Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-25 Thread Joe Peterson
Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. I've already commented on this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Joe Peterson
David Leverton wrote: For comparson, another alternative that some people have suggested is putting it in a specially formatted comment. This avoids the issue I mentioned because bash doesn't try to parse those at all, so the only rules are those that specify what format the comment should

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Denis Dupeyron wrote: 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) 2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change 3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change My preference goes to 3 with a .eb extension and EAPI on the first line. I second this. :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: As others have commented, we should probably make this the last comment line in the header. Any suggestions for a specific identification string or do we simply use '# EAPI=X' or use a she-bang '#!/.. EAPI=X' ? Well, if a she-bang, should be the first line.

[gentoo-dev] Re: scm in GLEP 54 (was: Council meeting summary for meeting on May 14, 2009)

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Thomas Anderson wrote: - Vote on GLEP 54 This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the problems mentioned in GLEP 55

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 3. Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely. Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably well. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100 Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at least 5 years. Why do you think I wrote the awful hack

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-19 Thread Joe Peterson
Ulrich Mueller wrote: Hyphens within PV are a Bad Thing, and we should really think about replacing the separator for scm by something else, like a period or an underscore. For example, the following two would be unique: ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

2009-05-27 Thread Joe Peterson
Roy Bamford wrote: GLEP 55 still confuses the problem and the solution. Adding metadata to the filename is not required and is bad system design practice. Its also the first step on the slippery slope to adding more metadata in the future. ++ Changing the .ebuild extension, to blind

Re: [gentoo-dev] How not to discuss

2009-05-28 Thread Joe Peterson
Alec Warner wrote: No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename based options are objectively better than anything else. But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits (although I will concede that EAPI in filename is the 'best' technical choice).

Re: [gentoo-dev] How not to discuss

2009-05-30 Thread Joe Peterson
Alec Warner wrote: Lets agree to disagree on the definition of technical then and instead agree that putting EAPI in the filename is a bad design decision (technicalness aside) and then have a beer! Wow. That's a *great* idea! ;) -Cheers, Joe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Joe Peterson
Mike Frysinger wrote: maybe, but since we arent going to use /libexec/ at this time, that means /etc is the next best place How about /usr/share/openrc/version? Since /usr/share is supposed to contain package-specific (but platform independent) files that are *not* meant to be modified

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Joe Peterson
Mike Frysinger wrote: /usr isnt guaranteed to be mounted for all init.d scripts Right... Well, then the best choice is probably /etc out of the list [Roy pointed out] of the only OS-nonspecific dirs, unless we want to have a small executable script in /bin or /sbin that spits out the version.

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

2009-06-26 Thread Joe Peterson
Denis Dupeyron wrote: I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to experiment. And experiments sometimes succeed, or sometimes they fail, Well, experimentation is OK (and I would encourage it for many things), but I'm not sure I'd agree that experimentally giving someone council

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sys-fs/btrfs

2010-03-13 Thread Joe Peterson
# Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org (13 Mar 2010) # Old, unmainted standalone kernel modules for older kernels. # Kernels 2.6.29-rc1 and newer include integrated btrfs. # Bug #285357 reports version 0.17 (newest standalone) does not build. # Last rited: to be removed in 30 days. sys-fs/btrfs -Joe

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

2010-03-31 Thread Joe Peterson
On 03/31/2010 02:18 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: i'm already using ~/.forward which means mail still goes to mail.g.o and that server takes care of forwarding it to my private gmail.com account. then my mail client fetches it from gmail.com via the normal pop/imap methods. there is no need

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

2010-03-31 Thread Joe Peterson
On 03/31/2010 01:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: Those, like me, who have several google apps accounts (I have a personal business one, a personal one, and a work one) can keep accounts separate this way. Also, since it's the gentoo.org google apps account, the email address looks the same as

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

2010-03-31 Thread Joe Peterson
On 03/31/2010 02:28 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: I am worried that if people start using say Google Docs for collaborating on Gentoo content, everyone else is forced to use Google Docs to participate. Gentoo could set policies that such shared resources should not be done via google calender,

[gentoo-dev] Last rites for games-simulation/secondlife

2010-06-03 Thread Joe Peterson
# Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org (03 Jun 2010) # Masked for removal in 30 days: # Fails to build with gcc 4.4 (see bug #290105) # Requires non-open-source components that never worked well # - e.g. voice, media # - this (source) package never behaved quite like the binary # Really should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion to ask devs to change their bugzilla name when becoming devaway

2010-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
I think a better solution, if we need to indicate this, is to have bugzilla grab the status from devaway and display it next to the dev's name in bug reports. Changing the user's name seems a bit cumbersome, and I don't agree that people will know what devaway means - i.e. they may not even

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-portage/genlop: ChangeLog genlop-0.30.8.ebuild

2007-09-26 Thread Joe Peterson
Thanks for the tip. I added failed to install genlop (via dobin) - not sure if there is a standard way to do this, as it seems many ebuilds just do dobin failed, and some do failed to install -Joe Christian Faulhammer wrote: Joe Peterson

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-portage/genlop: ChangeLog genlop-0.30.8.ebuild

2007-09-26 Thread Joe Peterson
Faulhammer wrote: Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks for the tip. I added failed to install genlop (via dobin) - not sure if there is a standard way to do this, as it seems many ebuilds just do dobin failed, and some do failed to install It is mainly to localise which die command

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stripping out the DO NOT REPLY from bugzie emails

2007-09-29 Thread Joe Peterson
Fabian Groffen wrote: The problem is those replies may contain information of use in fixing the bug. If the mail gets null-spaced... I don't see your point. If you have a mailserver running on localhost that accepts mail for /dev/null (i.e. it thinks it is a valid email address) and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

2007-10-02 Thread Joe Peterson
Mike Frysinger wrote: wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they provide useful extensions. it may be worthwhile to force `find` in the portage environment to be GNU find so we can stop wasting time trying to figure out how to rewrite expressions in ebuilds (which can be done trivially with

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Mike Pagano (mpagano)

2007-10-03 Thread Joe Peterson
Andrew Gaffney wrote: Denis Dupeyron wrote: Yes people, Mike is older than Uncle Seemant, and even older than me. But is he older than nerdboy? Do we have competition for the Crotchety Old Man title? Are we going to hear lots of stories that start with when I was your age? Or... My

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Mike Pagano (mpagano)

2007-10-04 Thread Joe Peterson
Mart Raudsepp wrote: Damn, mine had 48K Luxury! Welcome Mike! And I forgot to welcome Mike; so welcome Mike! -Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

2007-10-07 Thread Joe Peterson
Mike Frysinger wrote: as mentioned, GNU is the main bread and butter of Gentoo. forcing the majority of people to go pure POSIX in the face of GNU extensions that make life easier is wrong. so the minority gets screwed, that's life. especially considering it's trivial for the minority to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

2007-10-07 Thread Joe Peterson
Fabian Groffen wrote: On 07-10-2007 10:19:43 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: So there are a couple of options, as I see it: 1) Limit tool options to those that are common to all tool variants 2) Port a standard (i.e. GNU) set of tools to all platforms 3) Force all gentoo ports to use GNU userland

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass

2007-10-07 Thread Joe Peterson
Mike Frysinger wrote: Fabian has summed it up nicely, thanks. i could care less what your userland is outside of the ebuild environment since it doesnt matter to ebuild writers. you want a deficient runtime environment, more power to you, but forcing that environment onto ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] packages.gentoo.org lives!

2007-11-14 Thread Joe Peterson
(Sorry for the previous reply to announce..) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] packages.gentoo.org lives!

2007-11-14 Thread Joe Peterson
Robin H. Johnson wrote: After a LOT of development, Gentoo Infra is pleased to announce the return of the new packages.gentoo.org site. The new site is a complete rewrite. Great! Glad to see it back; thanks for the hard work! And hey, fbsd is now considered exotic! I kinda like the ring of

Re: Reminder: Set your Reply-To (was Re: [gentoo-dev] packages.gentoo.org lives!)

