On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:35:16AM -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
Now that nominations are officially open, I nominate the current council
members (again):
amne
Thanks, but not this time.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums -
Hello, Markus.
В Вск, 08/06/2008 в 19:28 +, Markus Ullmann (jokey) пишет:
jokey 08/06/08 19:28:19
Modified: use.local.desc
Log:
Rename webkitgtk to webkit-gtk
Revision ChangesPath
1.3576 profiles/use.local.desc
Whenever you modify
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
Hello,
looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I
have a few technical questions for you:
1. GLEP54
Doit!
2. GLEP55
Good idea. But the GLEP still contains too many may's and should's.
Example: [...] but note that one should never
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:45:37 +0200
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why don't we change the versioning of the EAPI to a X.Y scheme
and demand that changes in the minor version must not break sourcing
of the ebuild with older package managers and that major versions do.
Major version
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Anyone thinking that has a very limited understanding of how things
work.
Usually in this category you put everybody that disagrees with you, no
matter the topic.
Let's face it, there hasn't been any correct criticism, and any
complaints have been from people who
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:58:40 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Anyone thinking that has a very limited understanding of how things
work.
Usually in this category you put everybody that disagrees with you,
no matter the topic.
And what does that tell you
On Monday 09 June 2008 09:06:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't anyone
who thinks so bothered to provide details?
Probably because you have such a long history of saying it's broken without
providing any details. Even when asked you sometimes
it seems packages are failing when built with glibc-2.8 and/or gcc-4.3. these
are issues in the package, not the toolchain. previous versions were lazy
and included API bleeding which packages took advantage of. with these
newer versions, things bleed less means those packages break.
some
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:45:37 +0200
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why don't we change the versioning of the EAPI to a X.Y scheme
and demand that changes in the minor version must not break sourcing
of the ebuild with older package managers and that major
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:58:40 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usually in this category you put everybody that disagrees with you,
no matter the topic.
And what does that tell you about the average level of
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:26:00 +0100
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 09 June 2008 09:06:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details?
Probably because you have such a long history of
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:28:57 +0200
Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:58:40 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usually in this category you put everybody that disagrees with you,
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:27:56 +0200
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild.
That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
But how does such a package manager handle .ebuild-0 files? Ignore
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'm afraid you are mixing up emails from this thread. I got
complaints about how wrongly the PMS is written, e.g. academic paper
markup vs plain text, natural language used to specify syntax while a
grammar notation like EBNF would be better suited, when I asked
people why
On 9 Jun 2008, at 10:50, Luca Barbato wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'm afraid you are mixing up emails from this thread. I got
complaints about how wrongly the PMS is written, e.g. academic paper
markup vs plain text, natural language used to specify syntax
while a
grammar notation like
Mike Frysinger a écrit :
please refrain from assigning to toolchain. if you have questions, feel free
to ask.
(too lazy to look for it, as we already have our hands full with other
library breakages)
Is there a howto for users/developers when migrating to glibc 2.8?
Something other than a
Peter Volkov a écrit :
Whenever you modify anything in profiles directory, please, fill in
ChangeLog. ChangeLogs became useless if only part of developers fill
them.
For additional info, echangelog works in there too as I found out a few
days ago.
Cheers
--
Rémi Cardona
LRI, INRIA
[EMAIL
That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
But how does such a package manager handle .ebuild-0 files? Ignore them?
Failing because of unknown files in a package-dir?
Should we care about package managers not being aware of the existence of
EAPI's?
Current portage would
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details?
- rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml.
What technical reason is there to
[..snip..]
This doesn't, to me, really seem to be relevant to the original purpose
of the thread. Can we either start a new thread or get this one back on
topic?
welp
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details?
- rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml.
What technical
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:49:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details?
-
Hi,
Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
opfer (Christian Faulhammer)
Thanks, but I decline.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 09 June 2008, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Mike Frysinger a écrit :
please refrain from assigning to toolchain. if you have questions, feel
free to ask.
Is there a howto for users/developers when migrating to glibc 2.8?
Something other than a ChangeLog (too much detail) or a NEWS file
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:49:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to
On Monday 09 June 2008 11:28:03 Josh Saddler wrote:
Let's change all that hideous, barely readable multiple brace/bracket
abuse into something more human-readable, shall we?
