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
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.
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'.
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:
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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.
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
