Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

2010-03-24 Thread Doktor Notor
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:35:21 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:


 I'll take that as a yes then, you are indeed disregarding the concerns
 and recommendations of your fellow Gentoo developers.
 
 CC'ing devrel because this is getting out of hand.

Looks like an extremely productive thread... /me points at the
dependency/python handling bugs filed by the python maintainer and
unfixed for like 2+ weeks
- http://tinyurl.com/yhlmcq8 

I'd assume getting proper dependencies into the tree would make more
sense than this pissing contest about a news item.

Cheers,

DN


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Add LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu to developer profile's make.defaults

2010-03-21 Thread Doktor Notor
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:52:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:

 remind me again why this matters ?  binutils has been defaulting to
 hash- style=both for quite a while now.
 -mike

Well, I already tried in my P.S. but let me try again: I'm not
suggesting that devs should have more optimized binaries
- it matters b/c of this in misc-functions.sh:

if [[ ${LDFLAGS} == *--hash-style=gnu* ]]  [[ ${PN} != *-bin ]] ;
then;
do some magic here to detect ignored LDFLAGS
fi

Good candidate to test is net-fs/mount-cifs (tiny, fast)

You *only* get the following QA notice w/ LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
set:

 * QA Notice: Files built without respecting LDFLAGS have been detected
 *  Please include the following list of files in your report:
 * /usr/bin/mount.cifs
 * /usr/bin/umount.cifs

If you have another way to detect ignored LDFLAGS in portage, then you
don't need to add anything to devs profiles. :)

Hope that my proposal is more clear now.

Cheers,

DN


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Add LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu to developer profile's make.defaults

2010-03-21 Thread Doktor Notor
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:04:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:

 forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively
 newish flag, so it isnt a candidate for global enabling.
 -mike

Well... am I really so difficult to understand?

I do *NOT* want it globally enabled... I want it enabled in 
profiles/targets/developer/make.defaults *only* 

Reason? Spit out the QA warnings about ignored LDFLAGS on maintainers.
Nothing else. Like there's already LD_AS_NEEDED=1 for detecting broken
--as-needed stuff. Is it finally clear now?

Cheers,

DN


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Add LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu to developer profile's make.defaults

2010-03-21 Thread Doktor Notor
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:28:18 +0100
justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:

 I am probably the only one, but I really don't like the way you are
 talking! Please change that, otherwise I feel to do something against
 it!
 
 Having good ideas or pointing out correct things, doesn't give anybody
 the right to talk and act in the way you are doing! Not only here but
 also in your comments in b.g.o.

In the very first post, I wrote in the subject: Add
LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu to *developer* *profile's* make.defaults 
- yet it seems that people just don't read the subjects of threads at
all, otherwise this conversation could not arise. I can't think of more
prominent place to emphasize the main point of the suggestion, well...
it didn't work out it seems, so - apparently wrong assumption on my
side.

For the record, no, I didn't want to break anyone's system - definitely
not more than enabling things like I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING=yes or 
LD_AS_NEEDED=1 already does in that particular profile. The only
thing this flag ever broke on Gentoo was some weird rare MIPS stuff
(Bug 232139 and Bug 233233).

Sorry and forget about this, clearly I suck at explaining things.

Have a nice day.

DN


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-dev] Add LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu to developer profile's make.defaults

2010-03-20 Thread Doktor Notor
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this needs more visibility.

P.S. If you wonder why this flag then
check /usr/lib/portage/bin/misc-functions.sh ;)

Cheers, 

DN.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it

2010-03-19 Thread Doktor Notor
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:02:44 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:


 Because in my opinion, portage is the first thing in line to keep a 
 system sane.  Installing packages that are not needed means that
 portage fails on that.  So in your example, portage fails to do its
 due diligence and it falls to the users to do it for portage.  Yep,
 sounds like a good idea.
 

No, portage does what the dependencies are telling it to do. I.e., if
you have unversioned dev-lang/python in DEPEND, or
=dev-lang/python-2.4 or whatever similar then it installs
dev-lang/python:3 - why? Because the ebuilds tell portage that it will
work like that. Another example: you have an ebuild that only works w/
gtk+-1* - you don't go to the ML asking for masking gtk+-2* but instead
go and fix the dependencies to properly reflect that. So, now you can go
and fix the dependencies treewide, or you can simply mask it *locally*
if you don't want it. You'd still need to mask it if you install
something that *really* works with both 2.x and 3.1 slots if you don't
want python-3. It's like with any other slotted stuff in the tree, but
for a reason unknown to me it's a huge issue all of a sudden because
wh, t3h noes, it's python. 

And on that note - noone cares why people has lots of dev-libs/boost
slots installed and why's the darned thing slotted on every minor
version. So while talking about wrong dependencies, maybe the boost
maintainer could explain why do we need it slotted like this:
SLOT=$(get_version_component_range 1-2) - simply because I'm tired of
depcleaning it all the time as nothing requires multiple slots of this
thing here.

Cheers, 

DN


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it

2010-03-18 Thread Doktor Notor
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:

  Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
  option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3
  stays as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it.
 
 And the best way to do that is to package.mask it.

Mask in the CVS tree?! Hmmm, there are tons of broken junk long dead
upstream in the tree that doesn't even compile - guess what - not
masked and noone's caring. Why on earth would you mask a working
package with extremely active maintainer in CVS - just because you
don't have a use for it? So why don't you mask it for yourself if you
don't have any use for it?

The time spent on this ML debate would IMHO be better spent on fixing
the dependencies in the tree for stuff that doesn't work w/ python-2 and
yet has unversioned or = deps in ebuilds and such. [1]

Cheers,

DN.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/yhlmcq8


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Qt3 mask breaks significant science packages

2010-03-13 Thread Doktor Notor
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:34:22 +0100
Matti Bickel m...@gentoo.org wrote:

 I have found 4 bugs assigned to treeclea...@gentoo.org, but i'm sure i
 missed something.
 

If you have time to spare, bugs assigned to maintainer-needed@ and
often rotting in bugzilla for ages despite having patches included will
give you lots of stuff to play with for starters:)

Perhaps the treecleaners alias should watch the m-needed@ bugs,
dunno. :)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature