Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 16 March 2007 18:58, Luca Barbato wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code is that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes are likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage gui

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-15 Thread Jason Stubbs
with refactoring portage code is that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes are likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage gui front end packages. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-15 Thread Jason Stubbs
Rearranging and snipping a bit to clarify my points. On Friday 16 March 2007 09:17, Daniel Drake wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: 2) Each technical area usually has a clear authority - ie. a spokesman whom is listened to and usually has one's posts challenged with clear respect. 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
not a rhetorical question; I really don't know the answer.) Good question. I wouldn't have a clue as to the best resolution either. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting

2007-03-03 Thread Jason Stubbs
continue to be visceral or instead try to build a good working relationship; and 2) whether you discuess any issues with the spec now or when it goes public. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting

2007-03-03 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 04 March 2007 02:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a seperate thread, Marius said something

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reliance upon || ( use? ( ) ) behaviour

2007-02-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
beneath || constructs would completely sidestep that issue too. ;) But I still what TGL described even if only for EAPI-1 or beyond... -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reliance upon || ( use? ( ) ) behaviour

2007-02-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 February 2007 03:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:56:19 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Disallowing it would be the cleaner in terms of package manager | responsibilities, but ... Well, I looked through the tree. There is exactly one package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reliance upon || ( use? ( ) ) behaviour

2007-02-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 February 2007 13:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:09:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Okay, I must be missing something here. If package foo can work with | either bar or baz equily as well but not both, why should it force an | artificial preference

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on system packages

2006-12-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
of portage. Unless there are other reasons not stated here? -- Jason Stubbs app-admin/eselect-1.0.2 app-admin/eselect-esd-20060719 app-admin/eselect-opengl-1.0.3 app-admin/gamin-0.1.7 app-admin/perl-cleaner-1.04.3 app-admin/php-toolkit-1.0-r2 app-admin/skey-1.1.5-r5 app-admin/syslog-ng-1.6.9 app-arch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on system packages

2006-12-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:10:57 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I've tried to be objective here so if my viewpoint isn't obvious I'll | state it outright. I think all packages should depend on every | package that they need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass

2006-11-07 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:55, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:18:41 + Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Yes, I'm also sick of this negative level of civility. If I don't | preempt it now, I'll likely be told that I'm taking the above two | quotes out of context

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass

2006-11-06 Thread Jason Stubbs
help any. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] virtuals and dependencies dispaly

2006-10-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 16:36, Brian wrote: def get_virtual_dep(atom): returns a resolved virtual dependency. contributed by Jason Stubbs, with a little adaptation # Thanks Jason non_virtual_atom = portage.dep_virtual([atom], portage.settings)[0] if atom

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] virtuals and dependencies dispaly

2006-10-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
of associated ebuilds. As for ordering, packages with PROVIDE override identically named packages in the tree. If you use something similar to the above, it should all be taken care of though. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users

2006-10-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
to read the discussion. I have a feeling the discussion took place about 18 months ago on -core, but I'm not sure as to the answer to this. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users

2006-10-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
done right, you've got to do it yourself. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask

2006-10-01 Thread Jason Stubbs
time ago though, so masking should really be dropped from packages altogether at this late stage. However, masking in packages only is still supported. If there is a reason that the plans for killing off that support should be suspended, that's also viable. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask

2006-10-01 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 02 October 2006 16:03, Jason Stubbs wrote: 1) Specifying sys-libs/glibc-2.4 in packages *does* mask =sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask ... is redundant -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] accessing portage updates through it's data structures

2006-04-18 Thread Jason Stubbs
in updatable_pkgs if pkg] That last line there is to kill off the None elements that end up in updatable_pkgs when there is a package installed that has no versions available in the rsync tree. Other than that, portage.catpkgsplit() will split a package identifier into [cat, pkg, ver, rev]. -- Jason

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 15 April 2006 03:31, Brian Harring wrote: Sidenote, why is userfetch a feature? That seems like something that should be userpriv by default to me... It broke somebody's ftp setup. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92960 -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
s/ftp/nfs/ in the mail that I just sent. -- Jason Stubbsw -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 15 April 2006 03:31, Brian Harring wrote: cache backend selection (failed import == defaults to sys default) This is incorrect. It displays an error message and quits. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 08 April 2006 21:48, Ned Ludd wrote: On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 11:18 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 08 April 2006 07:36, Ned Ludd wrote: On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 14:19 -0400, solar wrote: FEATURES=buildpkg ROOT=/ emerge gcc rm -rf /dev/shm/foo ROOT=/dev/shm/foo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] should we add userpriv and usersandox to make.globals FEATURES?

2006-04-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
performance hit and I'm a ricer. :P -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] tree dependency check

2006-03-30 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 30 March 2006 11:40, Marius Mauch wrote: On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:30:17 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:21, Marius Mauch wrote: Marius Mauch schrieb: So after manifest2 is in, I'll revive the other issue that IMO is a requirement

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: User created package lists

2006-03-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 23 March 2006 16:23, Brian wrote: /etc/portage/lists/userlist1 format: net-www/apache www-apache/mod_perl ... If you make that /etc/portage/sets and support any package atom (rather than only cat/pkg) then I you'd pretty much have what is planned (afaik). -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: User created package lists

2006-03-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:43, Brian wrote: On Thu, 2006-23-03 at 22:14 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Thursday 23 March 2006 16:23, Brian wrote: /etc/portage/lists/userlist1 format: net-www/apache www-apache/mod_perl ... If you make that /etc/portage/sets

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making the developer community more open

2006-03-20 Thread Jason Stubbs
. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] kudoos to all

2006-03-15 Thread Jason Stubbs
are made - but very promising. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE_EXPAND in IUSE ( again )

2006-03-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
have been...etc.. I also committed support for a USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. Individual flags don't need to be added to it. USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN=USERLAND ARCH ... is enough. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Move PORTAGE_INST_UID and PORTAGE_INST_GID to make.globals?

2006-03-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
place to set these? If not, can we twist the logic to make it so? :p The profiles would be able to override it. In the case of non-incrementals the first definition found is the winner in the order of: env - make.conf - make.defaults (profile) - make.globals -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] vdb-update script (for global updates) with job progress framework

2006-02-28 Thread Jason Stubbs
minutes to counter the regression of emerge warning on unsatisfiable world file entries. It was/is not meant to stand the test of time in its current state. Why would you want to muddy up your code with it? ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -NDuvp world takes forever after emerge sync

2006-02-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
emerge -NDuvp world 321.05s user 77.90s system 94% cpu 7:02.77 total I am using sys-apps/portage-2.1_pre4-r1. Open a bug for this please. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

2006-02-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
of the patch -43/+42. What is the goal? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

2006-02-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
]: - # These require HTTP Encoding ... This shouldn't be in a cleanup patch either. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Deprecating 'emerge action' syntax

2006-02-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
use --update instead. emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy update. Doing it that way will show exactly why it's being dropped without the need for a written explanation (and hopefully no bug about how it's a terrible usability regression). -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Deprecating 'emerge action' syntax

2006-02-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
there being much of a problem, but so that we can redo that whole bunch of code without having to do: if incorrect_syntax: print warning make correct syntax -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] IUSE_DEFAULTS-v0.1

2006-02-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
is only for portage_const, so the tool remains sensored. Unless I'm missing something. Nah, Brian's right. Tools need to follow. Backwards compatibility isn't so important there. The important thing is that portage keeps on living. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Passing the buck

2006-02-09 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:00, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:04:08PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Hi all, Time again for one of those mails; this time from me. Due to time constraints, real life and coming close to burning out I'm stepping down as release

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Passing the buck

2006-02-09 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:23, Jason Stubbs wrote: ... Wrong list :/ -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Binary packages

2006-02-08 Thread Jason Stubbs
. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Binary packages

2006-02-08 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 09 February 2006 09:30, Mark Loeser wrote: Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: It was my understanding that it is needed for the 3.3 - 3.4 upgrade. Various packages that will build fine against either are broken until being recompiled after the upgrade and there is currently

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache, final chance to ixnay it

2006-02-02 Thread Jason Stubbs
not rewriting all of doebuild just for this :) Happy here. If there were no other issues, may as well go ahead with it earlier rather than later. Spread the goodness (or something like that ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X

2006-01-31 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:49, Joshua Jackson wrote: Mark Loeser halcy0n at gentoo.org writes: Donnie Berkholz spyderous at gentoo.org said: Jason Stubbs wrote: The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed. Excellent. Works perfectly. Since

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-31 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:46:28 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Monday 30 January 2006 16:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:17:36 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Also

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X

2006-01-31 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 02:28, Mark Loeser wrote: Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps being fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it against whatever bug is requesting

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-31 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 22:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 31 January 2006 06:31, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 1. Because for things like LINGUAS, there are arbitrarily many legal values, and documenting them all and keeping the list

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-30 Thread Jason Stubbs
changed with regard to it and --verbose wasn't specified. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-30 Thread Jason Stubbs
use.desc? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: DEPEND=x11-base/xorg-x11 # wrong DEPEND=virtual/x11# wrong DEPEND=|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )# wrong DEPEND=|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 ) # right There's a small

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:46, Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: DEPEND=x11-base/xorg-x11 # wrong DEPEND=virtual/x11

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:47, Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:18:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: There's no other way to do it given repoman's state and the requirements. I was talking long term. One time kludges suck (but occur), would like to see something a bit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
full is run. Not sure why it wasn't being displayed if there was only one occurrence. The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
that no new packages can go into stable with a virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if necessary. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom virtual/x11 cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old style virtuals. Is that so? I guess this must be wrong

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache integration

2006-01-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
by this. No clues on the bash stuff; it seems there's an external confcache binary but I can't tell much beyond that. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] SuperH (sh) KEYWORD spam

2005-12-31 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 31 December 2005 18:57, Mike Frysinger wrote: i'm injecting sh KEYWORDS as quickly as my lantank can emerge ... So that's one package every two weeks then? ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-30 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 30 December 2005 21:17, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote: On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 10:35 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 30 December 2005 01:35, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 19:06 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:53:14 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-30 Thread Jason Stubbs
of not being bug-ridden... -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring to sets of ebuilds that require several slots. Before implementing the above, the tree will be checked for any cases where the above idea will fail. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
database but there's also there's the implication that only one slot of a package be allowed in a connected set of nodes. Is that what you're getting at? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 22:45, Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:00, Jason Stubbs wrote: If all three of those packages were first built against kdelibs:3.4 and then kdelibs:3.5 became available then rebuilding any one of them without rebuilding the others will break

Re: [gentoo-dev] making dodoc and dohtml die when they fail and stricter is on

2005-12-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
-portage. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.1_pre2 and new use flag showing with emerge -p

2005-12-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
-sdk -static truetype-fonts -type1-fonts -xprint xv INPUT_DEVICES=-synaptics -wacom 44,520 kB I doubt that the NEW and OLD would really be visible in the --verbose output in the general case anyway. How about just making added flags green to match the output of changed flags? -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-dev] making dodoc and dohtml die when they fail and stricter is on

2005-12-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
, since they're the ones affected by it (for us it's just an api change). As a side note, dodoc didn't return non-zero when specified files don't exist up until a month or two ago. dohtml was updated yesterday. Hence, up until now the above was not possible. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] per ebuild distdir symlinking

2005-12-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
? No problems on my part. As Mike said, it'll only catch the standard unpack usage but that's not really an issue as far as I can see. By the way, now that we've got -commit mail, confirming with the ML isn't really necessary. Of course, if it's something you want to confirm... -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:50:33 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | SLOT is currently an arbitrary string (without spaces) so general | matching of * might be useful. Of course, there's no restriction of | not using * in SLOTs

Re: how to contribute to use/slot deps: was Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
as the needs of users. Needs of those of us who provide the tree are prioritized by how much benefit will be translated to end users combined with how much work will be required. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
-print/cups/cups-1.1.23-r4.ebuild: [ -n ${PN} ] rm -fR /usr/share/doc/${PN}-* net-print/cups/cups-1.1.23-r5.ebuild: [ -n ${PN} ] rm -fR /usr/share/doc/${PN}-* I'll let others do the yelling. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
nor in the ebuilds themselves... -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Well, you should know that those are because of portage bugs or some portage peculiarity, read the corresponding