2007-11-15 Thread Joe Peterson
Doug Klima wrote: Robin's e-mail did set the Reply-To. Joe just broke the world.. bad Joe! Yeah, even reply-to is no match for the mighty reply all button! :) Giving myself 50 lashes now... -Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Justin Bronder (jsbronder)

2007-11-16 Thread Joe Peterson
Petteri Räty wrote: It's my usual please to announce a new ebuild monkey. Justin hails from Brighton, Massachusetts. His educational background should provide a good theoretical approach to all the future flames on gentoo-dev: I'm pretty much self taught computer wise as I went to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: Hello, attaching the GLEP. most current version: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.txt Abstract This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds (for example,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:36:51 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't it be in the file but readable without sourcing? For instance, it could be mandatory that EAPI=X, if present, must be the first non-blank and non-comment line of the ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:05:23 -0700 Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This option is worth thinking about more - there may be satisfactory ways to mediate the issues. It is certainly more elegant Introducing new parse and format requirements upon bash files

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-18 Thread Joe Peterson
Ulrich Mueller wrote: It seems to me that this will inconvenience the users, in order to solve a technical problem of the package manager. Absolutely, +1. This does indeed sound like a technical issue; how would requiring a dev to manually mirror the EAPI in the filename extension provide any

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-18 Thread Joe Peterson
Santiago M. Mola wrote: One example was mentioned in this thread before: You cannot use find -name '*.ebuild' anymore. So people could use a bit more elaborated expression to find them. Things like this shouldn't be a reason for not applying EAPI/GLEPs/PM-behaviour changes. If this GLEP is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-19 Thread Joe Peterson
Steve Long wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: There is no duplication of information, nor redundancy. So what were the QA checks you mentioned to confirm that the same EAPI is set in both the filename and the ebuild, for-- if not integrity of duplicated data? +1 Really. It's a heck of a lot

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-20 Thread Joe Peterson
Thomas Pani wrote: My concern is technical: Filenames are for identifying files uniquely. An ebuild is uniquely identified by cat/pn-pv, so that's what it's filename should be. Adding anything else to the filename will only clutter the tree and lead to additional inconsitencies. Yes, you can

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-21 Thread Joe Peterson
Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs from trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a year or more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new fixed extension, with the requirement that the new ebuilds are required to contain within them

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] New developer : Richard Freeman (rich0)

2007-12-23 Thread Joe Peterson
Denis Dupeyron wrote: So please everybody, give a warm welcome to Richard. Richard, big welcome! -Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Jean-Noël Rivas seau (elvanor)

2008-01-08 Thread Joe Peterson
Denis Dupeyron wrote: Jean-Noël currently lives in Paris, France, but he studied in Vancouver, Canada for some time. He is 26 and happily married. Apart from computers, he has a passion for games (video, role-playing and boardgames), music (progressive metal rock), and outdoors (especially

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Ingmar Vanhassel (ingmar)

2008-01-16 Thread Joe Peterson
Denis Dupeyron wrote: It's my pleasure to introduce Ingmar Vanhassel (ingmar) as a new Gentoo developer. He will be on the KDE team, as he already has extensive experience with the KDE4 overlay. Quoting his mentor in his new-dev bug: He has rewritten large parts of the KDE4 eclasses,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Seeking questions for a user survey

2008-01-17 Thread Joe Peterson
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:56:36AM +, Steve Long wrote: Ryan Hill wrote: I agree, though year of birth might be interesting. Income and children are a bit too private. ++ in general although I do think parenthood (if responsible) is as relevant as age. A 28 year old with a 5 year old

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Seeking questions for a user survey

2008-01-18 Thread Joe Peterson
Steve Long wrote: My apologies if I caused you any offense, Joe. I fully agree that choosing not to have children is just as mature as deciding to procreate, and more mature than simply drifting into parenthood. No offense taken, and I agree about the drifting into thing. My wife's brother

Re: [gentoo-dev] New keyword monkey: Kenneth Prug (ken69267)

2008-03-08 Thread Joe Peterson
Robert Buchholz wrote: Oh, and great to have you on the team. I totally welcome Kenneth - I use Gentoo amd64 on a server at work (mostly using stable keywords, of course). It's awesome to have a 64-bit OS to take advantage of our Core2 Quad, and it's great to have yet another person here to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008

2008-04-11 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:37:31 -0700 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why I setup them up with the ability to rsync it, and they never got back to me on that, nor used it ever. Hrm, curious. They seem interested and alive currently. Perhaps it's worth

Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?

2008-04-23 Thread Joe Peterson
Roy Marples wrote: config_eth0=1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0 5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0 routes_eth0=1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6 5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10 default gw 1.2.3.1 If one choose to separate by lines, will tabs or spaces be allowed in subsequent lines? Like:

Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?

