Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-29 Thread Mart Raudsepp
> why take away the stable choice? I think it is rather clear that stable keywords aren't going anywhere for architectures like amd64. I suggest we drop all of the subthreads on this topic and get back to other interesting thoughts (which may include dropping stable for some other arches of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-29 Thread Andrew Savchenko
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:12:52 -0500 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Sergei Trofimovich > wrote: > > > TL;DR;TL;DR: > > > [...] > > Here's a data point you may, or may not, find relevant. in 16 years of > using Gentoo exclusively, the only one time I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-29 Thread Christopher Head
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:22:08 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Second, I believe a lot of the value in our stable tree comes *just* > from the requirement that stabilization is only requested after 30 > days without major bugs/changes in the unstable tree. Assuming there > are

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-29 Thread David Seifert
On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 19:41 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > why take away the stable choice? > > I think it is rather clear that stable keywords aren't going anywhere > for architectures like amd64. I suggest we drop all of the subthreads > on this topic and get back to other interesting thoughts

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-29 Thread Andrew Savchenko
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:44:20 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > > carries with it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-29 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Freitag, 28. Juli 2017, 23:12:26 CEST schrieb A. Wilcox: > > At least I have a good reason to unsubscribe now. > > > Farewell, > --arw > Please don't take William as a typical Gentoo developer. He isn't. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-29 Thread Walter Dnes
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:56:25PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > If upstream does a new release, fixes bugs. Gentoo marks a previous > release stable. It is stabilizing a package with issues fixed upstream. > That does not make sense. Gentoo issues maybe good, but not upstreams. > > I

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] Support different compressors for binary packages

2017-07-29 Thread Michał Górny
On nie, 2017-07-30 at 00:56 +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote: > Pushed as: > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=cff2c0149142843316e1851c2e73bcec30f08471 > > Thanks for the patient reviews, Zac! > I'm sorry for noticing this only now when I'm enabling it but we have already:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] Support different compressors for binary packages

2017-07-29 Thread Manuel Rüger
Pushed as: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=cff2c0149142843316e1851c2e73bcec30f08471 Thanks for the patient reviews, Zac! Cheers, Manuel On 28.07.2017 18:24, Zac Medico wrote: > The patch is looking really good now. Thanks for working on this! > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] Support different compressors for binary packages

2017-07-29 Thread Zac Medico
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > Pushed as: > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=cff2c0149142843316e1851c2e73bcec30f08471 > > Thanks for the patient reviews, Zac! > > Cheers, > Manuel I've added an early warning for invalid

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] toolchain.eclass: Remove kludge that blocks gcc-6+ on sys-libs/uclibc-ng systems

2017-07-29 Thread Joshua Kinard
The following kludge is present in toolchain.eclass, in toolchain_pkg_pretend(): [[ -z ${UCLIBC_VER} ]] && [[ ${CTARGET} == *-uclibc* ]] && \ die "Sorry, this version does not support uClibc" The below patch removes this. I've been running a gcc-6-built,