Re: [gentoo-dev] What to do with GCC 4 related bugs?

2006-01-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 01:43, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 2. Januar 2006 21:45 schrieb ext Mark Loeser: Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The policy is pretty much if it doesn't compile, you get to fix it. If you have a patch then report it to bugzilla. Actually, since I

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLogs and rsync time

2006-01-03 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 09:29, Paweł Madej wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 13:20 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: I'm sorry, but I still think the idea of simply RSYNC_EXCLUDEing the ChangeLog by default would be a much better solution. I didn't know before that it

Re: [gentoo-dev] invalid virtual/use flag

2006-01-03 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 19:13, Ricardo Loureiro wrote: If I encounter such situations should I create a bug or report them here? either works ive removed the entries -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

2006-01-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 11:05, Grant Goodyear wrote: Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Sun Jan 01 2006, 05:35:26PM CST] On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 05:30:01AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anyone still maintaining dev-libs/dietlibc ?

2006-01-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:13, Christian Heim wrote: devs who contributed/touched the ebuilds: - Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] i regret ever touching this package ... and i'm pretty sure Ned feels the same way ... i'm 100% uClibc now ;) If no one complains

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-proxy/squid should be demoted to ~mips

2006-01-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 06 January 2006 08:07, Alin Nastac wrote: Given the lack of interest manifested by mips team regarding net-proxy/squid and its security bumps, I propose to remove the last mips-stable version of this package - 2.5.10-r2 - marked as such by hardave on September the 4th 2005.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Need help fixing executable stack

2006-01-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 06 January 2006 12:30, Thomas Cort wrote: When emerging wxGTK-2.4.2-r4 on alpha I get a QA message about executable stacks ( http://bugs.gentoo.org/113119#c10 ). I read the GNU Stack Quickstart ( http://gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/gnu-stack.xml ). well you didnt read far enough down

Re: [gentoo-dev] A New Linux Way

2006-01-09 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 09 January 2006 22:40, Mark Stewart wrote: Please contact me if you are interested. thank you captain douche please unsubscribe yourself from our lists and never stop by again -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Jan/2006 council agenda

2006-01-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
for this month: * GLEP 45 - GLEP date format * disallow multiple votes per person (from ciaranm) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11346783302r=1w=2 * global gentoo goals for 2006 for next month: * periodically freezing the tree for new packages (from carlo) i miss anything ? -mike --

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

2006-01-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 05 January 2006 13:42, Greg KH wrote: On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:56:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: You guys are more than welcome to go apply at Red Hat or Novell. Some of us already work for companies that produce other Linux distributions or support the companies that do.

[gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're looking to cut out use.defaults support existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will continue to carry support for this, but some of you stable users may notice some USE flags suddenly disappearing

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 13 January 2006 11:15, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: Or is it because I always had: USE=-* ${MY_USE} in /etc/make.conf? yes -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 13 January 2006 15:13, solar wrote: On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 06:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're looking to cut out use.defaults support I see this as a good and bad thing. Good in one hand that less autojunk

Re: [gentoo-dev] Initng in vserver guests

2006-01-14 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 14 January 2006 10:26, Bruno wrote: What are your thoughts about this? take it upstream, they have a bugzilla make it a configure option and we'll add a use flag `use_enable vserver` or some such junk otherwise, the answer is no ;) -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

2006-01-14 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 15 January 2006 01:19, Joshua Baergen wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: - portage will add sane debug defaults to make.globals (DEBUG_CFLAGS=-O -g and DEBUG_LDFLAGS=) Nothing huge, but won't this fry certain systems (SPARC iirc, among others) that need the -march information

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

2006-01-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 15 January 2006 13:25, Dan Meltzer wrote: What would happen on subsequent merges or upgrades if --debug-build was omitted? Would there be a way (/etc/portage file perhaps?) to enable debug builds on a permanent basis? i didnt think anyone would want this but it'd be trivial to add a

Re: [gentoo-dev] pdf use flags

2006-01-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 16 January 2006 16:54, Marius Mauch wrote: So unless there are any objections to this I'll make the change this weekend. dooo it -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Initng in vserver guests

2006-01-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 16 January 2006 16:36, Bruno wrote: Will not need any special behavior on ebuild side (as distro is detected automatically; works also when building system in chroot) WFM, thanks -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

2006-01-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 10:11, Richard Fish wrote: On 1/15/06, Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not use the splitdebug instead of nostrip? And make building with -g the default, then tell small HD users how to disable it in the docs. And it needs to disable -fomit-frame-pointer

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES=test depends

2006-01-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 13:53, Doug Goldstein wrote: Basically some packages have additional depends to be able to run the tests. So if a user has FEATURES=test, then they need additional depends. For example, gstreamer http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115448 and expat (ghetto fix by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still?

2006-01-18 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 09:27, Drake Wyrm wrote: Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:18 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote: Portage is not the only important system tool. Some of us actually use Perl. Please do not be with the breaking. Is this to say there is

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

2006-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 15 January 2006 01:11, Mike Frysinger wrote: this topic has come up before too many times and has yet to be solved, and we have too many hacks in place ok, so after sitting on the list for a while and accumulating feedback, how about this: - USE=debug *never* changes CFLAGS

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

2006-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:52, Mark Loeser wrote: Please lets avoid this assumption. I'd love to make it so we never make this assumption anywhere in the tree so that we could actually build GCC without pie or ssp, instead of generating all of the GCC profiles for every user. pie is in

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

2006-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:33, solar wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 17:56 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: DEBUG_CFLAGS=DEBUG_CXXFLAGS=-O -g Mike, how about DEBUG_CFLAGS=DEBUG_CXXFLAGS=-O -g -fno-stack-protector -fno-pie All Gentoo properly supported toolchains support the last two flags

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

2006-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:17, Olivier Crete wrote: On Thu, 2006-19-01 at 17:56 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: - if debug-build is in FEATURES, then the following happens: * auto sets CFLAGS to DEBUG_CFLAGS, LDFLAGS to DEBUG_LDFLAGS, CXXFLAGS to DEBUG_CXXFLAGS (and in the future, we can

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

2006-01-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 20 January 2006 01:25, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:56:47PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: - USE=debug *never* changes CFLAGS or LDFLAGS or what have you, it *only* enables additional runtime code (such as assert()'s or helpful debug output) ... I'd like to see

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-libs/xpm

2006-01-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 22 January 2006 12:31, Marcelo Góes wrote: On 1/22/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 22 January 2006 09:48, Marcelo Góes wrote: media-libs/xpm is currently just a dummy ebuild that depends on virtual/x11. All ebuilds in the tree have already been adapted

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

2006-01-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 21 January 2006 23:12, Marius Mauch wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 15 January 2006 01:11, Mike Frysinger wrote: - we add an emerge flag (say '--debug-build') which adds debug-build to FEATURES IMO this is pointless and redundant. its purpose is to handle cases where

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds and USE flags

2006-01-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 11:27, Rene Zbinden wrote: I am writing an ebuild for a program written in perl. This program has the dependency of gnuplot but with the png flag enabled. What is the gentoo way to enable this USE Flag for gnuplot when I emerge my program.

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 18:14, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed (4.1.4; ppc-macos has no problem as the 4.0.9 version uses gsed anyway). if

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:13, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:32, Mike Frysinger wrote: if you're implying we change all calls from 'sed' to 'gsed' in ebuilds then the answer is no from my pov Can you at least read all my mails till the end before

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote: We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's the only sane way to do

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

2006-01-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 17:56, Donnie Berkholz wrote: 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

Re: Environement categories (was Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion 1/2)

2006-01-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 01:44, Brian Harring wrote: Might I suggest this one just get shelved for a while? everything that gets shelved portage way stays that way for *quite* a while i would be ok with implementing the back end (i.e. FEATURES=debug-build) but putting off the front end (i.e.

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:16, Georgi Georgiev wrote: maillog: 25/01/2006-00:14:13(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed (4.1.4;

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

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 07:30, Sven Köhler wrote: I'd like to see, that bootstrap.sh unmerges any old gcc (emerge -C \${gcc package that we just compiled}) that's a bad idea imo let the user decide which gcc they wish to have so that a clean system is built with gcc 3.4 only! it

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 03:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If there are any hardcoded calls to /usr/bin/sed, it is reasonable for you to ask for them to be fixed. For any others, use a wrapper script. I think the wrapper

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: coreutils: deprecated behavior not so deprecated

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 01:54, MIkey wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: note: for those who think they can argue for support of these features to be kept in Gentoo, you're barking up the wrong tree so dont waste your time -mike So, um, when can we expect all hell to break loose? i added

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

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 11:38, Marius Mauch wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:23:20 +0100 Sven Köhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see, that bootstrap.sh unmerges any old gcc (emerge -C \${gcc package that we just compiled}) that's a bad idea imo let the user decide

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

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:44, Sven Köhler wrote: I'd like to see, that bootstrap.sh unmerges any old gcc (emerge -C \${gcc package that we just compiled}) that's a bad idea imo let the user decide which gcc they wish to have So i understand what you're trying to tell me, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: tcsh vs. csh, removal of the latter

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:47, Stuart Herbert wrote: The csh package currently has a maintainer who is an active Gentoo developer; have you spoken to taviso first to find out whether he wants to remove csh from the tree? last we talked with taviso he had no problem punting csh -mike --

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

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:40, Sven Köhler wrote: I expected the result of these steps to be a clean system. What do i mean with a clean system? Actually i thought, that i mean the result of a emerge -e system - but i know now, that this is not what i mean. For example emerge -e system

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:54, Sven Köhler wrote: Mike Frysinger is talking about choice and ignores me if i tell him, that the emerge -e system uses the crippled gcc 3.3 for the first 10 packages until emerge -e system finally rebuilds gcc 3.3 (only due to some sideeffects!!! namely

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote: Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled. packages should never strip, only portage should -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 10:42, Mikey wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:16, Mike Frysinger spammed: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 22:07, Mikey wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:53, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Name one of those that isn't in 'system'. [EMAIL PROTECTED

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 13:23, Sven Köhler wrote: Mike Frysinger is talking about choice and ignores me if i tell him, that the emerge -e system uses the crippled gcc 3.3 for the first 10 packages until emerge -e system finally rebuilds gcc 3.3 (only due to some sideeffects!!! namely

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:16, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 16:34, Mikey wrote: And those instructions have nothing whatsoever to do with common sense from a new, or even experienced users perspective. Knowing that a gcc upgrade will break libtool is not common

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, MIkey wrote: Why should system packages (determined by your profile) be present in the world file on official stage1/3 tarballs? whether they are in the world file itself doesnt really matter the world target includes all the packages listed in the world file

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:00, MIkey wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, MIkey wrote: Why should system packages (determined by your profile) be present in the world file on official stage1/3 tarballs? whether they are in the world file itself doesnt

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote: Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called by certain makefiles instead of being portage

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:08, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:00, MIkey wrote: /var/lib/portage/world should only contain the names of packages you explicitly emerge (without --oneshot). As far as I know an official stage3 tarball should only contain packages

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

2006-01-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 26 January 2006 13:23, Sven Köhler wrote: You say, that it's the intended behaviour, that bootstrap.sh keeps the crippled gcc 3.3 intact and as the default compiler. ok, i looked into this some more and ran some tests ... long and short of it is that the behavior i discussed before

Re: [gentoo-dev] sed vs gsed

2006-01-27 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 27 January 2006 03:17, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 19:53, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote: Sometimes when calling the strip option of install. A strip wrapper prevents this broken behaviour once and for all

Re: [gentoo-dev] coreutils: deprecated behavior not so deprecated

2006-01-27 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 23 January 2006 23:04, Mike Frysinger wrote: for those who dont know what i'm talking about, consider: tail -1 head -1 some other stuff i cant remember it would seem i lied about this (at least the first two still work) the source code was refactored and i assumed this to mean

Re: Environement categories (was Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion 1/2)

2006-01-29 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 02:26, Brian Harring wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:06:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: i would be ok with implementing the back end (i.e. FEATURES=debug-build) but putting off the front end (i.e. emerge --debug-build) Front-end doesn't matter, it's the back

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

2006-01-29 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 29 January 2006 20:37, Sven Köhler wrote: You say, that it's the intended behaviour, that bootstrap.sh keeps the crippled gcc 3.3 intact and as the default compiler. ive chatted with wolf and the real fix here is to change the 'emerge clean' at the end of bootstrap.sh into an

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

2006-01-29 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 29 January 2006 20:50, Sven Köhler wrote: I also noticed the --oneshot fix. i noted this already elsewhere in the thread dont you read all of the e-mails !? ??? I just wanted to say Thank you for both fixes. sorry i forgot the /joke -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-30 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 30 January 2006 11:15, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Monday 30 January 2006 06:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Defining LINGUAS variable would be useful to allow people to know whether they are going to have special support for their language in a package, but it would

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-30 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 30 January 2006 11:48, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Monday 30 January 2006 17:38, Mike Frysinger wrote: it makes a the -pv output unreadable and thus useless ... although if you do something like -pvv, then the user can expect to get a lot of output ... emerge -p is now

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-01-31 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 06:31, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 1. Because for things like LINGUAS, there are arbitrarily many legal values, and documenting them all and keeping the list up to date would be extremely difficult. More precisely,

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for February

2006-02-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] env pollution

2006-02-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 05 February 2006 12:17, 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-02-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 05 February 2006 09:51, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Thursday 02 February 2006 20:55, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Yeah that would help. But in the mean time what should we do? What you should always do. Do the right thing, even if repoman

Re: [gentoo-dev] IUSE and LINGUAS?