2008-04-23 Thread Joe Peterson
Roy Marples wrote: The point is to remove the hard newline, which you've kept in your examples. Roy, yes, I realized that after I emailed - at first I thought it was remaining as an option. :) -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages up for grabs

2008-06-02 Thread Joe Peterson
Has anyone volunteered to take net-misc/ntp? I know there are alternatives (like OpenNTPD), but this one is the official one, so I'd hate to see it slip into substandard quality. Also, e.g. OpenNTPD is a subset and is less accurate, so it is not a complete replacement. I will take it on if no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages up for grabs

2008-06-02 Thread Joe Peterson
Joe Peterson wrote: Has anyone volunteered to take net-misc/ntp? I know there are alternatives (like OpenNTPD), but this one is the official one, so I'd hate to see it slip into substandard quality. Also, e.g. OpenNTPD is a subset and is less accurate, so it is not a complete replacement. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Default blank lines for error, elog, einfo, etc

2008-06-04 Thread Joe Peterson
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:52 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: I think a more ideal solution, less drastic to implement might be allowing 2 arguments to be passed. So you could do like elog A blank line precedes this one elog A blank line follow this one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Default blank lines for error, elog, einfo, etc

2008-06-06 Thread Joe Peterson
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 00:42 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: There could be also switch to add newline before the message but I can't think of a use for it myself. The question is how to name the switch :) -n could be confusing as echo -n has the opposite effect.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

2008-06-07 Thread Joe Peterson
Vlastimil Babka wrote: I'd like to nominate: zmedico (Zac Medico) Seconded. -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A few questions to our nominees

2008-06-09 Thread Joe Peterson
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 11:12 Sun 08 Jun , Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I have a few technical questions for you: 1. GLEP54 2. GLEP55 I don't have any particular objections to these, besides the vague aesthetic one of

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 (was: A few questions to our nominees)

2008-06-09 Thread Joe Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Increase of [needless] complexity in filenames/extensions (and only one example of the impact is that searching for ebuild files becomes less straightforward), when things like SLOT, EAPI, etc., etc., seem to naturally belong as part of the script

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55

2008-06-09 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:08 -0600 Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not saying it's a lot harder. But it is more complex and less elegant. Also, it is error-prone. If someone, by habit, looks for all *.ebuild, he will miss a portion of the ebuilds

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55

2008-06-09 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:15:56 -0600 Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, if everyone is perfect and remembers to do things perfectly right, there would never be issues in many things, but when you make something more complicated, there will be more errors. So we

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55

2008-06-09 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds. I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is exposed in an inappropriate location to everyone looking at the portage tree. No it

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml? Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as being not suitable for anything the package manager really needs.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Rémi Cardona wrote: Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : picard_facepalm.jpg I don't think any of us are completely thrilled by either proposals, but the EAPI-in-a-separate-file does have the potential for more flexibility, ie package-wide EAPI. And it does keep filenames simple enough. +1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Luca Barbato wrote: Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask it... And placing it out-of-band (like # EAPI=...) avoids any sourcing errors, makes parsing faster, etc. -Joe --

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Jan Kundrát wrote: If the user knows that keywords are set by the KEYWORDS variable, then she must be familiar with the EAPI. The meaning of the KEYWORDS variable is defined by the EAPI. But that's not really what I find objectionable. There's no need to make EAPI so special that it alters

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Rémi Cardona wrote: Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : Kills the upgrade path completely. No good. Lemme sum this up in layman's terms : 1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid. 2) Putting the EAPI in the filename :

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:33, Joe Peterson wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask it... And placing it out-of-band (like # EAPI=...) avoids any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Bernd Steinhauser wrote: And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that. In any design, there are easy short-cuts that can be taken. But sometimes these short-cuts break paradigms that are fundamental. If you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55

2008-06-10 Thread Joe Peterson
Richard Freeman wrote: On the other hand, this is a big change from the present, and I'm not convinced that it will actually be a big improvement over some of the other EAPI ideas being floated around. However, it is a potentially-neat idea... Rich, interesting thoughts! But yeah, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 (why use filename extension?)

2008-06-11 Thread Joe Peterson
Peter Volkov wrote: Well for me .ebuild-eapi is much more confusing. I still don't see why it's impossible to have eapi as a part of name but not in extension... Although putting EAPI in the name and not the extension is *slightly* preferable to using the extension, I still do not think that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: A few questions to our nominees

2008-06-14 Thread Joe Peterson
Ryan Hill wrote: (...I would change the suffix to -live, just because i hate the term SCM :P) ++ on using live and not the scm acronym (no matter which idea is selected), especially since there are various different acronyms for config mgmt (scm, cm...), and scm's meaning is less obvious at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Default blank lines for error, elog, einfo, etc

2008-06-15 Thread Joe Peterson
Benedikt Morbach wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But speaking about names of options - -A and -B are easier to remember as -A stands for above and -B for below and grep users already knew that. for grep -A means after and -B before ;) I (not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Default blank lines for error, elog, einfo, etc

2008-06-16 Thread Joe Peterson
Duncan wrote: Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:34:01 -0400: Well, this is true and it isn't... In the case of: ewarn line one eblank ewarn line two Obviously it would be the same as ewarn. However, what about here:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

2008-07-03 Thread Joe Peterson
Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote: The time I can spend trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited. Same here - I would never mind getting a 0-day bump request, since someone else might have noticed before I did that a new version is available. Just an idea: How about a metadata.xml tag

Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy - dev-python/scipy ?

2008-07-07 Thread Joe Peterson
Donnie Berkholz wrote: I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally

Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy - dev-python/scipy ?

2008-07-07 Thread Joe Peterson
Donnie Berkholz wrote: I meant moves were largely pointless, although categories are to a lesser extent. Tags would be a lot better, since nothing can be categorized perfectly into a single place. Yes, I can see the benefit of a tag paradigm. I, myself, find it more trouble than benefit to

Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy - dev-python/scipy ?

2008-07-08 Thread Joe Peterson
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: I suppose you mean git. Since it tracks content and not files, moves are trivial. Git actually finds your moves for you, after you've moved content around; such as when doing a bump. Even better! -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 July 2008

2008-07-15 Thread Joe Peterson
Petteri Räty wrote: I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have other official package managers approved before accepting the GLEP. In addition, I'd want to see why the particular approach suggested in this GELP is the only way (as some seem to claim). I have yet

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Marius Mauch wrote: The eclass also contains it's own implementation of unpack (renamed to unpack2) and src_unpack so the logic which tools/packages are used for unpacking can be maintained in a single place instead of being splitted between the package manager and the tree. Marius, these

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-20 Thread Joe Peterson
Peter Volkov wrote: This means that every ebuild which uses 'unpack ${A}' should have in DEPEND a program which is selected by filename extension of sources. So as I understood your initial suggestion was to make this happen automatically. And this is very logical as makes ebuilds cleaner and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New RESTRICT=live value for identification of live ebuilds?

2008-08-03 Thread Joe Peterson
Vaeth wrote: The main point in introducing the live USE flag should be IMHO to let the user decide whether the sources should be fetched. The fact that IUSE then marks live ebuilds in the way which you wanted is an additional side effect. A tend to agree with Zac that USE flags should not

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New RESTRICT=live value for identification of live ebuilds?

2008-08-03 Thread Joe Peterson
Zac Medico wrote: What you're missing is that only a specific subset of variables is cached in /usr/portage/metadata/cache. Now that you mention it, we could introduce a new variable called EBUILD_FLAGS and start caching it in new versions of portage. It wouldn't necessarily require an EAPI

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New RESTRICT=live value for identification of live ebuilds?

2008-08-03 Thread Joe Peterson
Zac Medico wrote: Personally I think people are far too concerned about the name of the variable. I only see a what I consider to be a trivial or negligible benefit in separating these things into two different variables. However, it it makes more people happy then I guess I'm for it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New PROPERTIES=live-sources setting for ebuilds?

2008-08-06 Thread Joe Peterson
Zac Medico wrote: To simplify things, how about if we just do a PROPERTIES=live-src-unpack for now, to indicate exclusive access to $DISTDIR during src_unpack? Thats a simple and portable baseline that will be quite useful even without anything finer grained. No need for a convoluted and long

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should we introduce PROPERTIES into the ebuild metadata cache on the rsync mirrors?

2008-08-13 Thread Joe Peterson
Zac Medico wrote: Please consider the introduction of a new PROPERTIES variable to the ebuild metadata cache that's distributed via the rsync mirrors and resides locally in the ${PORTDIR}/metadata/cache/ directory. This variable is intended to have identical syntax to the existing RESTRICT

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: remove app-office/borg from portage.

