On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:56:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:46:26 -0700
> Brian Harring 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 breaking
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:31:09 -0700
Brian Harring 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.
>
> Nonse
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
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_preten
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
> hand
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 g
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:56:08 -0700
Brian Harring 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 for VALID_USE "be
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/versi
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
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 03:59:54 -0700
Brian Harring 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 scenarios it
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:23:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 03:59:54 -0700
> Brian Harring 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_preten
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:18:27 -0700
Brian Harring 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.
>
> It's a bit
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:38:36 -0700
Brian Harring 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- used for man
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 hardened-sour
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 wi
On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:18:27 Brian Harring wrote:
> It's a bit brief and likely left out an insult or two
If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't Ciaran.
I've seen this attitude on IRC too. Funnily enough, you don't speak for other
people, you don't decide wha
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 wrote:
[snip proposition]
Improvements in this direction are indeed needed, but I would really
like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore dev
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:53:10 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On a related note, I really like Zac's and solar's no-nonsense
> get-stuff-done-even-if-it-isn't-perfect attitude, and would love it if
> everyone else applied it as well (if they don't already). I don't care
> if the proposal is perfect;
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:04, David Leverton 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.
> As for the topic: the only real concern about VALID_USE that I've seen from
> anyone is about whether Portage can
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:39:43 +0300
Dror Levin 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 learn for fu
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
>
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:58:29 +0300
Dror Levin 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 which c
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200
Petteri Räty 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 have a feeli
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:46:47 -0700
Brian Harring 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 returnin
On 04/01/2010 01:44 PM, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> If I'm getting this right the proposed behavior is such that in case of
> conflicting use flags emerge fails and user gets a message that he
> has to set use flags as required. If so then I think it is not the right
> way to handle it. A package man
> "TV" == Torsten Veller 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 that every
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 e
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,
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 exampl
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
