On Wednesday 20 June 2012 16:39:42 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?
i'm not
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 16:25:30 Richard Yao wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Thomas already has multilib documents put together for review. multiarch
doesn't make sense for us, and even if it did, there's no way it'd be spec-ed
out in a reasonable time frame for EAPI=5 (or even 6
On Thursday 21 June 2012 08:11:27 Homer Parker wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really
thought through or understood. As you can
On Thursday 21 June 2012 03:00:39 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really
thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work...
yes yes, it's very easy to throw
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:39 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer
EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't
know them (for
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 19:15 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
On 06/21/12 15:25, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 11:27 +0200, Alec Warner escribió:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, if I remember
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:53:37 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Don't you see this way of handling things, with such and obscure way
of getting things accepted for every EAPI is really hurting us?
What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
the problem is, how it
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
the problem is
Part of enabling progress is to show a strong will to communicate,
with the goal of extracting common understanding from discussion.
In any project based on volunteer effort you must show
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:53 +0200, Peter Stuge escribió:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
the problem is
Part of enabling progress is to show a strong will to communicate,
with the goal of extracting common understanding from
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:24 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:53 +0200, Peter Stuge escribió:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
the problem is
Part of enabling progress is to show a strong will to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding
(about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent
issues like Tommy is suffering to get multilib stuff done), but I star
to think
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding
(about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent
issues like
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:05:51 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml
That shows how things can be done and how shouldn't be done, it's not
casual that you are always involved in this kind of discussions,
Yes,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Making constructive suggestions instead of others that can be
easily interpreted as whims is the way to go.
Uh huh, and that's what I've been doing the whole time when I've
been asking for a patch for PMS, a GLEP etc.
..
requests for a better description we're
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:38:09 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
If you don't understand something of what thus far has been written,
then why not ask specific questions to fill those gaps, and move on?
The multilib material isn't at the point where specific questions can be
asked. Brian's
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
bring this to the point where we can say something other than huh?.
You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list
and asking for confirmation of your guess.
It sounds silly, but I realized that this actually happens all the
time offline - at least to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
bring this to the point where we can say something other than
huh?.
You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list
and asking for confirmation of your guess.
It sounds
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:38:09 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
If you don't understand something of what thus far has been written,
then why not ask specific questions to fill those gaps, and move on?
The multilib
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
bring this to the point where we can say something other than
huh?.
You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:11:28 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Looks like you have now opted to use Brian's comment as a kind of
shield of similar and discuss only about multilib, even when this
thread was more general and we were talking to the problems shown in
recent discussions
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:16:13 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
What we *also* need is to document this requirements to let people
present that work directly instead of losing days figuring out what is
needed or what not
The requirement is that the PMS team needs to be able to
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 13:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:11:28 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Looks like you have now opted to use Brian's comment as a kind of
shield of similar and discuss only about multilib, even when this
thread was more general
El mié, 20-06-2012 a las 23:43 +0200, Justin escribió:
On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly
when a user does
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:43:36 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain,
particularly when a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and
more work to delay things to be implemented.
I still haven't seen a clear
On 21/06/12 08:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:43:36 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and
more work to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer
EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't
know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need also a
GLEP and a PMS
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
you asked for what
On 21 June 2012 05:33, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
[...]
POSIX Shell compliance
There has been a great deal of work done to give the user full control
of what is on his system
On 06/21/12 15:25, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
you asked for what he sent some days ago and now
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:15:02 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer
EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me)
don't know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need
also a GLEP and
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
There is this vague idea that you can just propose something; get
consensus on the ML, everyone goes to implement it, and then it works
just as designed. That is usually called the 'waterfall' model and its
really hard to
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really
thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work...
No, but paved the way
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 09:24 +0200, justin wrote:
Won't it be a good thing, if you instead of showing all of us, that
you
can tell where people fail to present something in the right way, help
and guide them to write the necessary things like PMS patches, GLEPs
etc., so that we can proceed in
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:11:27 -0500
Homer Parker hpar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really
thought through or
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:14:49 -0500
Homer Parker hpar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 09:24 +0200, justin wrote:
Won't it be a good thing, if you instead of showing all of us, that
you
can tell where people fail to present something in the right way,
help and guide them to write
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:11:27 -0500
Homer Parker hpar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
done as a series of random
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500
Homer Parker hpar...@gentoo.org wrote:
And what did Gentoo get out of it?
What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing
things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of
those changes were or why they were done.
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500
Homer Parker hpar...@gentoo.org wrote:
And what did Gentoo get out of it?
What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing
things until things worked, and ending up not
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Homer Parker hpar...@gentoo.org wrote:
In the beginning there was a method...
And now it needs revamped.. I see no problem with re-investigating the
problem to make it better/easier/whatever.
++
I for one am happy to have had a working amd64
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a
user does
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly
when a user does not want to upgrade something. I had this problem
with WINE and glibc because I wanted to avoid the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?
--
Maxim Kammerer
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:39:42 +0300
Maxim Kammerer m...@dee.su wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a
great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not want to
On 06/20/2012 10:25 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a
On 06/20/2012 04:39 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?
It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:02:10 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can
deal with the package managers.
Why? It's highly doubtful the package manglers could switch shells
even if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:05:55 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric description
of it.
I missed this tibbit. I am not sure what
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 05:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:05:55 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric
description of
On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly
when a user does not want to upgrade something. I had this problem
with
57 matches
Mail list logo