2008-08-18 Thread Joe Peterson
Jeremy Olexa wrote: Also, devs willing to maintain packages but then later retiring and leaving the packages in limbo. Maybe there should be some policy such as, when devs retire if no one else steps up to maintain the package, then it automatically gets moved to sunrise overlay and only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2

2008-08-19 Thread Joe Peterson
Duncan wrote: That's an interesting idea. I don't personally care either way, as long as @world continues to /not/ include system/@system, but having world (without the @) continue to include system /would/ be useful for backward compatibility. I think it'd be much better in terms of ease

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2

2008-08-19 Thread Joe Peterson
Steve Long wrote: @system == system ...but... @world != world This, I would think, could cause confusion too - and we'd have to live with and document this quirk. I don't see that as major from a user pov; as soon as you see @ you're in set territory, which is for finer-grained control.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=live (instead of PROPERTIES=live-sources or RESTRICT=live)

2008-08-23 Thread Joe Peterson
Zac Medico wrote: Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=live value seem good? Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name, definition, or both? ++ -Joe

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

2008-08-25 Thread Joe Peterson
Zac Medico wrote: Then change the name. Call it zero-install-cost. I'm inclined toward virtual since it's more brief and I think it might strike a chord with more people because of their familiarity with the virtual category and old-style PROVIDE virtuals. We'll have to see what others have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

2008-08-31 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Users don't need to see it. I cannot quite agree on that point. Given that Gentoo is a distro that appeals to the more technically-oriented users, I personally believe that what we expose as ebuild syntax is actually exposed to many users fairly profoundly.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

2008-09-05 Thread Joe Peterson
Marius Mauch wrote: If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any files I'd suggest to use 'empty' or 'nocontents' instead. 'virtual' somehow implies that it's only applicable to packages in the 'virtual' category, which isn't the case with the given definition (as you

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=live (instead of PROPERTIES=live-sources or RESTRICT=live)

2008-09-05 Thread Joe Peterson
Marius Mauch wrote: Not sure if 'live' is really the best choice here, as many things also apply to e.g. automated daily/nightly snapshots/builds that might also be useful to support. Maybe 'unversioned' is more accurate. I think the most important thing to convey with this property is that

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2

2008-09-05 Thread Joe Peterson
Marius Mauch wrote: First, regarding the news item, I'd suggest that instead of telling users to modify world_sets manually to use `emerge --noreplace @system`. ++ Second for the suggestions on how to handle the transition: - treating 'world' and '@world' differently is a no go from my POV.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

2008-09-05 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Except it doesn't. A virtual ebuild: * installs nothing * does nothing I'd say that virtual does indeed do something: it pulls in other packages. * should be treated as being very quickly installable * should be treated as having zero cost for installs The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug wrangling

2008-09-08 Thread Joe Peterson
Christian Faulhammer wrote: everyone working on bugs, please add all people from metadata.xml to the assignee or cc field, I regularly have to search for bugs where a team and I maintain a package because only the team has been added. Second, please use full atoms (cat-egory/package) in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug wrangling

2008-09-08 Thread Joe Peterson
Jeroen Roovers wrote: Sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, but if one has a proxy maintainer (i.e. not a Gentoo dev) for a package, can/should this person be added to metadata.xml? Is there a special tag for this? I can certainly see this being helpful (so that person automatically

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/slimserver

2008-09-22 Thread Joe Peterson
# Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (22 Sep 2008) # Masked for removal in 30 days (see bug #238442) # Replaced by package: media-sound/squeezecenter media-sound/slimserver -Joe

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-plugins/slimserver-alienbbc

2008-09-23 Thread Joe Peterson
# Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (23 Sep 2008) # Masked for removal in 30 days (see bug #238442) # Depends on old media-sound/slimserver # Will bring back in a form that works with media-sound/squeezecenter media-plugins/slimserver-alienbbc

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos USE flag

2008-10-31 Thread Joe Peterson
Michael Hammer wrote: * Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081031 15:53]: If no one opposes, I say we redact this USE flag asap. ++ I was also wondering why kerberos was on by default - I definitely approve of nuking it. -Joe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses

2008-11-04 Thread Joe Peterson
Petteri Räty wrote: The names of eclasses aren't shown to users and I think figuring out a new name is a minor inconvenience so I would just go with the safe route. I disagree: we should use care in choosing names, since these names will be around for a long time. Using an ugly name might not

  1   2   >