Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:57:54 -0400 Joshua Kinard wrote: > I know we've got a ton of Perl packages for the core set of Perl modules, > but doesn't the CPAN eclass also have the capability to auto-generate an > ebuild package for virtually any Perl package distributed via CPAN? Can > that logic be

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 20:05:40 -0400 Joshua Kinard wrote: > Longer-term, I think this entire approach should be revisited by the TeX > team to make it behave more like Perl or Python packages by having discrete > ebuilds for these modules. That's not exactly a small undertaking, but > this current

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Richard Yao
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 19:24 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: >>> On 10/18/2019 09:41, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hi, everybody. >>> >>> It is my pleasure to announce that yesterday (EU) evening we've switched >>> to a new distfile mirror layout.

[gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Piotr Karbowski
Hi, I'd like to bring the topic of defining default policy to do changes to packages within ::gentoo that one does not maintain. This topic goes back from time to time on #gentoo-dev, and as I was told, it was originally sent to gentoo-dev mailing list by robbat2 (I failed to find this in archive

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: ruby24-only packages

2019-10-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:31 PM Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 12:15 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > > Infra uses thin a lot, is there a replacement? > > > www-servers/puma would be a good replacement. > > Feel free to unmask it for now if that helps infra to transition. Upstream > EO

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Matthew Thode
On 19-10-21 19:37:28, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to bring the topic of defining default policy to do changes to > packages within ::gentoo that one does not maintain. > > This topic goes back from time to time on #gentoo-dev, and as I was > told, it was originally sent to gentoo-de

[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: dev-python/gnome-keyring-python

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
# Matt Turner (2019-10-21) # Replaced by introspection bindings. Bug #628938 # Removal in 30 days dev-python/gnome-keyring-python signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Mikle Kolyada
On 21.10.2019 3:05, Joshua Kinard wrote: > So looking at texlive-latexextra-2019-r2.ebuild, it defines three variables: > > - TEXLIVE_MODULE_CONTENTS, with 1,241 space-delimited module names > - TEXLIVE_MODULE_DOC_CONTENTS, with 1,227 space-delimited doc names > - TEXLIVE_MODULE_SRC_CONTENTS

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:42 AM Richard Yao wrote: > Also, another idea is to use a cheap hash function (e.g. fletcher) and just > have the mirrors do the hashing behind the scenes. Then we would have the > best of both worlds. It probably would have been better to make these suggestions when t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:37:28 +0200 Piotr Karbowski wrote: > This is a bit unhealthy, especially when some developers that maintain > packages are out of reach, or the patches to update ebuild just rot on > the bugzilla and are not taken in by maintainers. IME this is far from the norm and should

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread James Cloos
> "RY" == Richard Yao writes: RY> ext4 is probably okay, but don’t quote me on that. Ext4 works fine here for a local distfiles mirror. -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:37 AM Piotr Karbowski wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like to bring the topic of defining default policy to do changes to > packages within ::gentoo that one does not maintain. > > This topic goes back from time to time on #gentoo-dev, and as I was > told, it was originally sent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:37 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:37:28 +0200 > Piotr Karbowski wrote: > > > This is a bit unhealthy, especially when some developers that maintain > > packages are out of reach, or the patches to update ebuild just rot on > > the bugzilla and are not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:58:51 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: > I'm not sure what this is in reference to so it seems to be a > non-sequitur, but I like the policy of at least waiting a day for > review of non-critical fixes. Phrased another way, let people in every > timezone have a chance. Its not aim

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Jaco Kroon
Hi All, On 2019/10/21 18:42, Richard Yao wrote: If we consider the access frequency, it might actually not be that bad. Consider a simple example with 500 files and two directory buckets. If we have 250 in each, then the size of the directory is always 250. However, if 50 files are accessed