Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 10:05, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > I should have caught that sooner. -c does not remove a package, it just > removes its deps. > > -c == --depclean. --depclean is doing exactly what it is supposed to. If called with no arguments, it searches for any unneeded dependencies and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 04:22, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Step back for a minute, and relax. There is a reason you're getting > blowback. You're asking for changes that would affect everybody else. > This is similar in principle to what Lennart Poettering did, and you're > getting the same reaction he got. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:17:30 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > --depclean is doing exactly what it is supposed to. If called with no Problem is I was talking about removing packages directly. It served no purpose in this discussion. Since I use --depclean, not -c. I was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:00:30 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > My point was that --unmerge is not intended to be dependency-aware. > --depclean is. As far as I can tell, that is the point others have > been trying to make as well, when pointing out the differences >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:19:32 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > On 12/07/17 15:14, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Is it in system? > > Is it in a set? > > Is it in world? > > If no to all, its a dep, warn! > > All this says is whether the package was explicitly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 14:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> It is not the same as -C, which is remove a package directly. >>> >>> --unmerge (-C) >> Correct, --unmerge will remove a package without considering >> dependencies (give or take a few special cases). It is usually (or, at >> least, should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 15:14, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Is it in system? > Is it in a set? > Is it in world? > If no to all, its a dep, warn! All this says is whether the package was explicitly installed and recorded in world, or is a member of @system. The target package may or may not be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 04:57:21PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:27:57 -0700 > Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > Portage's fault. If you don't want a package added to a set or world, > > you'll need to use the -1 (--oneshot) option. > > Did you even

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 23:22:12 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > Step back for a minute, and relax. There is a reason you're getting > blowback. You're asking for changes that would affect everybody else. > This is similar in principle to what Lennart Poettering did, and >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 04:43:41 +0100 "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > > Of course, you can do what Poettering did, and write your own solution > .. or fork portage to do things the way -you- want .. but don't > reinvent the wheel for the rest of us .. that's what Choice and > Gentoo

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko >>> wrote: On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:27:54 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> > This is why stabilisation, if not for individual package maintainers on >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] package up for grabs: mail-filter/spambayes

On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 07:28 +0200, Thomas - LordVan - Raschbacher wrote: > Hi. > > I decided to either give up maintainership of spambayes (not that > there > were any releases in the last 5+ years anyway). > > Anyone interested? if not I'll change it to maintainer-needed (or > maybe > just

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

Thanks all for the 'appreciation'. I'd like to remember that I'm not going away nor I'm retiring, I will just avoid to touch stabilizations, unless the stable package is part of my interest. I'd like also to reminder that in the past I monitored the bugs via the bugzilla UI, and in the recent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered >> questions here: >> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? >> - should

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

El lun, 10-07-2017 a las 11:55 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:04:10PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Hello > > > > Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5: > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt > > > > and considering

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: The main risk of breakage of a package moving

Re: [gentoo-dev] package up for grabs: mail-filter/spambayes

Am 11.07.2017 um 15:21 schrieb Igor Savlook: > On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 07:28 +0200, Thomas - LordVan - Raschbacher > wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I decided to either give up maintainership of spambayes (not that >> there >> were any releases in the last 5+ years anyway). >> >> Anyone interested? if not I'll

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to > >> stable is always at build time

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka > wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> >>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered >>> questions here: >>> - is following seciton

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 >> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 07/11/2017

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to >> stable is always at build time anyway. > > citation needed > Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to >> stable is always at build time anyway. > > citation needed > Based on my experience doing package testing in stabilisation

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to >>> stable is always at build time anyway. >> >> citation needed >> > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to > stable is always at build time anyway. citation needed -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka > > wrote: > >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >>> > >>> Even if such stabilization is

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Leader election

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 11:28:09 -0700 Brian Dolbec wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:20:16 -0700 > Brian Dolbec wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 15:48:44

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Leader election

On 07/11/2017 09:22 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 11:28:09 -0700 > Brian Dolbec wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA512 > >> On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:20:16 -0700 >> Brian Dolbec wrote: > >>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 15:48:44

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:20:12 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 10/07/17 20:11, Jonas Stein wrote: > > It would be so motivating to see that many user are glad about a > > special package. One gets rarely feedback. > > Interesting idea. We could have some (separate)

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/10/2017 10:22 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > Hi all. > > every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I always > see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. > Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put more > effort in amd64

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

>>> Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug will >>> happily sign a third party public keyblock's UID using signature subkey >>> on smartcard, which results in useless signature that doesn't have any >>> effect, but the application builds fine. >>> >>> This means gnupg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable package > because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in most cases this > will end with a rushed stabilization once a security bug was fixed in > the package) or move a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, William L Thomson wrote: > Stop getting lost in the weeds > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! > LET ME CLARIFY > [...] SHOULD [...] PERIOD. NOTHING [...] > So PLEASE stop with that! Right. Please stop shouting in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:27:57 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400 > > > A rule for portage could be; > > > > - If the package is not in world and already installed. Do not add > > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/11/2017 04:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to stable is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/11/2017 01:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400 >> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: >>> >>> That part does not require it to resolve deps. Just check world file, >>> assuming its

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: >> >> That part does not require it to resolve deps. Just check world file, >> assuming its correct. Though could be thrown off if say gcc, or >> another

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/11/2017 01:57 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:27:57 -0700 > Daniel Campbell wrote: > >> On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400 >> >>> A rule for portage could be; >>> >>> - If the package is

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:20 +0200 Agostino Sarubbo wrote: >Hi all. > >every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I >always see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. >Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put >more effort in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 12.07.2017 kell 00:13, kirjutas Thomas Deutschmann: > Let's try Debian's testing > approach and move packages to ARCH in time and don't wait for some > magical appearing bug reports because someone really tested a package > in > ~ARCH. Severe problems will be reported

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:20:54 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > For anyone interested in such, I opened a feature request bug for > allowing use of sets in profile packages. > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 > Subsequent bugs from the discussion

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 12/07/17 03:16, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka >>> wrote: On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:32:27 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I understand where you're coming from, I just thought to give a few > tips to make life a bit easier for you since it works out pretty well > for myself. I think your idea has merit, just unsure of where the >