Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLogs and rsync time

2006-01-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: | See the part that I said make sense to take out. What you described is | a perfect example of something that needs to stay. All I'm getting at is | that minor things that the package maintainer thinks isn't important to |

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: | Mike Frysinger wrote: | | |If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even |vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole |Gentoo dev list to see. | | | Gentoo has been missing some kind

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: | My point is, either you have to generalize each project's goal to a real | triviality or you have to define a goal which doesn't match some | project's goals. Conclusion: Let it be. Not necessarily. I just wrote on my blog

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:28:24 -0800 Donnie Berkholz | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Here's one example of a global goal: Reduce the learning curve of | | Gentoo and increase its usability. | | That goal is silly and oxymoronic

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: | As a prime example, I strongly believe that making Gentoo as easy as | possible can only come about by reducing its usability. If there is a | large number of choices, no matter how well documented, it isn't easy | for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: | Donnie Berkholz wrote: | - - Releng would work to ensure that installing Gentoo is as easy as | possible. | | | This is very vague too. Easy for who? Easy for a user who is too lazy to | read docs and doesn't have any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: | All of those of course are true. I guess I'm thinking more in the large | picture of things. Retiring non-active devs isn't something I'd exactly | call 'ground breaking' :-). I know there are things being worked on now |

Re: [gentoo-dev] X.Org 7.0 Release

2006-01-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg KH wrote: | On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:56:03PM +0530, Shyam Mani wrote: | |[2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/modular-x-howto.xml | | | You mean: | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml | right? Yeah we decided to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-04 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kurt Lieber wrote: | On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:39:05AM -0500 or thereabouts, Alec Warner wrote: |The Gentoo Installer is an interesting project, not only for the |graphical frontend, but for the Distro-sponsored Network installer that |is being

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: regular project updates

2006-01-05 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: | Funny enough... I was working on this and forgot to send it out. | | I was planning on posting it also on the Release Engineering page, but | need to turn it into GuideXML first. Might want to run it through spellcheck

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 19: Gentoo Stable Portage Tree -- ideas

2006-01-06 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: | As seen from the discussion earlier this week, I don't think Gentoo has | the proper open-mindness to create a proper enterprise distro. There are | too many things that would get in the way of Gentoo proper to make it | work

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefaan wrote: | I don't use pmount myself, but my guess is that /media is just a | directory that contains mountpoints, and which remains at all time | writeable for root. /afs is not writeable when mounted, just like | /dev/cdrom etc... That's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Stable Portage/Releases

2006-01-08 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Muraco wrote: | Another thing that I don't like, is the feel of this method does seem | offical enough.. mostly because portage is not 'stable'-aware, Its | just using a stripped down tree. What do you want then? If an entire standalone tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Projects and simple guides

2006-01-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: | What if instead of having proj/en we did herd/en on www? Of course, that | doesn't help the whole GuideXML is hard bit. I like the idea of using | RST, but it doesn't seem very scalable at this time. Maybe, instead of | that,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Projects and simple guides

2006-01-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: | Donnie Berkholz wrote: | |Lance Albertson wrote: || What if instead of having proj/en we did herd/en on www? Of course, that || doesn't help the whole GuideXML is hard bit. I like the idea of using || RST, but it doesn't seem

[gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-17 Thread Donnie Berkholz
I hacked together a script this afternoon to find any packages that are not yet ported to modular X. It will only work on systems _with modular X installed_. This is because it works by using emerge to check for blockers, then resolving those blockers down to a single package. Try it out and let

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-17 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: I hacked together a script this afternoon to find any packages that are not yet ported to modular X. It will only work on systems _with modular X installed_. This is because it works by using emerge to check for blockers, then resolving those blockers down to a single

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-17 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: I hacked together a script this afternoon to find any packages that are not yet ported to modular X. It will only work on systems _with modular X installed_. This is because it works by using emerge to check for blockers, then resolving those

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-18 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: And here's a list, with herds and maintainers, of a loop across each category in PORTDIR. This should be a fairly comprehensive list of every app not yet ported. Today's update, synced as of about an hour ago, along with the script to generate everything if you want

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-18 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Sebastian Bergmann wrote: Donnie Berkholz schrieb: dev-php/PECL-imagick php none This package only has DEPEND=${DEPEND} =media-gfx/graphicsmagick-1.0.0 listed as its dependencies. Ah, yes. It will also catch whether anything in the dependency tree of any app is broken, not just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-18 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: I hacked together a script this afternoon to find any packages that are not yet ported to modular X. It will only work on systems _with modular X installed_. This is because it works by using emerge to check for blockers, then resolving those blockers down to a single

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-18 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: My current script seems to miss some things. The reason this happens is that the group of applications they're emerged in also contains some app that breaks the emerge, perhaps because it's in package.mask or isn't keyworded at least ~x86. Broken emerges don't get far

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-19 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: OK, I've got this fixed. Suddenly there are 1037 unported apps instead of 500! How exciting. Today's update.. down to 1012 packages. Donnie app-accessibility/brltty accessibility dmwaters app-accessibility/dasher gnome-accessibility none app-accessibility/gnome-mag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-19 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Lares Moreau wrote: Could you post updates once a week(or two), similar to what [EMAIL PROTECTED] does with the aging ebuilds. I don't feel a play-by-play is necessary. I will be posting daily updates until it goes into ~arch, planned for Jan. 25. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-19 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Dan Meltzer wrote: Would you considder putting these daily updates on your devspace instead of sending a huge email daily? Nope. That puts the effort on these developers who haven't ported apps to actually go to my webspace and search around. On re-reading what you said, I could post a link

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-19 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Alec Warner wrote: Did you find another way to do those deps then? We haven't released 2.0.54 with that fixed yet... The drivers will continue to require manual emerging in ~arch until a fixed portage comes out, and the migration guide continues to document and support that method. Thanks,

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion 1/2

2006-01-19 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mike Frysinger wrote: - we will set sane debug defaults in the base profile: * DEBUG_CFLAGS=DEBUG_CXXFLAGS=-O -g On gcc-4, even -O can make it really hard to track stuff. Might want -O0 instead. 4.1 gets even crazier. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Today's update.. down to 1012 packages. Yesterday was pretty weak, only 9 packages got ported. We're at 1003 now. Latest list: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_maintainers.txt.20060120 Documentation: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
You definitely made up for Thursday's performance yesterday by dropping the number of unported packages from 1003 to 917. I've posted a graph of our progress [1]. Keep up the good work of the past day, and the tree will be in great shape in time for modular X to enter ~arch. Latest list:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-23 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Yesterday's drop: 17 to 871. Not as impressive as Saturday, but not bad. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_maintainers.txt.20060122 Herds and individuals with 10

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-23 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Yesterday's drop: 17 to 871. Not as impressive as Saturday, but not bad. Sorry, that's 917. So it dropped by 36. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mike Doty wrote: I think before you go forward with something like this you should give a suitable period of warning, it's going to create a lot of bug work for all of us. Have you seen my daily emails for the past week and a half? =) I have the feeling that it will create the most work for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mark Loeser wrote: On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Marius Mauch wrote: How about delaying it as long as n packages are ported per day? Kinda stupid idea, but it ensures that things won't get hold up due to unmaintained packages/inactive devs and might even speed the process up (that's an illusion probably). if n4, that was yesterday. Donnie

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: So here's my plan: Before modular X enters ~arch, I will ensure that all porting bugs blocking #112675 are closed. As new bugs are filed, I will ensure that they are closed within 2 days, giving their maintainers that long to respond and close it themselves. After 2 days

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mike Frysinger wrote: - we add an emerge flag (say '--debug-build') which adds nostrip to FEATURES and auto sets CFLAGS to DEBUG_CFLAGS and LDFLAGS to DEBUG_LDFLAGS - portage will add sane debug defaults to make.globals (DEBUG_CFLAGS=-O -g and DEBUG_LDFLAGS=) I'm having a tough time

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Alec Warner wrote: Well IMHO, you can do what you want and if any arch team doesn't like it they can always pmask it themselves in their arch profile. I will say I disagree with putting it into ~arch in the current state, although I agree with the rationale, and it IS your package(s), just as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds and would like to help I'm up for being a volunteer here. All devs who've volunteered