Please explain why angle brackets are readable but braces aren't.
pre caption=Environment state between functions
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:28:03 -0700
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
p
Global variables must only contain invariant values (see uri
link=#metadata-invariancelink/uri). If a global variable's value
is invariant, it may have the value that would be generated at any
On 09-06-2008 11:49:35 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details?
- rewrite it as an rfc using a
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:56:33 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:28:03 -0700
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
p
Global variables must only contain invariant values (see uri
link=#metadata-invariancelink/uri). If a global
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:28:03 -0700
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
p
Global variables must only contain invariant values (see uri
link=#metadata-invariancelink/uri). If a global variable's value
is invariant, it may have the value that would be generated at any
given point in the build
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I usually do something like this:
I used to do that too, but it's quite slower than the */*/$blah, because
it has to visit all the directories on the grep.
Give it a try, took me quite a while to get used to it but it works
nicely.
--
Diego Flameeyes
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 09-06-2008 11:49:35 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who
Thomas Anderson wrote:
As Fabian said it really isn't a matter of We like XML better than LaTeX!
It's not those people's prerogative.
Problems like having homogeneous documentation aren't that small.
The people who wrote PMS should be able to make the decision
for themselves(as they will be
On 9 Jun 2008, at 14:18, Luca Barbato wrote:
The people who wrote PMS should be able to make the decision
for themselves(as they will be maintaining it) as to what language to
use.
The main point being using latex prevents people from modify it.
Your opinion.
You don't *have* to read PMS
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:18:01 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The people who wrote PMS should be able to make the decision
for themselves(as they will be maintaining it) as to what language
to use.
The main point being using latex prevents people from modify it.
Are you
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 01:26:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:18:01 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The people who wrote PMS should be able to make the decision
for themselves(as they will be maintaining it) as to what language
to use.
The main
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 14:18 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Thomas Anderson wrote:
As Fabian said it really isn't a matter of We like XML better than LaTeX!
It's not those people's prerogative.
Problems like having homogeneous documentation aren't that small.
The people who wrote PMS
On Monday 09 June 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
it seems packages are failing when built with glibc-2.8 and/or
gcc-4.3. these are issues in the package, not the toolchain.
previous versions were lazy and included API bleeding which
packages took advantage of. with these newer versions, things
Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# [tracker] GCC 4.3 porting
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198121
or https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=gcc-4.3
# [TRACKER] ebuilds failing to build against sys-libs/glibc-2.8
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=225459
or
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 06:44:59 -0700
Chip Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although it'll be a bit slower than a direct grep: for m in `find
/usr/portage -name metadata.xml `; do grep -Rn foo $m;done
That would be horribly slow by comparison. :)
Kind regards,
JeR
--
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:27:52 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current council has raised never actually deciding anything to
an art form.
Barking up the wrong (portage) tree again?
Kindest regards,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Thomas Anderson wrote:
I personally have had no problems reading and/or understanding PMS, and
I've had to reference a fair bit of it. I'd like to hear exactly who has
problems with what sections and how to fix that.
As Fabian said it really isn't a matter of We like XML better than LaTeX!
Luca Barbato wrote:
Thomas Anderson wrote:
As Fabian said it really isn't a matter of We like XML better than
LaTeX!
It's not those people's prerogative.
Problems like having homogeneous documentation aren't that small.
See the devmanual. It uses completely different XML markup. It is XML,
Roy Bamford wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008.06.05 01:00, ?ukasz Damentko wrote:
Hi guys,
Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be
open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008).
Team,
I don't want to nominate
On 19:03 Mon 09 Jun , Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# [tracker] GCC 4.3 porting
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198121
or https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=gcc-4.3
# [TRACKER] ebuilds failing to build against
Peter Weller wrote:
[..snip..]
This doesn't, to me, really seem to be relevant to the original purpose
of the thread. Can we either start a new thread or get this one back on
topic?
In the context of whether this GLEP is complete and should be approved it
does make sense. It is important to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:27:56 +0200
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild.
That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
But how does such a package manager
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:21PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I love aliasing :)
Any pybugz lovers, this patch will allow use of aliases.
For anybody that wants nicer bugzilla URLS, you can use these:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/${NUMERIC}
http://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/${NUMERIC}
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Having the EAPI versioned like this: X.Y where X is the postfix part of the
ebuild (foo-1.0.ebuild-X) and Y the EAPI=Y in the ebuild itself we could
increment Y in case the changes to the EAPI don't break sourcing (again: a
package manager will have to mask those ebuilds)
2008/6/9 Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:27:56 +0200
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild.
That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
On Montag, 9. Juni 2008, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Matthias Schwarzott [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi,
This post is about how to create a nice upgrade path when merging two
packages.
The packages I care about are
media-plugins/vdr-streamdev-{client,server}, that we wanted to merge into
On 11:12 Sun 08 Jun , Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I
have a few technical questions for you:
1. GLEP54
2. GLEP55
I don't have any particular objections to these, besides the vague
aesthetic one of having EAPI in
* Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi,
Upstream doesn't always know better for our setup (it may try to second
there are also a lot of other things, upstream tends not to know ;-P
guess our settings by looking for particular automake/autoconf
versions), it will show to
* Matthias Schwarzott [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Well, upstream is just one file/package: vdr-streamdev-0.3.4.tgz
What I suspected.
Actually, I'm not interested in that package. Otherwise there
already would be a fork which keeps that separation.
But we want to revert this now, because
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 11:12 Sun 08 Jun , Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I
have a few technical questions for you:
1. GLEP54
2. GLEP55
I don't have any particular objections to these, besides the vague
aesthetic one of
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Joe Peterson wrote:
Technical reasons to avoid the filename:
1) Increase of [needless] complexity in filenames/extensions (and only one
example of the impact is that searching for ebuild files becomes less
straightforward), when things like SLOT, EAPI, etc., etc., seem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Increase of [needless] complexity in filenames/extensions (and only one
example of the impact is that searching for ebuild files becomes less
straightforward), when things like SLOT, EAPI, etc., etc., seem to
naturally belong as part of the script
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:08 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying it's a lot harder. But it is more complex and less
elegant. Also, it is error-prone. If someone, by habit, looks for
all *.ebuild, he will miss a portion of the ebuilds and not even
realize it at first
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:08 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying it's a lot harder. But it is more complex and less
elegant. Also, it is error-prone. If someone, by habit, looks for
all *.ebuild, he will miss a portion of the ebuilds and not
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:15:56 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, if everyone is perfect and remembers to do things perfectly
right, there would never be issues in many things, but when you make
something more complicated, there will be more errors.
So we shouldn't ever change
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:15:56 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, if everyone is perfect and remembers to do things perfectly
right, there would never be issues in many things, but when you make
something more complicated, there will be more errors.
So we
Joe Peterson schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:08 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a
program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be
quite crazy. For example, if C programs
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:36:24 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course I don't mean that. But humans and computers are each good
at a complementary set of things. Computers handle obscure complexity
easily; humans do not, so it's better to let computers make our lives
easier
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
exposed in an inappropriate location to everyone looking at the portage
tree.
No it
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:09:04 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other
is exposed in
On 05:20 Tue 10 Jun , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yet GLEP 55 is the only solution that's been proposed that solves the
requirements. And your entire argument boils down to file extension
changes don't look pretty, for some arbitrary value of pretty that
also precludes index.html.en and
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml?
Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as
being not suitable for anything the package manager really needs.
It also moves the EAPI
Hi.
I'm reading portage docs and sources at /usr/lib/portage trying to
understand how portage persists information on 'available ports'.
So, I'm reading /usr/lib/portage/bin/emerge:
--- snip ---
portdb = trees[porttree].dbapi
--- snip ---
Where 'trees' is a parameter to 'search's
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 01:07 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:36:14 -0300
João Macaíba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May someone give me some help on this ? How does portage do the
searchs ? Walk into the ports tree and build some structure or store
this info on some embedded
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
João Macaíba wrote:
May someone give me some help on this ? How does portage do the
searchs ? Walk into the ports tree and build some structure or store
this info on some embedded database like berkeley db or sqlite ?
If you want to use sqlite,
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 20:51 -0300, João Macaíba wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 01:07 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:36:14 -0300
João Macaíba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May someone give me some help on this ? How does portage do the
searchs ? Walk into the ports tree
71 matches
Mail list logo
