[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2009-04-05 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 04-04-2009 18:49:50 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: + # killing these two on OSX/Intel will disable SSE, resulting in failing + # compilations, as the headers expect SSE to be enabled (Apple knows what + # hardware they run on afterall, don't they?) + [[ ${CHOST} ==

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2009-04-04 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:57:54 + Fabian Groffen (grobian) grob...@gentoo.org wrote: grobian 09/04/04 17:57:54 Modified: flag-o-matic.eclass Log: backport fix for x86-macos in filter-flags from Prefix Revision ChangesPath 1.133

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:15:18 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many people are running a Portage version released after January 4? Eventually, all of them. And until then, how many users are going to get things going weirdly wrong if workarounds aren't added to everything

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-19 Thread Doug Klima
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:15:18 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many people are running a Portage version released after January 4? Eventually, all of them. And until then, how many users are going to get things going weirdly wrong if workarounds aren't added

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:44:43 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A better statement on your part would have been We need to ensure compatibility for the greatest amount of users and requiring users to have a version of Portage released after January 4th when it's only the middle of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-19 Thread Doug Klima
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:44:43 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A better statement on your part would have been We need to ensure compatibility for the greatest amount of users and requiring users to have a version of Portage released after January 4th when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-19 Thread Mark Loeser
Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: As it's been explained to me by one of your fellow PMS developers, since EAPI=0 is not complete yet, there will be no work on further EAPIs until EAPI=0 is complete. Since this is the case and we still need to make changes, we must revert back to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:42:43 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As it's been explained to me by one of your fellow PMS developers, since EAPI=0 is not complete yet, there will be no work on further EAPIs until EAPI=0 is complete. No-one who has worked upon PMS has said that. I

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 18:20 Mon 18 Feb , Sven Wegener (swegener) wrote: swegener08/02/18 18:20:47 Modified: flag-o-matic.eclass Log: redirect the ewarn message to stderr Revision ChangesPath 1.122eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass file :

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:20:52 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems like something ewarn should do on its own. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118r2=9140

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Roy Marples
On Monday 18 February 2008 21:20:52 Donnie Berkholz wrote: @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ # @DESCRIPTION: # DEPRECATED - Gets the flags needed for NOW binding bindnow-flags() { - ewarn QA: stop using the bindnow-flags function ... simply drop it from your ebuild + ewarn QA: stop using the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 21:37 Mon 18 Feb , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:20:52 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems like something ewarn should do on its own. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118r2=9140 Alright, so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:54:34 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118r2=9140 Alright, so portage has put this stuff to stderr since January 4. Then why are we also adding workarounds to individual

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:26:11 -0600 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:54:34 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118r2=9140 Alright, so portage has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Doug Klima
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:26:11 -0600 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:54:34 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118r2=9140