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:00:14 -0700 Joshua Baergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | To be clear here: nothing will be broken. Xorg 7.0 will just not | provide virtual/x11 (and in fact blocks it), so there will be issues | with blocks showing up due to the upgrade path.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: * There is a clean upgrade solution available that will result in non-ported packages merely pulling in a load of extra unnecessary packages (that non-modular users have anyway). * The clean solution visibly illustrates that a package is unported. Users who are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Possible, but we can't prove this one way or the other. Certainly very few modular X users have encountered apps that are still unported, as evidenced by very few remaining blockers on #112675. And there are a fairly large number of ... people using modular X already

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Please contact me if you'd like to be one of these volunteers. Requirements: A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds and would like to help I've decided to give it a wait for a few days

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11 | gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue | and think Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pulled

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Stubbs wrote: Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom virtual/x11 cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old style virtuals. Is that so? I guess this must be wrong, then: /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:# Only have this for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11 will | make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me. Why must it drag out for years? There's no difference in the speed of porting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just | institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:34:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz | | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11 | | will make this drag out for years

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Stubbs wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' ride, I'm personally all for it. By broken I mean

[gentoo-dev] New linking_libs.sh will also discover build-time tools

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
I've tweaked linking_libs.sh to check the compilation log for use of tools like imake, xmkmf, gccmakedep and so forth to help ease the problems of porting to modular X. It's available in the usual location, linked from the porting guide. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Stubbs wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if a repoman check will hasten package porting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Yesterday's drop: 867 to 783, pretty solid. But with the new check for true deps instead of anything in the dep tree, it's down to 513. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Stubbs wrote: I've implemented and tested the check locally but haven't committed it yet. Repoman isn't really structured to allow for tests against a set of ebuilds so the checks are done on every version. There is also definitely one false positive (virtual/x11-6.8) so, for this and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and We have? No wonder it's been taking me so fscking long to get

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and We have? No wonder it's been taking me so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: Anyway, I do appreciate any work that you're doing on any games ebuilds. I just hope we don't end up in the exact same situation a (few?) month or so down the line when this stuff goes stable as we are in now. What I expect is that many of the newly ported apps will go

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mikey wrote: If you actually downloaded a pristine stage1 or a stage3 tarball you might notice that there are, in fact, packages already present in world. Glibc, gettext, nano, gzip, and linux-headers. Not that that matters one iota to this conversation, but you need to get your own facts

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Stubbs wrote: http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/x11_deprecation_check.diff Just tested this out. Is there some way to make it more obvious exactly _what_ is causing the usage.deprecated error by default? As it is, a test run of this in app-editors/xemacs returns about 50 lines of output

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Stubbs wrote: That's a standard repoman thing. Details are only printed if there are less than 12 occurrences of a specific warning unless repoman full is run. Not sure why it wasn't being displayed if there was only one occurrence. As it turns out, there were exactly 12. The patch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-26 Thread Donnie Berkholz
First, a huge thanks to Robin, who pythonized my bash scripts and reduced the time of a run from more than an hour and a half to less than 30 minutes. Yesterday's drop: 513 to 498, a change of 15 -- adequate, but should be better. Progress graph:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make logrotate a global USE flag?

2006-01-28 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Marcelo Góes wrote: Indeed, logrotate functionality should be optional. Ebuilds that install logrotate stuff without asking should be updated to use the logrotate USE flag. I'm making it a global USE flag if nobody complains. You want people to recompile the whole package to get another text

Re: [gentoo-dev] xinetd use flag and xinetd files being installed

2006-01-28 Thread Donnie Berkholz
William Hubbs wrote: I don't really like the install_mask idea for this because you can't set that on a per-package basis that I am aware of, and we have several packages that have an xinetd use flag. Why would you want it on a per-package basis? Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-29 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last drop: 498 to 465, a change of 33 -- adequate, but should be better since this was for close to three days. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make logrotate a global USE flag?

2006-01-29 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: Or again another one (a bit ugly imho tho): merge the files in an /etc/logrotate.d.dist directory, and add an eselect module to handle symlinks from /etc/logrotate.d. What's ugly about this? I like it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make logrotate a global USE flag?