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Well, you should know that those are because of portage bugs or some portage peculiarity, read the corresponding

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 23 December 2005 22:13, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:00:20PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:52, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:22:06AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Symlinks are handled within portage differently to regular files. Regular files get an mtime check and are removed if it matches. Symlinks don't get an mtime check (even

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
to use them. :slot and [use]? Not yet. I'm sure that once they do the shouts will be resounding across the globe such that it would not be possible for you to be unaware of it... ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:43, Duncan wrote: Jason Stubbs posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900: A quick patch makes symlinks handled similarly to regular files and solves the issue. I'll put it into testing unless anybody can come up

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:42, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PackageA is installed, PackageB is installed, PackageB is uninstalled - PackageA is broken. Does this case exist? Found two on my system

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 December 2005 05:45, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote: On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 03:37 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:23, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Friday 23 December 2005 19:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:57:44 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] making the tree depend on portage

2005-12-20 Thread Jason Stubbs
as likely to need the functionality as we are. Combining that with how rarely versions are actually updated for system packages, it shouldn't cause any more bother to users than it needs to. -- Jason Stubbs Index: bin/emerge

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] making the tree depend on portage

2005-12-20 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 23:15, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Tuesday 20 December 2005 01:49, Marius Mauch wrote: Also not talking about implementation details yet, just after comments about the general idea of forced portage updates. I gave it a go anyway... ;) Also needed: Index: portage.py

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: parallel-fetch

2005-12-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 16 December 2005 19:01, Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:06, Brian Harring wrote: This is the only blocker for merging parallel-fetch as far as I can tell- so... my vote is nuking the wait out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 09:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:11:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | newsdir=$(portageq envvar PORTDIR)/metadata/news | newsdir=$(portageq newsdir gentoo) | | Both have one level of indirection. The first has two hard coded

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

2005-12-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 06:16, Grant Goodyear wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 08:06:54PM CST] The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a single person rather than

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-13 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:45, Andrew Muraco wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | So what are you going to do? I asked already but you didn't answer. | How are you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-13 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | And how can that be adapted to work with overlays, completely | ignoring the possibility of distinct repositories. Overlays is | something that exists already

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

2005-12-13 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP | saying move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure | said documentation

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-13 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 07:12, Grant Goodyear wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 07:51:51PM CST] | As I said already, there will immediately be a bug asking for overlay | support. Portage already supports multiple in a form whether anybody | likes it or not. How

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-13 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 08:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:44:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Modifications are required to portage anyway. Why postpone it until | after several readers are written and force all of them become broken? Because

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-12 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 12 December 2005 09:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:11:53 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Regardless of what you think about the current plans for multiple | repository support, the details that readers will need to know wont | change. Incorrect

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-12 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 02:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:49:31 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | No need for a glep as far as portage support goes anymore than Ciaran | needs a glep to change or add syntax highlighting in vim. The difference is, Vim

[gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

2005-12-12 Thread Jason Stubbs
Abstract The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams. Motivation Recent GLEPs have attempted to force things on other teams. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

2005-12-12 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:06, Jason Stubbs wrote: Abstract The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams. Motivation

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-12 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:51:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Without a list of future features, you think the best way to go must | be the least agile? As Zac said, all that matters to keep full | compatibility

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-12 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | So what are you going to do? I asked already but you didn't answer. | How are you going to find $PORTDIR/metadata/news? At present, by using portageq

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

2005-12-12 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that | each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without | explicit approval

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

2005-12-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote: svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed. KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
forwarder, which would be ideal for users who sync on a ``cron``) are left as options for those who desire them. By suggested you mean that it should be referenced in the news help? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DepSet

2005-12-08 Thread Jason Stubbs
) and not atom.blocks: okay_atoms.add(atom) Combining those two gives: if atom.blocks and not atom.match(child) or \ atom.match(child) and not atom.blocks: okay_atoms.add(atom) Which is exactly the same thing as the original except seven lines longer... -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo

  1   2   3   >