Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has >> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is: >> >> Total size of 'files'

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

On 05/24/2017 12:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Yes, I *do not want feedback* on *how to do Gentoo* from people who do *not help me do Gentoo* but instead only complain and demand. But you do gentoo wrong, so as a user I'd like you to reconsider what you wrote there and maybe take a long

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/22/2017 03:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: On 18/05/17 02:38, Patrick Lauer wrote: Since proxy-maint refuses to be removed from packages (especially since they were unconditionally added to all packages with a non-gentoo-dev maintainer in metadata) they are the de facto maintainers, and overrule

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/20/2017 10:51 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 05/20/2017 10:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Tomas, please don't go this road. We all know Patrick does a shitty job as Gentoo developer, both technically and socially but you do not have to try to match him. Was this comment really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/19/2017 03:10 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 18:38 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: Bonus mention: bbdc5412061adf598ed935697441a7d6b05f7614 app-admin/logstash-bin: drop old Signed-off-by: Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> That removed the versions I was usi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/18/2017 07:17 PM, Alec Warner wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org <mailto:patr...@gentoo.org>> wrote: Ohey, as you might have noticed I've just corrected the metadata.xml of all elasticsearch-related packages. For

[gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

Ohey, as you might have noticed I've just corrected the metadata.xml of all elasticsearch-related packages. For some strange reason I was listed there as maintainer, but since no one wanted to listen to my ideas I guess I wasn't. So now last person who touched it gets stuck with it. Since

[gentoo-dev] Re: Local workarounds with no reported bugs

On 10/17/16 09:23, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > I'd like to point out a major problem in Gentoo: there's a fair number > of developers who add various local workarounds to problems they meet > and don't bother to report a bug. Worst than that, this applies not > only for upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

On 08/28/2016 04:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:34:20 +0200 > Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 08/28/2016 08:30 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> On 08/24/2016 09:42 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> On 0

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

On 08/28/2016 08:30 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/24/2016 09:42 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 08/24/2016 09:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> * no benefit put forth so far, other than that it's the same file that >>> systemd uses, which is true but not beneficial as far as I can tell >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs

On 08/07/2016 10:04 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 07/08/2016 19:36, james wrote: >>> The interesting apps out there are mostly running python, go and >>> (sometimes) lua. And that's what I observe in my day job - >>> business/mobile ISP. >> >> >> Look at the job listing on stackoverflow and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On 08/07/2016 10:12 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> This packages are now up for grabs: >> app-portage/euscan > > Patrick, > > Are you still keeping euscan running? > Yes. It's not in the best shape, but for now it works

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 06/07/2016 10:31 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > Your thoughts? > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise > > Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were > *very* > strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo > main tree But

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 06/06/2016 04:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > This -can- be simplified using a REQUIRED_USE to force just-one-of > gtk3,qt4,qt5 , but you can technically do the same with USE=gui too -- > all you'd need to do is add dependencies for the no-specific-flag case. > > RDEPEND="... > qt5? (

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 06/03/2016 10:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2 czerwca 2016 21:36:10 CEST, waltd...@waltdnes.org napisał(a): >> >> Is it broken right now? What improvement will we see from having to >> add a "GUI" flag? > TL;DR: it's broken as hell, missing GUI, flag conflicts, implicit flags, full >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation

On 05/27/2016 04:21 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Hello, > > Despite it being 2016 and gtk2 pretty much dead, buried and forgotten > upstream, many applications still support only gtk2, have subtle issues > with their gtk3 port, or support both, with some of our userbase > clinging to gtk2 for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 08:59 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer: > > On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > >> On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, exc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD >> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core >> 'issue' without making lots of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 09:17 AM, Duncan wrote: > Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > >> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, >> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: >> >> What problem i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 01:12 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/04/2016 06:27 AM, Austin English wrote: > Hi there, > > I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to > #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], ... and once more I have to ask: Is there any reason that Stuff Needs To Change because of a packaging conflict in *debian* where it really doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc 2.23 and willfully breaking stuff

On 04/16/2016 09:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > I very strongly suggest bumping the glibc ebuild, removing the patch in > the bump, and masking the broken version. Then asking people to test the > patched version to smoke out failures, and in a few months we can > consider

