Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:30:40 +0200 Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish wrote: The expectation here is that when a new version of gcc is stabilized, that users will upgrade to that in a reasonable amount of time, and use that (by selecting it with gcc-config) for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:27:14 -0700 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:10:48 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Not true. According to the 2006.0 x86 profile, for example, you're |

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Andrew Gaffney
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I don't believe retro-actively modifying the 2006.0 profile is a good idea in general. The profile currently says that for x86, gcc must be =sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1 - if you do # emerge =sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1 on a current tree you'll get a much higher version. Still,

Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: vdr - topic reanimated

2006-07-10 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:17:09 +0200 Matthias Schwarzott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! As the situation now has changed I would like to discuss this one more. Since one week we (hd_brummy and me) have changed our Gentoo VDR Project (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/video/vdr/index.xml) to

Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: vdr - topic reanimated

2006-07-10 Thread Ioannis Aslanidis
On 7/10/06, Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 04:36:55AM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten?? wrote: On Monday 10 July 2006 02:25, Luca Barbato wrote: c is simpler. I like it. Yes, of course if _all wranglers_ respected metadata, instead of stopping to herd tag

Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: vdr - topic reanimated

2006-07-10 Thread Jakub Moc
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 04:36:55AM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten?? wrote: On Monday 10 July 2006 02:25, Luca Barbato wrote: c is simpler. I like it. Yes, of course if _all wranglers_ respected metadata, instead of stopping to herd tag and assigning to that even when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/9/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I can tell, the complaints are about Portage being unable to handle GCC upgrades gracefully for end users. The thing is, that portage doesn't technically handle gcc upgrades. The user really needs to do that, and they (should) know

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/9/06, Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) If yes, are there any other flags that ebuilds should die on ? My (user) opinion is that ebuilds should not die on CFLAGS, at least not until per-package CFLAGS are implemented. Now if someone is crazy enough to enable -ffast-math globally

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Jakub Moc
Richard Fish wrote: That won't be necessary. Things mostly works, and when they don't, users file a bug like the aforementioned one, which should result in that particular ebuild getting fixed, instead of the bug being marked INVALID. The thing is, this particular ebuild isn't actually

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Ned Ludd
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 01:34 -0700, Richard Fish wrote: On 7/9/06, Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) If yes, are there any other flags that ebuilds should die on ? My (user) opinion is that ebuilds should not die on CFLAGS, at least not until per-package CFLAGS are implemented. per

[gentoo-dev] Re: Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Duncan
Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:24:24 +0200: In bug #139412, I ask Paul de Vriese why he thinks python should die on --fast-math instead of just filtering it. Here's his answer : Denis, quite simple. -ffast-math is broken

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On 7/10/06, Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ebuilds shouldn't die on anything according to the non-interactive portage philosophy. I don't know how official that philosophy is though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has nothing to do with being interactive or not. To me, an ebuild that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Patrick McLean
Denis Dupeyron wrote: This, for me, triggers 3 questions that are gentoo-dev@ material : 1) Should all ebuilds that currently filter --fast-math die on its presence instead of filtering it ? I don't think we should die on anything, if a user wants a particular CFLAG, generally the default

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
[ resending this, the original appears to have been eaten. ] On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:24:24 +0200 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | 1) Should all ebuilds that currently filter --fast-math die on its | presence instead of filtering it ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:24:24 +0200 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | 1) Should all ebuilds that currently filter --fast-math die on its | presence instead of filtering it ? http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_compile/build-environment/index.html Basically, if you're

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:41:25 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | There's no sane way to force users to switch their gcc version, so | messing w/ ebuild deps, profiles or keywords of outdated gcc versions | won't help... Messing with profiles will, however, give you grounds to close bugs as

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.17 kernel stabilisation plan

2006-07-10 Thread Daniel Drake
Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, I'm hoping to be able to mark 2.6.17 stable on or around July 11th. I'll give around a weeks notice here when that is to happen. Hopefully we'll use this for the 2006.1 release too. It will be a little later than planned, but this is your 1 week notice that 2.6.17

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: per pkg cflags are here already it would fall under the per pkg env variables. Please forgive my stupidity, but the only place I could see to set a env var per package was /etc/portage/bashrc. Is that what you are referring to? -Richard --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard Fish wrote: On 7/10/06, Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: per pkg cflags are here already it would fall under the per pkg env variables. Please forgive my stupidity, but the only place I could see to set a env var per package was

[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Molle Bestefich
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: The expectation here is that when a new version of gcc is stabilized, that users will upgrade to that in a reasonable amount of time, and use that (by selecting it with gcc-config) for compiling all new updates. FYI, gcc-3.4.4-r1 was stabilized on 2-Dec-2005, and

[gentoo-dev] Removing dev-perl/Test-Builder-Tester

2006-07-10 Thread Michael Cummings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This package was absorbed back into perl-core/Test-Simple as of the 0.62 release (which you have either via dev-lang/perl-5.8.8 or as the ebuild at this point). I'm package.mask'ing it and will be removing it from the tree in 30 days. Anything that

[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Molle Bestefich
Richard Fish wrote: Having dozens (hundreds? all?) ebuilds check for a minimum version Probably just the ebuilds that happen to use new GCC features before the mass of the general public has changed to that version. But yes, a minimum version constraint could theoretically end up in a lot of

[gentoo-dev] Removing www-servers/resin-ee

2006-07-10 Thread Krzysiek Pawlik
I've masked www-servers/resin-ee on 1 July, it will be removed from tree around friday (14 July) - it's old, binary and there's no version 3 of it. Please use www-servers/resin. -- Krzysiek Pawlik nelchael at gentoo.org key id: 0xBC51 desktop-misc, desktop-dock, desktop-wm, x86, java,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Jakub Moc
Molle Bestefich wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: The expectation here is that when a new version of gcc is stabilized, that users will upgrade to that in a reasonable amount of time, and use that (by selecting it with gcc-config) for compiling all new updates. FYI, gcc-3.4.4-r1 was

[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Molle Bestefich
Jakub Moc wrote: Sigh. Because it would break your system! You really need to research better if you insist on beating a dead horse over and over again. Kindly read the toolchain.eclass: You're misreading me. I was merely counter-arguing Kevin, who said that Portage provides plenty of

[gentoo-dev] Linux World Expo

2006-07-10 Thread Joshua Jackson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So who's planning on going? Basically I'd like to know who's planning on going. I'm still undecided about it honestly, and if I go it'd only be for a few days. Its also probably a good way to find a roomate to make the cost of rooms a bit less. We

[gentoo-dev] mail-mta/courier needs a new maintainer

2006-07-10 Thread Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
mail-mta/courier is without an active ebuild maintainer and has an open security bug [1]. Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update metadata.xml and CC yourself on the bug. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135005 -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:23:54 +0200 Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: The expectation here is that when a new version of gcc is stabilized, that users will upgrade to that in a reasonable amount of time, and use that (by selecting it with gcc-config)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:32:00 +0200 Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish wrote: Having dozens (hundreds? all?) ebuilds check for a minimum version Probably just the ebuilds that happen to use new GCC features before the mass of the general public has changed to that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish wrote: of gcc doesn't seem very effecient. I can't see why it would not be efficient? I think it is an inefficient use of developer time. Do we really want gentoo devs spending their time figuring out what the minimum gcc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It shouldn't even be _necessary_ to create bugs and receive advice from a living, breathing human being just to perform a system update. It isn't necessary. -user, the forums, IRC, all are monitored by living, breathing human beings.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish wrote: On 7/10/06, Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: per pkg cflags are here already it would fall under the per pkg env variables. Please forgive my stupidity, but the only place I could see to set a env var per package was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Simon Stelling
Richard Fish wrote: I have to say I dislike allowing this backdoor method to set CFLAGS, as they won't show up in emerge --info or emerge -pv pkg. You'd have to see the actual build output to see the nasty flags, which you might not even think to ask for if a package builds fine but crashes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds like your after bug 95741: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95741 Yeah, that would be nice! :-) -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Richard Fish wrote: I have to say I dislike allowing this backdoor method to set CFLAGS, as they won't show up in emerge --info or emerge -pv pkg. You'd have to see the actual build output to see the nasty flags, which you might not even think to ask for if a package builds fine but crashes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-07-10 Thread Georgi Georgiev
maillog: 09/07/2006-17:17:59(+0100): John Mylchreest types I've tried to clarify my point fairly well above, but the dependancy is fairly strict by design. What in linux-mod except for my specific example above would continue to work if there were no kernel sources present? (I do of course

[gentoo-dev] Modular X unported packages

2006-07-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
With the help of Brian Harring, we've now got a check for unported packages. It indicates 207 unported packages, of which 93 can potentially be fixed by stabilizing newer versions and pulling unported ebuilds from the tree. I've uploaded the list [1]. Run `grep potentially

Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals: virtual/jre and virtual/jdk

2006-07-10 Thread Joshua Nichols
Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: Two new new-style virtuals have been added today to the tree: - virtual/jdk - virtual/jre This allows migration to generation 2 of Java build system to advance. All virtual/{jdk,jre} have been removed from profiles. The bug for this was #138747. Something