Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:08:45 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Alexis Ballier schrieb: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:12:25 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Pacho Ramos schrieb: El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: [...] The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:58 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: This is just my own view on this and NOT complete, Tommy[D] will probably have a more complete list what the eclasses currently lack and where they will fail. Mgorny will have a more complete list why multilib-portage is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-02 Thread hasufell
On 03/02/2013 12:08 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: eclass level: pro: - easier to maintain (eclasses are generally easy understandable) - quicker to fix and to extend - solution is NOW available con: - more likely to break stuff as all eclass based solutions, because there are no

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread hasufell
I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and fixing on your fellow devs b) just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread hasufell
On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what I actually think makes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 27/02/2013 18:10, hasufell wrote: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and fixing on your fellow devs I'd say the only real mistake has been not keeping it masked to begin with. Just so we're clear with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that conflict is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread hasufell
On 02/27/2013 07:27 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:58 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Afaiu this seems to be mainly a PMS thing. And changing PMS is slow and painful, so no wonder people rather want to go for eclass based solutions. Eh, the only reason it's slow and painful for multilib is that no-one seems

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:10 +0100, hasufell escribió: I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel somehow responsible for the consumers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: [...] The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear. What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :) I also read that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:20:46 +0100 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: About PM-solution... I can't remember how many years we are waiting it for being approved, and neither remember what was blocking it for inclusion in eapi5 (as that threads usually end up being fairly long and ending with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly understand the issue with ABI specific headers. The problem is: a) if you break

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Thomas Sachau
Alexis Ballier schrieb: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that conflict is solved, even if it means a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Thomas Sachau
Pacho Ramos schrieb: El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 19:27 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: [...] The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear. What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:08:45 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Alexis Ballier schrieb: On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The other thing is: We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution (multilib-portage) and I propose