On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:08:53 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > rsync -rlpgo . "${EGIT_SOURCEDIR}" \
>
> this means you need to have DEPEND="net-misc/rsync". why not just use
> `cp -pPR` instead ? i vaguely recall rsync being slower than a
> straight cp too ... not much point of doing a rsync wh
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:09:46 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/21/11 11:02 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > It does to me, I use them all the time. ;) The important part is that we
> > install the test results, which can then be used for regression testing when
> >
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:07:33 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> sys-devel/gcc runs tests, but the results are ignored and I remember the
> tests fail most of the time.
s/most/all
> Because the tests take long time to run and fail anyway (I understand
> it's non-trivial to fix those on Gentoo s
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:27:21 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> # Ryan Hill (12 Mar 2011)
> # Mask net-p2p/bittorrent for removal 20110412 (#336166)
> # Dead upstream. Requires wxpython-2.6 which is being removed.
> # Doesn't build with python-2.6. Doesn't start.
> net-p2p/b
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:37:28 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> Shouldn't that last line look more like this (notice $retval instead of $?):
>
> [[ $retval -ne 0 ]] && die "${FUNCNAME}: the ${VIRTALX_COMMAND} failed."
Sure looks like it to me.
--
fonts, gcc-porting, it m
# Ryan Hill (12 Mar 2011)
# Mask net-p2p/bittorrent for removal 20110412 (#336166)
# Dead upstream. Requires wxpython-2.6 which is being removed.
# Doesn't build with python-2.6. Doesn't start.
net-p2p/bittorrent
--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it make
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:25:10 +
"Kevin F. Quinn" wrote:
> I would guess these old untouched bugs aren't actually going to be
> touched, ever - a lot simply won't be relevant any more for one reason
> or another. All they're doing is cluttering up bugzilla.
I never understand this argument.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:52:19 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:06:54 +0100
> Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
>
> > > Status = NEW && Assignee = bug-wranglers -> Status = UNCONFIRMED
> > > Status = NEW && Assignee = [maintainer] -> Status = CONFIRMED
> >
> > Who confirms the bug?
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:23:03 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 1) it has freedesktop web page, and we should preffer fdo alternatives
> anyway
> 2) it has existing git repo (could not find repo for the va you use)
> 3) debian/archlinux/fedora use this one I commited, not former one.
> 4) the bug was re
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:37:27 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Have you thought about doing something like what was done for wxwidgets ?
>
> - an eselect module for out of portage builds
> - an eclass creating symlinks for libpng.pc/.so in $T and setting the correct
> -L flag for the linker and PKG
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:40:53 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/10/2011 11:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> I'm not sure if you understand opensync then, there's 3-4 series in tree
> and mostly not compatible with each other:
> 0.22, 0.36, 0.39 and latest being live .
0.39 is fixed. 0.3
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:24:14 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 14.23 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
> scritto:
> >
> > But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are
> > rather old.
> > While the source code isn't that large a problem for G
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:49:53 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto:
> > Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for
> > packages
> > several people depend on, maybe try looking for a
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:23:08 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen (10 Feb 2011)
> # Unmaintained and completely broken wrt bugs
> # 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501, 298109,
> # 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483,
> # 352506, 237366, 250054
> # Remov
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:04:11 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Maybe we also need a guideline that whenever possible, ebuilds should
> accept the default USE flags from our profiles as a valid combination?
> Or, in the exceptional case when that isn't possible, a package.use
> entry should be added to
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:29:11 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> EAPI 4 introduced the REQUIRED_USE variable, which allows to impose
> restrictions on the allowed USE flag combinations for an ebuild.
>
> On the other hand, according to the devmanual, our policy on
> conflicting USE flags is as follows:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:52:55 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> It seems that with glibc-2.13 there are some serious compatibility
> issues. There are good warnings on the planet
> (http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html), but not every ~arch user
> reads the planet, so how about creating news
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:09:30 +0100
Luca Longinotti wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 13:47:55 +0100
> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>
> > Le dimanche 06 février 2011 à 23:52 -0600, Jeremy Olexa a écrit :
> > > As for the "re-syncing all files thing" - I can't reproduce that,
> > > though I've seen mul
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 18:04:03 +0100
Luca Longinotti wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:50:20 -0600
> Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The CVS->RSYNC service has moved hosts and now we generate the
> > use.local.desc file via egencache.