2006-01-29 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:58:52 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want people to recompile the whole package to get another text file installed? When would one recompile a package just for that? Only case i can think of is when someone

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make logrotate a global USE flag?

2006-01-29 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: It would be interesting to know how that happened for in the past for /etc/bash_completion.d, which made a similar move iirc Yes, it would. (although real files went to /usr/share/something, whereas here i would rather see them in etc because they are more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X

2006-01-30 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Joshua Jackson wrote: I will have to agree that this change has made it a pain to mark anything stable. I had 4 out of the 6 I did today bail out because of this. I took the simple easy fix and removed the check to stabalize the packages I needed to. I know we have people who want modular X

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X

2006-01-30 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Joshua Jackson wrote: In the oldest version of the package (as all these were), I don't see much point in the change. They will be removed within a fairly short amount of time. Fairly short meaning what, 6 months? A lot of old ebuilds tend to stick around forever. Secondary, you are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X

2006-01-31 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Joshua Jackson wrote: To quote one of the ebuild-quiz questions: You wish to make a change to an ebuild, but you checked the ChangeLogs and metadata.xml and it appears to be maintained by someone else. How should you proceed? A general response that is obtained from the documentation source

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-31 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 401 up to 406. Yes, it actually got worse. This is caused by artifacts fixed by the recent portage 2.1 revision bump, because I know some apps were fixed. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X

2006-01-31 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mark Loeser wrote: Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps being fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it against whatever bug is requesting stabling of that package? Moving something to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default Ebuild behaviour

2006-01-31 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:06:35 + Benjamin Smee (strerror) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Tuesday 31 January 2006 15:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | For packages in the second group, not using a USE flag is silly. | | I take it you are agreeing we should have a USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-31 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Stubbs wrote: Is having INPUT_DEVICES and the like following the same scheme (ie, input_devices.desc) acceptable? As long as I can still get the pretty output with -vp. =) Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X

2006-02-01 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mark Loeser wrote: I don't really see why anyone that is marking an ebuild stable needs to have a fatal error because an older version of that package isn't ported yet. We are perfectly capable of mentioning this on the bug so the maintainer can fix it later :) A flag to ignore it will make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 406 to 343 -- nice! Much of that came from the hard work of nelchael in desktop-dock. So, what do we see? The top offenders also didn't get much fixed, with the exception of desktop-dock (54 packages fixed since Jan 31!) and the sci herd (6 fixed). That just leaves 3 packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jason Wever wrote: On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:39:15 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry guys, forgot to actually upload the data. =) Both problems should be fixed now. Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-04 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 343 to 329 -- pretty decent, but I'd like to see about 1.5-2x this rate. Pretty soon I'll have to change the list of the worst offenders to the top 10 instead of 10 packages, because the number of actual herds is getting pretty small. Progress graph:

Re: [gentoo-dev] env pollution

2006-02-05 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris PeBenito wrote: I have two bugs [1][2] with installs failing due to some environmental variables being set, which end up overriding the settings in the packages' makefiles, causing sandbox violations. While this is a simple enough to work around with some unsets, how much do we really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 329 to 320, over 3.5 days -- not so hot. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_maintainers.txt.20060207 Herds and people with 5 or more unported

Re: [gentoo-dev] Does portage use ccache transparently for ebuilds using scons?

2006-02-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have some questions. - Does portage use ccache transparently for ebuilds using scons? - Do I need to patch the SConstruct file to use ccache? - Does portage use ccache independently from the buildsystem used? I don't think it can work transparently for scons,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-nds/gq

2006-02-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Olivier Crête wrote: On Fri, 2006-10-02 at 10:33 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: Otherwise, I suggest to p.mask this in two weeks and then remove from portage. Is there any other useful gtk ldap browser in the tree ? There's a bug for LAT -- http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86854 -- but the

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/rc.conf

2006-02-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Forrest Voight wrote: Hello all, I believe that rc.conf contains many values that could be put into conf.d. For example, DISPLAYMANAGER and KEYMAP. DISPLAYMANAGER could be put into conf.d/xdm. Then, this variable would not exist with a non-X environment, and configuration could be more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 320 to 260, over 5 days -- that's 12 packages a day, which is reasonable. Props to Josh_B, games, desktop-wm and cjk herds for fixing 10+ packages. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Herds and people with 5 or more unported packages, and change in # of packages: 69 games (-20) 51 none (individual or no maintainer) (-6) 28 (no metadata.xml) (-2) 16 desktop-wm (-13) 14 video (-0) 11 cjk (-11) 7 afterstep (-0