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc 2.23 and willfully breaking stuff

On 04/16/2016 09:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >I very strongly suggest bumping the glibc ebuild, removing the patch in the bump, and masking the broken version. Then asking people to test the patched version to smoke out failures, and in a few months we can consider re-enabling this tomfool

[gentoo-dev] glibc 2.23 and willfully breaking stuff

As of commit ed047cf2c607277629c20bf1a88d727a7f9bb79e we have sys-libs/glibc-2.23 in ~arch. This breaks *lots* of stuff. For example coreutils was broken [1]. According to the tracker bug [2] most of the breakage was introduced in a gentoo-specific patch. On the upstream mailinglist [3] people

[gentoo-dev] Re: BROKEN: repository became broken!

On 03/30/2016 04:32 PM, mgo...@bonedaddy.net wrote: > Looks like someone just broke Gentoo! > > New issues: > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/33f062a/output.html#dev-db/aerospike-server-community > > > Introduced by commits: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

On 03/02/2016 08:48 PM, malc wrote: > I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't > need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the > github API directly... > > The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse > $PWD to set the path

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

On 03/02/2016 02:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is >> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries? > I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term

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

On 02/08/2016 10:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this would m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 02/27/2016 11:50 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 24/02/16 01:33, Duncan wrote: >>> That option is there, and indeed, a patch providing it was specifically >>> added to portage for infra to use, because appending entries to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 02/23/2016 07:07 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org > <mailto:patr...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=565566 > > Since we have ChangeLogs again (November) they've

[gentoo-dev] Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=565566 Since we have ChangeLogs again (November) they've been in backwards order. Which is not really good - it breaks tools (like emerge --changelog) and makes it harder to read for humans. As a bonus it's inconsistent because the old Changelog-2015

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-lang/niecza{,bin}

# Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> (22 Feb 2016) # Inactive upstream, build failures, obsoleted by rakudo/perl6 dev-lang/niecza dev-lang/niecza-bin

[gentoo-dev] bidi / fribidi useflag harmonization

We have two useflags expressing the same thing: bidi and fribidi. I suggest collapsing it into one useflag, and to make it a global useflag. Affected packages: dev-libs/efl/metadata.xml: Enable bidirectional text support games-action/supertuxkart/metadata.xml: Support for

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

On 02/17/2016 07:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't be any user-visible changes * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd) since at least 2012 (see for example:

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

On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: >>> I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require >>> systemd. Quoting Lennart: >>> "You need the

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

On 02/16/2016 07:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file > systems which happen to be pre-mounted from an initramfs [1]. I don't

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

On 02/14/2016 09:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Pa

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

On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>>> If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we ca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/12/2016 11:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:07:10 +0100 > Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 02/12/2016 08:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Dear Ignorant Patrick, >> Hello human! Your politeness module seems to have crashe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/14/2016 07:44 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > On Sunday 14 February 2016 13:18:30 Rich Freeman wrote: >> Feel free to peruse the various list discussions and council logs. >> Most of what you're bringing up has come up before. > Thanks rich0, you seem to be reading my mind. > > This is

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

On 02/09/2016 01:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > >> And a lot of Gentoo is surprisingly simple: Like our use of bash >> scripts for recipies to build things, like using rsync to deploy/relay >> not just those recipies, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/14/2016 02:16 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >> So what do you guys think of leaving behind empty stubs for compatibility >> and then simply filing a tracking bug blocked by any packages that removing >> herds broke? >

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

On 02/09/2016 10:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 18:27, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo >> community. outside of this community i get praise. > > In case my earlier messages stating a desire to

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

On 02/14/2016 05:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the >> virtual back. One-line change. > Which is precisely the corresponding ar

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/11/2016 09:15 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Now instead of looking up [metadata.xml] -> (herd name) -> [herds.xml] > -> email it goes backwards: > [metadata.xml] -> (maintainer type=project) -> email -> [projects.xml] > -> Project name > > Since thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/12/2016 08:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dear Ignorant Patrick, Hello human! Your politeness module seems to have crashed. And thanks for making me do a quintuple facepalm with backflip. I think that's a new record. So anyway ... > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:15:34 +0100 > Patrick La

[gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

... or why just changing stuff is not enough: A few days ago I was told that http://euscan.gentooexperimental.org/herds/ was displaying an empty list. Which is annoying because people sometimes want to see what upstream updates are available for their herd. Well, we renamed herd to project.

