Mark Loeser wrote:
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed.
Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we're failing on them, perhaps we can
say "obsolete" instead of "deprecated"?
Can we put this back to
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed.
>
> Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we're failing on them, perhaps we can
> say "obsolete" instead of "deprecated"?
Can we put this back to being a war
On Thursday 26 January 2006 22:09, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> There is no way that I can see around this without highly increasing the
> possibility of false positives.
I extracted a list of cps from repoman, modified your script to check all cpvs
(rather than only the best) and compared that with re
On Thursday 26 January 2006 20:56, Brian Harring wrote:
> Patch misses on
> || ( virtual/x11 )
A theoretical case, but if you want to cover it...
> || ( x86? ( virtual/x11 ) b )
> via the latter, kind of guranteed it's going to miss on
It's not a "miss" per se as much as other dependency checks
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 06:06:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 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?) package
Jason Stubbs wrote:
> That's a standard repoman thing. Details are only printed if there are less
> than 12 occurrences of a specific warning unless "repoman full" is run. Not
> sure why it wasn't being displayed if there was only one occurrence.
As it turns out, there were exactly 12.
> The pa
On Thursday 26 January 2006 16:08, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> It prints about 10X of crap like this:
>
> virtual/libc !virtual/xemacs berkdb? ( =sys-libs/db-1*
> >=sys-libs/gdbm-1.8.0 ) >=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=dev-libs/openssl-0.9.6
> >=media-libs/audiofile-0.2.3 gpm? ( >=sys-libs/gpm-1.19.6 ) postg
Jason Stubbs wrote:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/x11_deprecation_check.diff
Just tested this out. Is there some way to make it more obvious exactly
_what_ is causing the usage.deprecated error by default?
As it is, a test run of this in app-editors/xemacs returns about 50
lines of output with
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Anyway, I do appreciate any work that you're doing on any games ebuilds.
> I just hope we don't end up in the exact same situation a (few?) month
> or so down the line when this stuff goes stable as we are in now.
What I expect is that many of the newly ported apps will g
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 12:36 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> As you're really more of a package maintainer for the games you're
> porting, you will probably want to stick with the way you're doing things.
Yeah, there's very few things in games-* that have an actual maintainer
listed, as we tend to
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them
>>> in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and
>> We have? No wonder it's been ta
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them
>> in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and
>
> We have? No wonder it's been taking me so fscking long to
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them
> in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and
We have? No wonder it's been taking me so fscking long to get all of
the games stuff done
Jason Stubbs wrote:
> I've implemented and tested the check locally but haven't committed it yet.
> Repoman isn't really structured to allow for tests against a set of ebuilds
> so the checks are done on every version. There is also definitely one false
> positive (virtual/x11-6.8) so, for this
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 b
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:18:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 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="x
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"
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"# wrong
> > > DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )"
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
> >
> > T
Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 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 pack
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 smoot
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 the users' ride,
> I'm personally all for it.
By "broken" I
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:40, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed,
> > | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:34:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> | > | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11
> | > | will make this drag out for ye
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:34:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| > | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11
| > | will make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed,
> | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just
> | institute a policy that no new packages can go into s
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 wr
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11 will
> | make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me.
>
> Why must it drag out for years? There's no difference in the speed of
> porting
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Where do they define "lots"? Many packages will legitimately pull in a
| large quantity of libs or apps that are not installed by someone
| emerging xorg-server, e.g.
Heck, add in a "non-ported-package" fake package ha
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks
| > that isn't the case...
|
| Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The
| atom "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific ve
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, then:
/usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:# Only have this for >=
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11
> | gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue
> | and think "Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pull
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > * The clean solution is the solution originally proposed to this
> | > list, and the reason we are using new style virtuals.
> |
> | No, this is wrong.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11
| gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue
| and think "Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pulled in here. I must have a
| packa
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Please contact me if you'd like to be one of these volunteers. Requirements:
>
> A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
> and would like to help
I've decided to give it a wait for a few days
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Possible, but we can't prove this one way or the other. Certainly very
> few modular X users have encountered apps that are still unported, as
> evidenced by very few remaining blockers on #112675. And there are a
> fairly large number of
... people using modular X already
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> * There is a clean upgrade solution available that will result in
> non-ported packages merely pulling in a load of extra unnecessary
> packages (that non-modular users have anyway).