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/rc.conf

2006-02-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 11:38 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Forrest Voight wrote: Hello all, I believe that rc.conf contains many values that could be put into conf.d. For example, DISPLAYMANAGER and KEYMAP. DISPLAYMANAGER could be put into conf.d/xdm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: /etc/rc.conf

2006-02-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Edward Catmur wrote: On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 19:56 -0500, Forrest Voight wrote: On 2/12/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forrest Voight wrote: I was using an old gentoo system. Forget about KEYMAP. But, what about UNICODE? That is related to KEYMAP and consolefont. Shouldn't EDITOR

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla etiquette suggestions

2006-02-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:32:39 + Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | It may feel a little harsh to give someone a canned response just by | pasting a URL in the comment field, but curious readers will find his | faq.txt which explains nicely that we aren't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-16 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 260 to 232, over 3 days -- that's 10 packages a day, which is reasonable. Good job, to whoever's been fixing games! Again, dropped by more than 10. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 232 to 203, over 5.5 days -- that's 6 packages a day, which is OK but ought to be better. Good job, to any who have been fixing games! They dropped out of first place (sort of), porting 18 packages, followed by desktop-wm and video herds. Progress graph:

Re: [gentoo-dev] beep-media-player removal: 04/03/2006

2006-02-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Tony Vroon wrote: Good afternoon, Please note that I am planning to remove beep-media-player and accompanying plugin packages from the portage tree on March 4, 2006, unless anyone can convince me of a good reason why they should stay. This software has been abandoned by it's authors since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-02-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 203 to 187, over 3 days -- that's 5 packages a day, which is OK but ought to be better. Good job again, to those who have been fixing games! Anyone who would like to help, please start concentrating on unmaintained packages. They make up close to half of the remaining unported

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

2006-02-26 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mark Loeser wrote: Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

2006-02-26 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mark Loeser wrote: Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark Loeser wrote: Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the council

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

2006-02-26 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mark Loeser wrote: Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages, and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else. I think it really

Re: [gentoo-dev] What's on with ejabberd and relatives?

2006-02-26 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Lars Strojny wrote: I'm currently heavily involved with jabber-related packages. As a result I have to struggle with the really seldomn maintained packages in Gentoo. ... To come to an end: jabber is not really the most unimportant thing, so things should go better. I want to provide my

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

2006-02-26 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ned Ludd wrote: On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: I'm looking at this as innocent until proven guilty versus guilty until proven innocent. When parties are in disagreement, the _current_ situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question) resolves

[gentoo-dev] Desktop project lead nominations

2006-02-27 Thread Donnie Berkholz
NOTE: Please post all replies on gentoo-desktop rather than gentoo-dev. It's about that time again, folks. We're going to have desktop project lead elections within the next month or so. Who's interested in running for lead? Feel free to post a bit on why you'll be the best lead ever, as well,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

2006-02-27 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages, | and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions | in the case of disagreement between

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Resignation

2006-03-01 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Brian Harring wrote: Hola all. Been an interesting two some years, but have decided it's time for me to turn in my resignation and wander on to things outside of gentoo. If you need to track me down, I'll be checking [EMAIL PROTECTED] . So... yeah, so long and thanks for all the fish

Re: [gentoo-dev] Desktop project lead nominations

2006-03-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: NOTE: Please post all replies on gentoo-desktop rather than gentoo-dev. It's about that time again, folks. We're going to have desktop project lead elections within the next month or so. Who's interested in running for lead? Feel free to post a bit on why you'll

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-03-15 Thread Donnie Berkholz
The last change: 187 to 135, over a couple of weeks. We're getting near the goal of getting the entire tree fixed! I'd like to literally have nothing in the tree unported to modular X, so I don't need to add a virtual/x11-7.0 as a workaround to the problem. Concentrate on unmaintained packages

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >