Re: [gentoo-dev] PMS EAPI 3 more or less ready

2009-04-20 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Sonntag, den 12.04.2009, 20:59 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: I've got the EAPI 3 branch for PMS more or less ready: http://github.com/ciaranm/pms/tree/eapi-3 The provisional included feature list is everything that was ready before the deadline. Thanks a lot for your work. Sorry, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] PMS EAPI 3 more or less ready

2009-04-20 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote: * CONTROLLABLE-COMPRESS no. Without this we cannot get rid of the prepalldocs calls in the tree. Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] PROFILE-IUSE-INJECTION implicit things (Was: PMS EAPI 3 more or less ready)

2009-04-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
Let's see if we can keep to one thread per item here. On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:14:00 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: * PROFILE-IUSE-INJECTION yes, but *_IMPLICIT has to be discussed. There are a few suggested use cases for these: * Avoiding the need for developers to have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] PROFILE-IUSE-INJECTION implicit things (Was: PMS EAPI 3 more or less ready)

2009-04-20 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Montag, den 20.04.2009, 13:41 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: Let's see if we can keep to one thread per item here. On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:14:00 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: * PROFILE-IUSE-INJECTION yes, but *_IMPLICIT has to be discussed. There are a few

Re: [gentoo-dev] PMS EAPI 3 more or less ready

2009-04-20 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On P, 2009-04-12 at 20:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I've got the EAPI 3 branch for PMS more or less ready: http://github.com/ciaranm/pms/tree/eapi-3 The provisional included feature list is everything that was ready before the deadline. Before the next Council meeting (ideally a

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: does emerge verify arch compatibility when merging a binary package?

2009-04-20 Thread Amit Dor-Shifer
When you say ut checks CHOST/keywording, where are those definitions stored for the binary pkg? I see one instance of CHOST in the 'Packages' index on the BINHOST. Is that the variable emerge is comparing against? If not, where is it? the tbz itself holds just the binaries. Manually

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] --nodeps faulty behaviour?

2009-04-20 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Markus Duft wrote: Hi! I have a quick question: is --nodeps supposed to still merge packages in the right order? Yes. The attached patch should fix it. Thanks for reporting. - -- Thanks, Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] --nodeps faulty behaviour?

2009-04-20 Thread Markus Duft
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 08:35 +0200, Markus Duft wrote: Hi! I have a quick question: is --nodeps supposed to still merge packages in the right order? my specific problem is, that when i do this: emerge -pv --noreplace --oneshot --nodeps \ sys-devel/gcc-config \ sys-devel/gcc

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: does emerge verify arch compatibility when merging a binary package?

2009-04-20 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: When you say ut checks CHOST/keywording, where are those definitions stored for the binary pkg? It's appended to the tail end of the tbz2, in xpak format (see `man 5 xpak`). I see one instance of CHOST in the 'Packages'

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] --nodeps faulty behaviour?

2009-04-20 Thread Markus Duft
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 02:14 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Markus Duft wrote: Hi! I have a quick question: is --nodeps supposed to still merge packages in the right order? Yes. The attached patch should fix it. Thanks for reporting. cool

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] --nodeps faulty behaviour?

2009-04-20 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Markus Duft wrote: cool thanks :) so this patch makes portage merge in the order given on the command line? this means it's the users fault if packages are in the wrong order? Right. shouldn't portage do the same thing as with --nodeps, except