Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:56:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:46:26 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: Actual name I don't hugely care about, I'm more interested in ensuring we don't rule out doing use cycle breaking via a bad design decision. Cycle

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:31:09 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: Cycle breaking requires explicit instructions from the ebuilds in question (many of which are system things, which further complicates it) along with support from Portage, so it's a distant future, lot of work thing.

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 08:41:02AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:31:09 -0700 As demonstrated, that cycle is easily broken. A lot of the cycles users run into originate that way also. Congratulations. You just turned on 'build' and 'bootstrap', and turned off 'acl'.

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le jeudi 01 avril 2010 à 00:56 -0700, Brian Harring a écrit : [snip] pkg_setup: ran just before the build of the pkg, after the pkg's DEPENDS are all built. Meaning you *can* do has_version checks, kernel config checks, etc, because the proceeding deps are now satisfied. pkg_pretend:

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:10:20PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: jumping on the train here, but who said PM would not feed proper data to pkg_pretend so it would behave like the DEPEND were already built. Could some guy involved in a PM development tell us about how this would be handled

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le jeudi 01 avril 2010 à 03:18 -0700, Brian Harring a écrit : On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:10:20PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: jumping on the train here, but who said PM would not feed proper data to pkg_pretend so it would behave like the DEPEND were already built. Could some guy

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:56:08 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I'm well aware I did. See, if PMS wasn't developed in a void you'd know build, bootstrap, acl and friends were already a known issue with use cycle breaking. So since it's a known issue, why are you pushing

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:42:10PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: Basically, you want the PM to lie to the ebuild in some fashion. Since pkg_pretend is free form, it's effectively impossible to cover the scenarios it could check on- consider checking the kernel config/version, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Brian Harring
Summarizing ciaran's claim to end this nonsense- VALID_USE isn't useful because use cycle breaking can't be done according to strictures he desires, as such VALID_USE is pointless because pkg_pretend can cover it. It's a bit brief and likely left out an insult or two, but it's to the point at

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 03:59:54 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:42:10PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: Basically, you want the PM to lie to the ebuild in some fashion. Since pkg_pretend is free form, it's effectively impossible to cover the

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:23:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 03:59:54 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:42:10PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: Basically, you want the PM to lie to the ebuild in some fashion. Since

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:18:27 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: Summarizing ciaran's claim to end this nonsense- VALID_USE isn't useful because use cycle breaking can't be done according to strictures he desires, as such VALID_USE is pointless because pkg_pretend can cover it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:38:36 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: But if the kernel sources symlink is changed by installing new kernel sources, there won't be a valid .config in the new directory anyway. Oddly enough, I actually have an ebuild that directly contradicts that-

[gentoo-dev] are hardened-sources maintained?

2010-04-01 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
I'm seeing more and more complaints in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=284746 (request to bump hardened-sources). Can I take over the package? No real reaction for about 8 months sounds like not maintained to me. I'm using it on one of my machines, and would gladly give the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

2010-04-01 Thread Vincent Launchbury
On 03/31/10 16:28, Sebastian Pipping wrote: I am worried that if people start using say Google Docs for collaborating on Gentoo content, everyone else is forced to use Google Docs to participate. While I do appreciate projects like TechTalks and Summer of Code I personally do not trust Google

[gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative)

2010-04-01 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, so I'm replying to the initial mail in this thread. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: [snip proposition] Improvements in this direction are indeed needed, but I would really like it if the volatile mix of

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Dror Levin
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:04, David Leverton levert...@googlemail.comwrote: If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't Ciaran. I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke. As for the topic: the only real concern about VALID_USE that I've seen from anyone is about

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:39:43 +0300 Dror Levin sp...@gentoo.org wrote: If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't Ciaran. I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke. Could you point out where I've been personal and insulting in this discussion please? I'd like to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative)

2010-04-01 Thread Dror Levin
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: In that case, why would you like to see VALID_USE as well as pkg_pretend? Why not just use pkg_pretend, which is already in EAPI 4 and which can do everything VALID_USE can do plus several useful things that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative)

2010-04-01 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:58:29 +0300 Dror Levin sp...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: In that case, why would you like to see VALID_USE as well as pkg_pretend? Why not just use pkg_pretend, which is already in EAPI 4 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch

2010-04-01 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

2010-04-01 Thread Róbert Čerňanský
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:46:47 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:48:37AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Brian Harring wrote: | Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting USE flags for | functionality. Checking for them and

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-01 Thread James Cloos
TV == Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net writes: One change the perl eclasses require is elimination of the code which deletes the man pages. Deleting the man pages is /extremely/ rude and should not occur. And given that portage inappropriately ignores a fixed eclass in the OVERlay, that means

[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-01 Thread Jonathan Callen
On 04/01/2010 07:41 PM, James Cloos wrote: And given that portage inappropriately ignores a fixed eclass in the OVERlay, that means that every time one syncs one must re-patch the offending eclasses. If you want all ebuilds to use eclasses from a given overlay (if available) instead of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-01 Thread Zac Medico
On 04/01/2010 04:41 PM, James Cloos wrote: And given that portage inappropriately ignores a fixed eclass in the OVERlay, that means that every time one syncs one must re-patch the offending eclasses. You can configure eclass override behavior via eclass-overrides in /etc/portage/repos.conf, as

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 05:14:20PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: You can configure eclass override behavior via eclass-overrides in /etc/portage/repos.conf, as documented in `man portage`. There are a number of caveats to eclass-overrides, and that's why it's not the default behavior. For example,

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-01 Thread Zac Medico
On 04/01/2010 05:17 PM, Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 05:14:20PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: You can configure eclass override behavior via eclass-overrides in /etc/portage/repos.conf, as documented in `man portage`. There are a number of caveats to eclass-overrides, and that's why