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

Ohey, I've opened a bug at: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. For existing installs this has zero impact. For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev. The rationale behind this is: *

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

On 02/08/2016 01:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Out of curiosity, which distros are shipping with eudev by default? > >From [1]: """ 1. AUSTRUMI switched to eudev in March 2013 (see package list for the 2.6.8 release). 2. Parted Magic switched to eudev in August 2013. 3. Quirky (experimental

Re: [gentoo-dev] New USE_EXPAND NGINX_MODULES_STREAM

On 02/08/2016 11:59 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:34:12 +1300 > Kent Fredric wrote: > >> nginx_modules_http_geoip? ( dev-libs/geoip ) >> nginx_modules_http_gunzip? ( sys-libs/zlib ) >> nginx_modules_http_gzip? ( sys-libs/zlib ) >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Automatic Bug Assignment

On 01/30/2016 06:45 PM, Alex Brandt wrote: > Hey Guys, > > I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the > ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an > issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily > job to re-assign bugs to ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages Up For Grabs

On 01/24/2016 11:49 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 24/01/16 10:39, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: >> Alex Brandt writes: >>> * app-backup/rdiff-backup >> Wasn't it meant for removal? >> >> -- Amadeusz Żołnowski > Looks fine on p.g.o stable too. Upstream site is present. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

On 12/22/2015 03:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> Do you want to see this fixed? >>> Are you willing to do the fixing yourself? >> I don't have infinite time, and wasting a day documentin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

On 12/21/2015 04:21 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:00:45 -0800 > Brian Dolbec wrote: > > >> But, one of the biggest things keeping me from doing more work on it >> when I do have some time, is the fact that barely any of the devs seem >> to care (other than the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

On 12/22/2015 02:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> I'd replace gkeys-gen with a ~10-line shell script ... if I had some >> motivation to dig through some old experiments of mine where I managed >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

On 12/22/2015 01:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Or just point people at a random email, because that's about as good as >> documentation. > Thank you for writing up a guide/outline. > > You appear to hate mediawiki, but you do realize that you could > probably copy/paste that email into the box

Re: [gentoo-dev] repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

On 12/14/2015 04:00 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:20:01 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:36:51 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> Oh hey. We're in the future. Let's try to commit so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Breakage and frustration

On 12/14/2015 02:58 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> The key point to remember is that it is NOT neccessary to be part of >> the team in order to contribute solutions. You *first* contribute >> solutions and only *then* have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

On 12/13/2015 06:36 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > So apparently we're signing things with gpg now And a related question: How would I actually verify the signatures in a meaningful way? ... and why is that not default then.

[gentoo-dev] Breakage and frustration

Broken breakage tl;dr: Stuff is broken, and no one seems to care In August the git "migration" happened, moving our main repository from old stupid cvs to modern shiny git. Well, migration is not the word I'd use, because this was an untested forced migration that is now, months later, still

[gentoo-dev] repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

Oh hey. We're in the future. Let's try to commit something to repo/gentoo.git! So apparently we're signing things with gpg now, so let's read the official documentation. The [1] wiki seems to be the canonical location for such things. Oh dear. The layout is VERY broken. See [2]. Which redirects

Re: [gentoo-dev] repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

On 12/13/2015 07:50 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:38:55 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 12/13/2015 06:36 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> So apparently we're signing things with gpg now >> And a related question: >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: OpenRC public API definition

On 12/03/2015 06:36 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I would like opinions on what is considered the public api of librc. > > 1) All definitions in rc.h, even though they are not formally documented > in man pages. Yes. The header *is* the public API. > > 2) the definitions in rc.h which are

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

On 11/18/2015 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen > wrote: >> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of >> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the >> details as an exercise for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] ban use of base-4 casemods in ebuilds due to locale collation instability

On 11/11/2015 03:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 10 Nov 2015 18:53, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> i randomly stumbled across an ebuild that was using ^^ to make a variable >> uppercase. this is new to bash-4.0 and thus invalid for EAPI=[0-5]. only >> the fresh EAPI=6 permits it since we bumped

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

On 11/03/2015 02:52 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > > So you are telling me that people using github and the switch that took > place has absolutely nothing to do with the changelogs going dead? > You keep saying GitHub. Github is not relevant to this discussion. > > Yes, the ChangeLogs stopped being

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

On 11/01/2015 01:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Мисбах-Соловьёв Вадим wrote: >> And why don't just only generate them on rsync mirrors, but remove them from >> git repo (like was planned initially, AFAIRC)? >> > That is in fact how it works. Or, at

[gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

Ahoi, I'm getting mildly very irritated with the lack of easily accessible ChangeLogs for our packages. Apparently updating them stopped some time in August, so now there are some outdated ChangeLogs that don't really serve any purpose, and the easiest way for users to figure out why something

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

On 11/01/2015 02:24 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 11/01/2015 01:16 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Ahoi, >> >> I'm getting mildly very irritated with the lack of easily accessible >> ChangeLogs for our packages. >> >> Apparently updating them stopped some time in Au

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> I know if I were still on rsync (or webrsync), I'd be raising hell about >> the lack of >> changelogs well before now > Perhaps rather than raising hell you'd do better to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

On 11/02/2015 03:04 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/01/2015 08:22 PM, Duncan wrote: >> Personally, I'd love the primary sync method to be git, and the primary >> change logs conveyed via native git log methods, but in ordered to do >> that, all those rsync mirrors need to switch to git

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

On 10/10/15 14:25, hasufell wrote: > On 10/10/2015 02:24 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 10-10-2015 14:19:44 +0200, hasufell wrote: +RDEPEND=" + !libressl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0 ) + libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl ) + sys-libs/zlib + net-libs/http-parser >>> Please

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

On 10/09/15 17:42, Davide Pesavento wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:35 PM, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/08/2015 11:04 PM, Richard Farina wrote: >> >> +all_ruby_prepare() { >> + [ -f Gemfile.lock ] && rm Gemfile.lock >> missing "|| die" afais, should probably be >> >> [ -f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On 08/12/15 22:38, William Hubbs wrote: I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. Because, in a way, it triggers at the wrong point of the merge. emerge -pv fnurk = dependencies look ok emerge fnurk = pkg_pretend bails out ... eh?! (This would be a little bit confusing, if not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

On Sunday 09 August 2015 08:06:53 Anthony G. Basile wrote: Hi everyone, I hate to be a nag, but please read https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow. In particular, commit messages. I'm seeing lots of cvs style messages going in and without history it will be hard to figure out

Re: [gentoo-dev] useflag policies

On Sunday 02 August 2015 22:22:28 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:14:47 -0400 NP-Hardass np-hard...@gentoo.org wrote: ^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user. The user receives a message saying at-most-one-of instead of some convoluted other

Re: [gentoo-dev] useflag policies

On Monday 03 August 2015 00:34:51 Ben de Groot wrote: Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies I have an issue with the policy adopted under Requires one of two Qt versions. In my opinion, in the case

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

On Sunday 19 July 2015 02:05:21 Patrice Clement wrote: Saturday 18 Jul 2015 15:36:01, NP-Hardass wrote : I fancy your idea a lot. We ought to do it for complete newbies who are new to Gentoo but would like to give the distribution a shot nonetheless. I fondly remember my first attempt who took

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

On 07/07/15 01:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:04:35 -0400 Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote: I would love my commits to be reviewed, but I usually don't feel like reviewing anyone else's. That's... not uncommon. Well, you could at least get your commits reviewed by

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

On Sunday 05 July 2015 13:46:10 William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 09:05:59AM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient. This is impossible in our case due to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Indention in metadata.xml

On 06/06/15 09:26, Justin Lecher (jlec) wrote: Hi everyone, Can we get an agreement on how we are indenting metadata.xml? I like to properly format and indent metadata.xml, but without having an agreement or policy on the indention, I make unhappy by choosing the wrong. The two options

Re: [gentoo-dev] more packages up for grabs

On 05/19/15 05:13, Tim Harder wrote: Here are some packages that I've dropped (or will drop) myself as primary maintainer from. Many of them (e.g. protobuf*) could really use some more collaborative non-maintainer update method but no one has gotten around to finalizing, documenting, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Becoming a Gentoo developer?

On Saturday 18 April 2015 11:15:56 hasufell wrote: On 04/17/2015 07:15 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote: On 17/04/15 16:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote: The problem is double effort: previously one developer effort was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: fcaps.eclass

On Thursday 19 February 2015 12:31:27 Alexis Ballier wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:48:27 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Dnia 2015-02-18, o godz. 16:11:53 Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org napisał(a): vapier 15/02/18 16:11:53 Modified:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

On Thursday 19 February 2015 10:07:30 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 02/19/2015 09:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: On 02/19/15 06:10, Mike Gilbert wrote: What saddens me the most is that these pointless threads are becoming sort of a habit not because the reporter is really offended by the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

On Wednesday 18 February 2015 18:43:59 hasufell wrote: Is there a communication problem? I don't remember getting either: * a bug report * a ping * a review request Did I miss something? Yes. Why is this package metadata missing the python herd for no reason? Also Why are you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

On Thursday 19 February 2015 00:48:18 hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer: Why is this package metadata missing the python herd for no reason? Because the python herd doesn't currently maintain the package, nor did they ask me to be co-maintainers. So you put a python package in the dev-python

[gentoo-dev] Making more repoman checks fatal

Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things, but treats many issues as warning. The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues which then someone more OCD than the original committer cleans up, making pretty much everyone involved more

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

On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) patr...@gentoo.org wrote

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mozilla products in Gentoo

On Friday 06 February 2015 06:28:27 Jory A. Pratt wrote: As many of you are aware we are using esr ( extended service releases ) for stable. We will remove all versions prior to 31.x in 7 days. If you are needing an older version please let us know and we will try to accommodate all users as

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

On 01/19/15 17:47, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 19:35:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: * AutoRepoman catches on average maybe 2 user-visible breakages. Mostly removing stable on HPPA ;) Fix: Make repoman faster (tree-wide scans take ~2 CPU-hours

Re: [gentoo-dev] Review: desc/cpu_flags_x86.desc

On Sunday 18 January 2015 21:44:05 Michał Górny wrote: Hello, I would like to commit the following flags as cpu_flags_x86_desc. The list combines global USE flags with some local USE flags I've been able to find. 3dnow - Use the 3DNow! instruction set 3dnowext - Use the Enhanced 3DNow!

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

On Saturday 17 January 2015 15:03:05 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 22:58:33 +0800 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On Saturday 17 January 2015 14:32:03 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:03:30 +0800 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Last

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

On Saturday 17 January 2015 14:00:34 William Hubbs wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 01:44:21PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: * Stage3 archives are too fat See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531632

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

On Saturday 17 January 2015 13:12:56 Zac Medico wrote: On 01/17/2015 03:35 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: * Portage is too slow On 'small' hardware emerge -upNDv @world can take enough time to make updates prohibitive - on an 800Mhz machine it took me about 3 days to figure out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog

On Saturday 17 January 2015 17:25:15 hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer: On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer: On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: Patrick Lauer (patrick): patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 Modified: ChangeLog Added

[gentoo-dev] Things one could be upset about

Here's a random unsorted list of things that it would make sense to be upset about. Some issues that people have successfully ignored for a few years ... In no way exhaustive list, feel free to remember a dozen things I forgot ;) (If you suggest other things please try to offer constructive

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

On Saturday 17 January 2015 13:44:21 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: * AutoRepoman catches issues, but no one but me seems to care Fix: Remind people of http://packages.gentooexperimental.org/repoman-current

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

On Saturday 17 January 2015 14:32:03 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:03:30 +0800 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Last time I tested paludis it was slower You've yet to do a like-for-like comparison... Hello hostile upstream. It was as like for like as possible

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

On Saturday 17 January 2015 14:45:51 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:39:29 +0300 Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: There is some progress here. In portage-2.2.15 profile based optimizations are included (see bugs 529660, 530010). On my hardware (Athlon-XP, 2200 MHz

  1   2   3   4   5   >