>
> Hi, could any of this cause a (kinda) full res
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:30:12 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:19:51 -0600
> Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > Probably OT, sorry. Isn't it time we gained this concept of "noarch"
> > for packages that only install text files or packages that don't
> > compile anything...
>
> No, s
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:38:03 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Every arch teams should stabilise OR write out reason why they can't do
> so to stable bug in 90 days. If any arch team fails to do so the
> maintainer can decide to drop their keywords to testing. Given depgraph
> breakages the maintainer
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:31:20 +0100
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as well)
> has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages
> stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list what
> exceptions exist, I
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:20:27 -0600
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main tree
> and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for both, like
> tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/. In the same vein, there's no good reason
> I can think
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:49:38 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> People seem to have started using blockers with package moves recently.
> For example, if cat/a is being moved to cat/b, people have started
> putting !cat/a as a dependency in cat/b. This is bad, for two reasons.
It's bad for a couple
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:19 + (UTC)
"Markos Chandras (hwoarang)" wrote:
> hwoarang11/01/12 20:19:19
>
> Modified: ChangeLog
> Added:chm2pdf-0.9.1-r1.ebuild
> Log:
> Make it depend on dev-libs/chmlib[examples]. Bug #351321
a) sorry for causing this bu
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 00:08:34 -0500
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, January 01, 2011 23:09:11 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that
> > even on recompile, older library versions could be linked in even
> > on recompile.
>
> you'll need to
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:02:32 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Opinions?
I don't mind a warning, but I'll tell you right now there is no way I'm
using anything other than EAPI 0 for toolchain packages. Mike might
disagree but I don't think anyone feels like rewriting and auditing
toolchain.eclass f
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:25:04 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> So would anyone be especially opposed to making "best leftmost" an
> explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at least for
> the >= / < case)?
I already thought that was the case, so +1 from me.
--
fonts, gcc-porting
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:13:08 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> I've been reading this thread, but I don't understand why we need to
> worry about this since the newer versions of gcc can figure it out
> automatically
> by using -march=native?
Absolutely, -march=native should be used if you aren't us
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:01:13 -0400
"Sergio D. Rodríguez Inclan" wrote:
> El 12/12/2010 02:46 a.m., Ryan Hill escribió:
> > I think the fewer sources of magic USE flags the better. Maybe we could
> > document how to figure out what instruction sets a processor sup
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:09:08 -0500
ross smith wrote:
> Perhaps something along the lines of: If CPU_FLAGS is empty or not defined,
> set flags based on the -march and -mtune variables. If CPU_FLAGS is set,
> respect what has been set there and ignore the other logic for defaults.
-march flags
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:01:16 +
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I agree that this could be better. To me, most of the problems with
> this are due to users not knowing which of these should be set for
> their particular CPU.
>
> Inste
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:57:58 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Among all CPU extensions USE flags you'll find:
>
> 3dnow
> 3dnowext
> mmx
> mmxext
> sse
> sse2
> sse3
> sse4
> sse4a
> sse5
> ssse3
>
> I probably missed a few, there.
sse4.1, sse4.2, avx
sse5 was a draft, it was never implemented.
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:29:45 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 03/12/2010 alle 19.46 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto:
> >
> > This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.
>
> Or resume the idea to simply provide a separate variable
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:25:21 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le vendredi 03 décembre 2010 à 21:54 +0100, Cyprien Nicolas a écrit :
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 21:25, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > Please also find in these patches a proposal of a waf-utils eclass in
> > > order to put wa
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:36:15 +
Graham Murray wrote:
> Mike Frysinger writes:
>
> > well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the
> > masked
> > package, but once it was unmasked, we revbump it just once at that point.
Gotcha.
> Is there somewhere which tells use
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:32:30 -0800
spinugio wrote:
> is emerging sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1-r1 enough?
Yep.
--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.orgEFFD 38
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use
> > live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :)
> >
> > But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over
> > package.mask. In fact
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:11:53 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
> they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use
live ebuilds. I'd
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:59:25 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> > Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention
> > to what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people
> > who know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain
> > revbumps are expensive a
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +0200
Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> > Alistair Bush wrote:
> >
> > > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> &
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
Alistair Bush wrote:
> > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to
what's going on behind the scenes. They're
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
> > who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some
> &
I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
patches added recently (see ChangeLog).
As always, bugs in packages should be assigned to that package's maintainer.
Bugs in GCC should be assi
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:37:51 -0500
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:00:00 -0500
> > Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> >> Should we target package versions that aren't stabilized on other
> >&
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:00:00 -0500
Matt Turner wrote:
> Should we target package versions that aren't stabilized on other
> architectures yet, so that we'll have an extended testing period
> before they'll come up for stabilization? That is, can I plan to make
> gcc-4.5.1 or something the first r
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:44:39 +0200
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > src_prepare() {
> > sed -i "/^OCAMLOPTFLAGS/s/$/ -ccopt \"\$(CFLAGS)
> > \$(LDFLAGS)\"/" Makefile }
>
> Make this sed line die, just in case.
Is your intention to die if it stops matching anything? sed won't throw an
error
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:52:42 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> The meaning is identical in all those cases, and I think the number of
> packages may have hit the threshold for a global flag.
>
> <...>
>
> If we'd make system-sqlite a global USE flag, I'd suggest a description
> like "Use the sy
We'll be unmasking GCC 4.5 soon. I was planning on this weekend but next
weekend is more likely. If you have open bugs on the tracker, please take a
look at them now.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=296658&hide_resolved=1
Thanks.
--
fonts, gcc-porting, we hold ou
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:47:38 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Пнд, 27/09/2010 в 11:37 +, Dirkjan Ochtman (djc) пишет:
> >> src_compile() {
> >> use static && sed -i -e '/^LIBS/s/LIBS = /LIBS = -static /' Makefile
> >>
> >> e
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:25:38 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Something I forgot to ask before: are the 'always overflow' warnings new
> > w/ GCC 4.5 / glibc 2.12? If they're new w/ 4.5 then we don't have a
> > problem.
>
> the fortify warnings typically come from glibc, not gcc. i dont believ
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:43:28 +0200
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1]
> this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if
> nobody can actually come up with a good reason not to, I'm going to ask
> Zac tomorrow to re-
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:49:29 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> # Ryan Hill (19 Sep 2010)
> # Mask for removal 20101019 (bug #304621).
> # Use font-cronyx-cyrillic instead.
> media-fonts/cronyx-fonts
>
Turns out font-cronyx-cyrillic isn't a suitable replacement. Reverted.
--
# Ryan Hill (19 Sep 2010)
# Mask for removal 20101019 (bug #304621).
# Use font-cronyx-cyrillic instead.
media-fonts/cronyx-fonts
--
fonts, gcc-porting, we hold our breath, we spin around the world
toolchain, wxwidgetsyou and me cling to the outside of the earth
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:42:56 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> This is a matter of perspective. To you it might look like torture and
> pay-back, but for the guys doing it it could be "making sure he
> follows all the guidelines".
By nitpicking his commit messages? So far that's the only thing anyo
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:34:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
> > >
> > > while you're here, i'd change to:
> > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}
> >
> > Why
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:42:02 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Controling the test USE flag alone without the test FEATURE is useless, since
> it wont run the
> src_test phase.
...then don't do that? :P
> And being able to disable the test USE flag with FEATURES=test will result in
> missing deps o
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:02:00 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> From discussion on IRC, it seems, like there are different options, so i
> would like to clarify this
> policy:
>
> The test USE flag is (i am only talking about portage now, since i am most
> familar with it) an
> internal flag, which
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:59:25 +1200
Alistair Bush wrote:
> There should be nothing stopping a user from running a mixed arch/~arch
> system. Those problems just point to our dependency information not being
> recorded correctly. It might be understandable that this info can be
> incredibly
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:10:51 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> > +
> > +*hachoir-parser-1.3.4 (10 Sep 2010)
> > +
> > + 10 Sep 2010; Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> > + -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild, +hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild:
> > + Version bump.
> >
>
> Deleting an older version is rele
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:53:22 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Pacho Ramos posted on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:05:34 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > El mié, 08-09-2010 a las 01:44 +0400, dev-ran...@mail.ru escribió:
> >> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 09:30:34PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> >
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:39:59 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:32, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > After a discussion on IRC, a few of us were considering the value of
> > adding suggestions on handling of bugs in Bugzilla from a developer (and
> > editbugs user) perspective.
>
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:00:38 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails
> > you
> > can use...
> As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to do it since they
> follow all the bug progress after all. So according to you
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:35:56 +0200
Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> > > the LDFLAGS.
> >
> > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:14:28 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> that's crap. fix the package or at least work around it:
> LDFLAGS=`echo ${LDFLAGS}`
>
> we shouldnt be forced to add random hacks throughout the tree because
> of one or two random broken packages
Yes, I meant don't commit it until so
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:43:35 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> The thing is, you can't right now. :D LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
> have to do something like
>
> --- targets/developer/make.defaults 26 Jul 2010 19:15:05 - 1.9
> +++ targets/developer/ma
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:11:42 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Could someone guide me to add --hash-style=gnu to default/linux/amd64/dev
> profile? I don't want to break anything
The thing is, you can't right now. :D LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
have to do something like
--- targets/develop
# Ryan Hill (12 Aug 2010)
# Mask for removal 20100912
# Dead upstream (last release 2006), broken, needs wxGTK-2.6.
# Bug #330585
app-crypt/wxchecksums
--
fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgetsto keep us
# Ryan Hill (12 Aug 2010)
# Mask for removal 20100912
# No maintainer, dead upstream (last release 2004), needs wxGTK-2.6.
# Bug #332559
media-gfx/zphoto
--
fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgetsto keep us
Just a heads up - we're going to be dropping wxGTK and wxpython 2.6 sometime
in the near-ish future. If you have packages still depending on these
versions, please migrate them to 2.8 and drop versions using 2.6. If your
package doesn't work with 2.8 then it probably hasn't seen a release in the
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 10:57:34 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> I suggest making the dev profiles just pull in a binutils version that
> automatically enables the support (excluding profiles where binutils is
> not used).
Cutting off a portion of binutils versions in the tree to developers
does not see
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:02:35 -0400
Jonathan Callen wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 01:26 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > We default to --hash-style=both everywhere which already covers it.
>
> No it does not, for two reasons: one, the portage QA check is run only
> if LDFLAGS actually c
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:39:01 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>
> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even respect
> LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS, we will
> probably find yet more packages
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:36:17 -0500
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 11:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > Since the QA trigger in portage is based on --hash-style=gnu,
> > you'd have to make that the default as well to find a package
> > ignoring LDFLAGS...
>
> Put that in the dev profile(s) t
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:41:12 +0200
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I like that one better.
>
>
> Both proposals leave a question open to me, though:
> Do I understand correctly that I could integrate the in-profile value with
>
> LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} foo bar"
>
> in /etc/make.conf? Maybe that's
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:23:03 +0200
Matti Bickel wrote:
> On 07/17/2010 09:58 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
> > since there's no dev-lang/php-5.1* version in the tree anymore, this
> > eclass is useless. It will be removed on 17th August 2010.
>
> I've just been told by scarabeus that eclass removal is
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:53:07 -0500
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 02:50 PM, Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) wrote:
> > -LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"
> > +LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 ${LDFLAGS}"
>
> My existing, custom, entry for LDFLAGS breaks with this change. Not nice.
>
> %% grep LDFLAGS /etc/make.conf
> LDFLAGS
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:19:09 + (UTC)
"Markos Chandras (hwoarang)" wrote:
> hwoarang10/07/11 21:19:09
>
> Modified: make.defaults
> Log:
> log eqawarn messages
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.7 profiles/targets/developer/make.defaults
>
Commits to p
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:34:37 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:30:42AM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> > The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from
> > eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council
> > should set common rules
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:56:52 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> YFYI: yet another of my ebuilds kicked-down.
>
> It's an improved version of procmail, which automatically creates
> missing maildir directories.
Upstream first (TM).
--
fonts, gcc-porting,
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
> that are using OpenRC then?
> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I
> am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least.
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:29:44 +0200 (CEST)
Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > If your build system sets -ffast-math or -fstrict-aliasing
> > then the user can disable this by setting -fno-fast-math
> > or -fno-strict-aliasing in their CFLAGS.
>
> Just because s
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:04:10 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 07/01/2010 11:00 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >[...]
> > The way to control compiler flags in Gentoo is CFLAGS.
>
> That is true. However, there's a problem; you can control package
> options of individual
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:44:17 +0200 (CEST)
Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Upstream is free to use whatever CFLAGS they see fit, as long as the
> > user has the option of disabling them. This is simply done by appending
> > the user's CFLAGS to those of the buil
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:53:19 +0200 (CEST)
Vaeth wrote:
> (Sorry that this mail does not contain the proper "References:";
> I am not a regular reader of this list and therefore cannot "reply").
>
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > USE flags should not affect
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:25:32 +
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> What is the consensus on if the metadata.xml specifies that it will add
> CFLAGS? Surely it is not as black/white as the global suggests..?
>
> local:debug:app-portage/eix: Build with CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS for debugging
> support; not recommend
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:02:50 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> I see more and more calls for either 1) "fixing the test suite", as if
> that is suddenly not an UPSTREAM issue but the ebuilds' maintainers'
> When instead a test suite should do a SKIP but erroneously does a FAIL,
> then RESTRICT=test i
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:47:54 +0400
Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Сбт, 05/06/2010 в 02:00 +0200, Torsten Veller пишет:
> > Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2010/2011 are now open for the next
> > two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2010).
> >
> > All nominations must be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing l
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:11:45 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> What do you think about doing the following change in
> /usr/portage/profiles/targets/developer/make.defaults:
>
> replace "test" with "test-fail-continue" to make it just less
> frustrating (we still have a lot of test failures)
>
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 02:00:02 +0200
Torsten Veller wrote:
> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2010/2011 are now open for the next
> two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2010).
I'd like to nominate betelgeuse, calchan, and ssuominen (no way you're getting
out of here that easy).
--
fonts,
On Mon, 31 May 2010 20:11:22 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:12:46 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > * media-sound/wavegain - ${LDFLAGS} before ${CFLAGS}, '-o' after sources,
> > defines after '-o',
>
> Just curious why you&#
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:12:46 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> * media-sound/wavegain - ${LDFLAGS} before ${CFLAGS}, '-o' after sources,
> defines after '-o',
Just curious why you're pointing out the ordering of options. As far as I
know it doesn't matter (except some LDFLAGS where you can go -
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:40:07 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> After a consensus is reached, I'm going to file a bug for infra for
> necessary changes in bugzilla configuration.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/213514
--
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-p
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:01:17 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing. But enforcing it
> > through
> > cvs is never going to fly. Just use common sense.
>
> Sure it will;
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
> > through cvs? No thanks. I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
> > sp
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without
> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the diff
> in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent
> stuff too.
I think it's a g
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:03:10 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> BTW, gcc seems to do some stage output comparing in its bootstrap
> process. Is that all absolute code correctness, or is there some
> performance benchmarking there that could benefit from this as well?
It's all c
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Petteri Räty :
> > I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it
> > just means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a
> > different resolution should be used. So what do you think about
> > d
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:41:34 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 01:38 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using
> > flags in bugzilla for arch teams. We'll have to change the policy then
>
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:26:46 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> > question but there's a difference of opinion
301 - 400 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