>
> * The clean solution visibly illustrates that a package is unported.
> Users who are r
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:00:14 -0700 Joshua Baergen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | To be clear here: nothing will be broken. Xorg 7.0 will just not
> | provide virtual/x11 (and in fact blocks it), so there will be issues
> | with blocks showing up due to the upgrade path
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:00:14 -0700 Joshua Baergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| To be clear here: nothing will be broken. Xorg 7.0 will just not
| provide virtual/x11 (and in fact blocks it), so there will be issues
| with blocks showing up due to the upgrade path. Avoiding the upgrade
| (and b
Jason Wever wrote:
However if
packages are broken by this unmasking, it *will* be masked on SPARC
until such a time that this is fixed.
I'm not trying to be a party pooper here, but breaking the portage tree
should never be an acceptable answer.
Cheers,
To be clear here: nothing will
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:35:07 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if there are archs that would rather not move to modular X, that's
> their prerogative. The way I look at it is, sometimes change comes at
> a price. I really hope they aren't any archs I use though, because I
> ta
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:33:32 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported
| > ebuild pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that
| > some people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages are
| > ported,
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
>> B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
>> and would like to help
> I'm up for being a volunteer here.
All devs who've volu
maillog: 24/01/2006-12:25:01(-0500): Mark Loeser types
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
> > >
> > >
Alec Warner wrote:
> Well IMHO, you can do what you want and if any arch team doesn't like it
> they can always pmask it themselves in their arch profile. I will say I
> disagree with putting it into ~arch in the current state, although I
> agree with the rationale, and it IS your package(s), just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>>So here's my plan: Before modular X enters ~arch, I will ensure that all
>>porting bugs blocking #112675 are closed. As new bugs are filed, I will
>>ensure that they are closed within 2 days, giving
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> So here's my plan: Before modular X enters ~arch, I will ensure that all
> porting bugs blocking #112675 are closed. As new bugs are filed, I will
> ensure that they are closed within 2 days, giving their maintainers that
> long to respond and close it themselves. After 2 d
Marius Mauch wrote:
> How about delaying it as long as n packages are ported per day? Kinda
> stupid idea, but it ensures that things won't get hold up due to
> unmaintained packages/inactive devs and might even speed the process up
> (that's an illusion probably).
if n>4, that was yesterday.
Do
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:32:00 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported
> >>> ebuild pull in all of modular X (
You can count me too :) AlfredoChristian Heim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:> > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND> > B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept
On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 13:32 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
> >>> pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes,
Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
>>> pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
>>> people will pick up unnecessary deps until al
Mike Doty wrote:
> I think before you go forward with something like this you should give a
> suitable period of warning, it's going to create a lot of bug work for
> all of us.
Have you seen my daily emails for the past week and a half? =)
I have the feeling that it will create the most work for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
>
> Yes, some packages are going to break. But I intend to keep this to a
> minimum on packages people care about, as measured by the existence of
> an open porting
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> We should aim for when it will be done in a way that minimizes the
> breakage for all of our users. Yes, breakage will happen, but we can wait
> until its down to a more reasonable value.
And we probably should announce somewhere that
Lares Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I did some rough calculations and we are porting about 29 pkgs/day.
> At this rate it will take roughly 30 days to have all packages ported to
> ModX.
>
> spyderous wants it tomorrow,
> HalycOn wants it when all is ported.
I didn't say all of it ported. I
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:25 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > The problem with that is that it removes all motivation to ever port the
> > packages. They'll just stay that way forever, where forever means "until
> > I threaten to remove that from the virtual," in which case we'll be in
> > the same sce
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
> >
> > What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuil
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 23:06 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Earlier tonight, I discussed with halcy0n our differing opinions of the
> need for modular X to enter ~arch and break trees for some ~arch users.
> In my opinion, this is acceptable and beneficial, as ~arch users should
> already be those
On 1/24/06, Carlos Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:38 +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> > > > B) you'r
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:38 +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> > > B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuil
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> > B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
> > and would like to help
>
> I'm up for being a volunteer he
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
> and would like to help
I'm up for being a volunteer here.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTE
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
>
> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
> pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
people will pick up
Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
Yes, some packages are going to break. But I intend to keep this to a
minimum on packages people care about, as measured by the existence of
an open porting bug.
So here's my plan: Before modular X enters ~arch, I will ensure that all
66 matches
Mail list logo
