 19, 2011 18:25:36 Duncan wrote: > > By default? That's begging the question (logic sense) and consequently > > does not properly support your blanket "your system is using static > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please don't use IUSE=static-libs unless really necessary

On Monday, September 19, 2011 18:25:36 Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:05:39 -0400 as excerpted: > > On Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35:09 Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:11:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > > &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't use IUSE=static-libs unless really necessary

On Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35:09 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:11:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries > > > > since upstream doesn't even support static linking > &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't use IUSE=static-libs unless really necessary

On Monday, September 19, 2011 10:57:30 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:43:04 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday, September 19, 2011 03:10:45 Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:39:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Sunda

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't use IUSE=static-libs unless really necessary

On Monday, September 19, 2011 03:10:45 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:39:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > '$(use_ena

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't use IUSE=static-libs unless really necessary

On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > '$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it may be > > better to just drop the flag if no other package relies on it and no > > user has ever requested the st

[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.13 stabilization

'bout that time again. if you peeps know of anything blocking glibc-2.13 from going stable, mark the relevant bug as blocking the tracker. tracker: https://bugs.gentoo.org/354107 stabilization: https://bugs.gentoo.org/382377 -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message p

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >