Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

On 05/20/2016 05:38 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 05/20/2016 03:36 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 05/19/2016 07:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > .. > >>> >> To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some >> devs get on board and then request to add keywords to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

Mart Raudsepp writes: > Similarly, I would like that all ebuild that call 'sed' actually DEPEND > on sed, not just half of them. > I would also like that no ebuild would assume packages in @system to be > present, beyond those dictated by PMS (unpackers and such). Please don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 05/20/2016 12:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > That's not a case since GLEP doesn't define how it is configured. > And it's invalid to reference other groups in path=s of a defined > group. > I'm just playing language lawyer. The spec does say, A Package Manager implementing this

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

"Robin H. Johnson" writes: >> > cp -f "${tmpf}" "$f" || die "copy back failed" >> >> Why '-f' is required? > Corner cases w/ copying and bad ebuild usage (specifically running > ebuild as two different non-root users during development). Mostly > habit. Reading:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

> On Thu, 19 May 2016, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: > Ulrich Mueller writes: >> Yes, of course. "|| die -n || return" if you want the function to >> return at that point, if it was called under nonfatal. >> >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

Have you guys read https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16529716/awk-save-modifications-inplace ?

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On Fri, 20 May 2016 19:47:55 + (UTC) "Johannes Huber" wrote: > commit: 548f4ee19c6b0fe0d5e87e84a5a82c421229e0ce > Author: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri May 20 19:46:11 2016 + > Commit: Johannes Huber gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri May 20

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 20/05/16 11:49 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:40:39 -0400 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> On 05/20/2016 11:34 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> >>> ...and the user has this in their install.mask file: >>> >>> [bash-completion] >>> path=/some/other/path >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

rindeal writes: > Have you guys read > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16529716/awk-save-modifications-inplace > ? a) mawk doesn't support it. b) 4.1 is not stabilized, yet. -- Amadeusz Żołnowski signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

Reasons for inplace editing are the same for any language and tool, but having a wrapper just because some tool doesn't support it, is a bloat. Especially when gawk>=4.1 supports it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

Thursday 19 May 2016 23:08:05, Mike Frysinger wrote : > On 18 May 2016 22:25, aide...@gentoo.org wrote: > > awk doesn't have the -i option like sed and if editing file in place is > > desired, additional steps are required. eawk uses tmp file to make it > > look to the caller editing happens in

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

Hello, Sometime around a year ago, I started working on extending INSTALL_MASK to support well-defined locations. The work was never finished, and I just found my old specification for it. I've cleaned it up a bit, and extended it into a complete GLEP covering INSTALL_MASK [1]. Please review the

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:36:22 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some > devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages that > they already maintain? If said arches are already supported in Gentoo > I see

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] pym/portage/util/locale.py: add a C module to check locale

On Fri, 20 May 2016 06:59:14 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 5/19/16 9:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 19 maja 2016 14:43:38 CEST, "Anthony G. Basile" > > napisał(a): > >> From: "Anthony G. Basile" > >> >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] pym/portage/util/locale.py: add a C module to check locale

On 5/19/16 9:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 19 maja 2016 14:43:38 CEST, "Anthony G. Basile" > napisał(a): >> From: "Anthony G. Basile" >> >> The current method to check for the system locale is to use python's >> ctypes.util.find_library() to

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:09:04AM +0800, Ian Delaney wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:00:02 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:36:22 -0700 > > Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > > > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:00:02 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:36:22 -0700 > Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying > > some devs get on board and then request to add keywords to

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some > devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages that they > already maintain? No, you've misunderstood. He's saying people add new

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/2] portage.package.ebuild.config: Rename iuse_implicit -> iuse_effective

Rename the iuse_implicit variable used in USE_EXPAND handling to iuse_effective, since that is what is actually passed there. Correct naming makes figuring out what the function does much easier. --- pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ebuild.config: Fix filtering all USE_EXPAND variables in EAPI 5+

Ensure that all USE_EXPAND variables are properly filtered and exported in EAPI 5 and newer, as required by the PMS. This includes exporting an empty value if no matching flag is provided in IUSE. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=582140 --- pym/portage/eapi.py | 6

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

Mike Frysinger writes: > On 18 May 2016 22:25, aide...@gentoo.org wrote: >> awk doesn't have the -i option like sed and if editing file in place is >> desired, additional steps are required. eawk uses tmp file to make it >> look to the caller editing happens in place. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:00:38 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 20/05/16 11:49 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:40:39 -0400 > > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > >> On 05/20/2016 11:34 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > >>> > >>> ...and the user

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Add awk wrapper - eawk - edit file in place

> a) mawk doesn't support it. > b) 4.1 is not stabilized, yet. a) if you depend on mawk then you can really create your own wrapper in your ebuild or do it inline b) then perhaps put your efforts that way

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] rebar.eclass: Build Erlang/OTP projects using dev-util/rebar

Michał Górny writes: >> +export ERL_LIBS="${EPREFIX}$(get_erl_libs)" > > I think calling get_libdir in global scope is forbidden. You should > really export this somewhere in phase function. Fixed. >> +# @FUNCTION: _find_dep_version > > Namespace it, please. Just in case.

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] ebuild: Extend helper-in-global-scope ban to all EAPIs

On Thu, 5 May 2016 23:10:43 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Make helper calls in global scope fatal in all supported EAPIs since > this is the behavior required by PMS and all major offenders are fixed > already. > --- > bin/eapi.sh | 4 > bin/ebuild.sh | 30

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] rebar.eclass: Build Erlang/OTP projects using dev-util/rebar

Peter Stuge writes: >> +pushd "${EPREFIX}$(get_erl_libs)" >/dev/null >> +for p in ${pn} ${pn}-*; do >> +if [[ -d ${p} ]]; then >> +echo "${p#${pn}-}" >> +return 0 > > No popd on success? Thanks for catching this up!

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 05/20/2016 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Please review the specification provided. The basic goal is to provide > an ability to use INSTALL_MASK alike USE flags -- with path groups that > are well-defined and described in the repository. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 05/20/2016 07:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Sometime around a year ago, I started working on extending INSTALL_MASK > to support well-defined locations. The work was never finished, and I > just found my old specification for it. I've cleaned it up a bit, > and extended it into a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 05/20/2016 11:34 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > ...and the user has this in their install.mask file: > > [bash-completion] > path=/some/other/path > desc=some other description > I don't think that's allowed; the groups are specified by each repository's metadata/install-mask.conf, not by

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:30:59 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/20/2016 11:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Getting into implementation details, I'd probably go for: > > > > INSTALL_MASK="@bash-completion" > > > > but the exact syntax is left for various

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 05/20/2016 11:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > ... > > Getting into implementation details, I'd probably go for: > > INSTALL_MASK="@bash-completion" > > but the exact syntax is left for various package managers. Paludis > and pkgcore would probably prefer a proper configuration file. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:40:39 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/20/2016 11:34 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > > ...and the user has this in their install.mask file: > > > > [bash-completion] > > path=/some/other/path > > desc=some other description > > > > I don't think

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On Fri, 20 May 2016 11:12:02 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/20/2016 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Please review the specification provided. The basic goal is to provide > > an ability to use INSTALL_MASK alike USE flags -- with path groups that > > are

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

On 05/20/2016 03:36 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 05/19/2016 07:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: .. >> > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some > devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages that they > already maintain? If said arches are already

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On 05/20/2016 11:44 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > I'd make '@' signify group names, like we do for sets. This would have > the side limitation that it would make it impossible to filter > filenames starting with '@' with the currently supported > path-or-filename syntax. > That may be the best we

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On Fri, 20 May 2016 12:15:36 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/20/2016 11:44 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > I'd make '@' signify group names, like we do for sets. This would have > > the side limitation that it would make it impossible to filter > > filenames starting with