This week's agenda:
On 19:19 Mon 02 Mar , Thomas Anderson wrote:
> - GLEP 55
> There had been quite a bit of discussion on this topic recently.
> Within hours of the council meeting new proposals were being proposed
> and discussion was ongoing.
>
> Conclu
Le 09/03/2009 02:50, Donnie Berkholz a écrit :
On 14:09 Tue 03 Mar , Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Tuesday 03 March 2009 12:13:34 Peter Volkov wrote:
Could you just use dosed here?
dosed needs to die.
Why?
Because it's utterly pointless and exists only for legacy reasons. Few
packages use
Hi,
Tiziano Müller :
> With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of
> new problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package
> you depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an
> example).
I don't know if there is a bug somewhere (I did not find
2009/3/9 Christian Faulhammer :
>
> I don't know if there is a bug somewhere (I did not find one), but
> what about having the possibility to ask for one out many USE flags of
> a dependency. For example app-misc/gramps needs dev-lang/python with
> USE=berkdb or USE=sqlite, but Portage won't tell
Hallo,
Donnie Berkholz :
> On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The
> > syntax you proposed is more to write but still equivalent to the
> > one using vars. And looking at the ebuilds - taking G2CONF as an
> > example - it
Hi,
Daniel Pielmeier :
> 2009/3/9 Christian Faulhammer :
> >
> > I don't know if there is a bug somewhere (I did not find one), but
> > what about having the possibility to ask for one out many USE flags
> > of a dependency. For example app-misc/gramps needs dev-lang/python
> > with USE=berkdb
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 21:22 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I think the idea of ebuilds as scripts showing directly how to build
> software is a core part of the Gentoo build-system philosophy. This
> proposal pushes ebuilds toward a formatted file that is not a script.
> Instead, it is more li
2009/3/9 Christian Faulhammer :
> Hi,
>
> Daniel Pielmeier :
>>
>> || ( dev-lang/python[berkdb] dev-lang/python[sqlite] )
>
> That's the solution currently and not the optimum.
>
I have discussed this yesterday with loki_val, and workaround would be
using a useflag for one database backend and if
Am Montag, den 09.03.2009, 10:06 +0100 schrieb Christian Faulhammer:
> Hi,
>
> Daniel Pielmeier :
>
> > 2009/3/9 Christian Faulhammer :
> > >
> > > I don't know if there is a bug somewhere (I did not find one), but
> > > what about having the possibility to ask for one out many USE flags
> > > o
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 23:31 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On 21:22 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The syntax
> > > you proposed is more to write but still equival
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Ali Polatel wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> It's my turn to say goodbye.
> It's been really nice for two years. I've had great fun and have no bad
> feelings as I leave. This mail is meant as an apology to people who are
> awaiting my return. I'm sorry to let you down.
>
Hello all,
Here are my comments, opinions, and a recommendation regarding "GLEP
55" and similar proposals. I've put in 1) A) and a) numbering to
differentiate the various lists. Though perhaps long winded, at least
check out the Recommendation below.
The idea of sticking EAPI in metadata.xml was
Jacob Floyd posted
4afbebfe0903090601r5759177bt98639c0c3a61b...@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:01:21 -0600:
> Stick EAPI info in the Manifest. The Manifest stores metadata info about
> the ebuilds for security and validation purposes, why not add a string
> that determin
Am Montag, den 09.03.2009, 10:12 +0100 schrieb Michael Haubenwallner:
> On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 21:22 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> > I think the idea of ebuilds as scripts showing directly how to build
> > software is a core part of the Gentoo build-system philosophy. This
> > proposal pushes
# Michael Sterrett (09 Mar 2009)
# Masked for removal in 30 days.
# Needs removed version of dev-libs/libsigc++, broken autotools...
# Bug 215302 and bug 223771
net-irc/lostirc
Hi,
this is just friendly reminder that we are updating cmake-utils.eclass [see
attached diff] to tree in few hours and it gives you new fancy functionality.
Everything is well eclassdoc documented so you can find out what the new
features are and how to use them.
Highlights are:
- more precise h
I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a
fix for small packages. There's lots of bugs in bugzilla with items that
just need so
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
> while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
> knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a
> fix for small packages
Duncan wrote:
So putting it in the manifest but generated from the ebuild info really
doesn't change the problem, leaving us precisely where we were before,
except that it may be useful as a component of one of the other
solutions, and has been proposed as such in a few of the suggested
varian
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
Here're some more easy ones.
First up, un-optionaling some optional things. No impact for developers:
* PROPERTIES must be cached properly (it's optional in current EAPIs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> * Limit values in $USE to ones in $IUSE (bug 176467). The existing
> behaviour's majorly annoying; time for the package manager to start
> enforcing things strictly.
My impression is that most ebuild developers tend to dis
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:56:19 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > * Limit values in $USE to ones in $IUSE (bug 176467). The existing
> > behaviour's majorly annoying; time for the package manager to
> > start enforcing things strictly.
>
> My impression is that most ebuild devel
> Goodbye all you people
> There's nothing you can say
> To make me change my mind
> Goodbye
O babe,
Dont leave me now.
Dont say its the end of the road.
Remember the flowers I sent.
I need you, babe,
To put through the shredder in front of my friends.
Oh babe,
Dont leave me now.
How could yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:56:19 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> * Limit values in $USE to ones in $IUSE (bug 176467). The existing
>>> behaviour's majorly annoying; time for the package manager to
>>> st
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh :
> Next, some probably easy but long standing features:
>
> * src_test run unless RESTRICTed or explicitly disabled by the user
> (bug 184812)
A big no. This will lead to many failures on user systems, people who
run stable will be greatly annoyed. I know this is inspired
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:33:11 +0100
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh :
> > Next, some probably easy but long standing features:
> >
> > * src_test run unless RESTRICTed or explicitly disabled by the user
> > (bug 184812)
>
> A big no. This will lead to many failures on user systems,
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:28:48 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > If we must do that... Can we get something in profiles a bit like
> > this:
> >
> > USE_EXPAND_IMPLICIT="USERLAND KERNEL ELIBC ARCH"
> > USE_EXPAND_UNPREFIXED="ARCH"
> > USE_EXPAND_VALUES_USERLAND="GNU freebsd"
> > USE_EXPAN
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh :
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:33:11 +0100
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh :
> > > Next, some probably easy but long standing features:
> > >
> > > * src_test run unless RESTRICTed or explicitly disabled by the
> > > user (bug 184812)
> >
> > A big no. This w
On Monday 09 of March 2009 22:36:33 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:33:11 +0100
>
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh :
> > > Next, some probably easy but long standing features:
> > >
> > > * src_test run unless RESTRICTed or explicitly disabled by the user
> > > (bug
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 23:20:03 +0100
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Package A goes stable, test suite passes. Package B (a dependency of
> A) goes stable in a newer version, which will cause A to not merge in
> stable profile. This happens all the time and is no special case.
Uh, you *are* testing
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 23:24:15 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Unfortunately upstream tends to think of tests in very relaxed way.
And for those upstreams that do, you RESTRICT=test, or better yet
filter out dodgy tests. Which is what you should be doing currently
anyway -- the difference is, with E
On 20:26 Mon 09 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
>
> Here're some more easy ones.
This list sounds mostly good to me.
> * Limit values in $USE to ones in $IUSE (bug 17
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:26:24 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> * src_test run unless RESTRICTed or explicitly disabled by the user
> (bug 184812)
This one is not uncontroversial and will not go in a 'quick' EAPI I
think.
/loki_val
Tiziano � wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example).
So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some dis
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:39:41 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > * Calling unpack on an unrecognised extension should be fatal,
> > unless --if-compressed is specified. The default src_unpack needs
> > to use this.
>
> Why?
Currently, if a package does an explicit 'unpack foo.bar', where .bar is
an
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:38:51 -0500
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Should the next EAPI (as proposed) be a major "release" in terms of
> naming?
We don't use major.minor numbers for EAPI or have a concept like that.
It's too much mess.
> And should it really be adding features?
Well... So far as I can s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
>> while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
>> knowledgeable people that ar
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
As opposed to those same bugs being assigned to maintainer-needed and getting
lots of attention?
The inactive dev can just as easily resolve a m-needed bug as one that
is assigned to himself. The added benefit that some people actually look
at the m-needed que
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh :
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 23:20:03 +0100
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > Package A goes stable, test suite passes. Package B (a dependency
> > of A) goes stable in a newer version, which will cause A to not
> > merge in stable profile. This happens all the time and is no
>
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:44:55 -0500
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for
> a while?
Nothing, as long as they don't pretend to be maintaining packages while
they idle. See compnerd and his tonne of system-packages for reference.
It unnecessar
On Monday, March 9, 2009 11:44:55 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
> while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
> knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a
> fix for small package
Okay, let me explain in detail.
Undertakers contact devs who didn't touch CVS for at least two months,
are considered inactive in the bugzilla and have no current .away set.
After the initial contact, something like 3/4 of e-mailed people
respond very quickly and explain why they are gone (usuall
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 23:20:03 +0100
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> Package A goes stable, test suite passes. Package B (a dependency of
>> A) goes stable in a newer version, which will cause A to not merge in
>> stable profile. This happ
Gordon Malm posted
200903091617.48682.gen...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Mar
2009 16:17:48 -0700:
> There is an important security aspect to retiring folks - commit
> abilities. Perhaps in the case a dev wants to contribute but cannot in
> the near future their commit privs can just
Richard Freeman posted 49b57409.5050...@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:54:49 -0400:
> If the developer of an ebuild prepares the manifest, then at least their
> package manager will know how to handle the ebuild and extract the EAPI.
Good point. The dev's PM will presumabl
45 matches
Mail list logo