2006-02-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 05 February 2006 15:43, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Sunday 05 February 2006 21:34, Mike Frysinger wrote: that's retarded, please remove all such linguas_* crap from use.desc files I can, but then Mr_Bones_ will come back to me again and we're stuck in this loop

Re: [gentoo-dev] env pollution

2006-02-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 05 February 2006 15:49, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: But looking at 02kth-krb in its files directory we have: PATH=/usr/athena/bin ROOTPATH=/usr/athena/sbin LDPATH=/usr/athena/lib MANDIR=/usr/athena/man INFODIR=/usr/athena/info then, as Donnie said, kth-krb is wrong it should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Depend syntax

2006-02-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 05 February 2006 16:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Just a reminder that all of the following are either illegal or strongly deprecated, so please don't use them even if Portage currently lets you get away with it: DEPEND=blah You should always use the full foo-bar/blah spec inside

Re: [gentoo-dev] Self-circular dependencies

2006-02-05 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 05 February 2006 17:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Another not-so-uncommon issue that crops up: packages DEPENDing upon themselves. Sometimes this is legit -- one of the Ada compilers, for example, DEPENDs upon || ( itself another-compiler ). Sometimes, however, it's the result of eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Fwd: Re: official branding ( gentoo )]

2006-02-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 06 February 2006 20:09, Georgi Georgiev wrote: Make that official-branding option depend on a single local USE flag (there was a discussion about branding use flags, but this one has to be *disabled* by default), and forget about it :-D. may i suggest USE=retarded-policies -mike --

[gentoo-dev] heads up on funky build errors with -O0/nls

2006-02-07 Thread Mike Frysinger
in case anyone else comes across this (ive seen a few packages lately) ... * symptom: build fails with -O0 but not with -O1 when nls support is enabled * error: LC_MESSAGES/LC_CTYPE/LC_ALL/LC_something is undefined and/or functions like setlocale()/textdomain()/etc... are implicitly defined *

[gentoo-dev] last thoughts for xml/xml2 unification

2006-02-07 Thread Mike Frysinger
any last issues people wish to cover before we start finishing this up ? -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Binary packages

2006-02-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 19:24, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Thursday 09 February 2006 08:19, Mark Loeser wrote: Anyone that is maintaining a binary package in the tree, and requires libstdc++-v3, please put a rdepend in your package on =virtual/libstdc++-3.3. I'd like to drop the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 decision delayed (was: Gentoo Council Meeting Summary (20060209))

2006-02-09 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 09 February 2006 22:05, Ned Ludd wrote: I would like to see it drop the tab handling for indicating newlines and just use a real newlines when we want a newline. While having the tabs makes it easier for people to read it increases the byte size and adds some undesired complexity

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclass for prime numbers

2006-02-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 12 February 2006 12:22, Michael Hanselmann wrote: For an ebuild I'm working on, I need a function to test wether a number is a prime number. For that, I wrote an Eclass you find attached to this e-mail. Can this be commited? i cant really see how this would be useful to anything, but

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

2006-02-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 12 February 2006 14:16, Forrest Voight wrote: I believe that rc.conf contains many values that could be put into conf.d. sounds like your system is outdated For example, DISPLAYMANAGER Donnie already covered this and KEYMAP. this was moved to /etc/conf.d/keymaps a while ago,

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

2006-02-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 13 February 2006 19:01, Alec Warner wrote: Forrest Voight wrote: What happens if two env.d files set the same variable? You write an eselect module to choose between them :) brr wrong -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

2006-02-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 13 February 2006 20:07, Forrest Voight wrote: How is that wrong? If it isn't, eselect would be a great way to switch EDITOR and XSESSION. jesus, talk about over engineering using eselect to manage some default variables instead of simply editing your ~/.bashrc file is like using a

Re: [gentoo-dev] static compilation and executable stacks

2006-02-14 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 14 February 2006 17:02, Tristan Hill wrote: I'm updating the rpm ebuild[1]. Without any modifications the executables are statically compiled and I get the QA message about executable stacks. However, removal of -static from the compilation flags in ./configure also stops

Re: [gentoo-dev] static compilation and executable stacks

2006-02-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 10:35, solar wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 18:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 14 February 2006 17:02, Tristan Hill wrote: I'm updating the rpm ebuild[1]. Without any modifications the executables are statically compiled and I get the QA message

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-editors/gnotepad+

2006-02-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 17 February 2006 07:38, Simon Stelling wrote: Jakub Moc wrote: OMG, stop this crap and don't waste our time. Taken from http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/docs/flame.html: | One thing is to frequently refer to us or our. Pretend like people | are with you on this, so the uncertain

Re: [gentoo-dev] RESTRICT and no*

2006-02-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 17:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: What's the deal with no* values in RESTRICT? Is it RESTRICT=strip or RESTRICT=nostrip? fetch or nofetch? the no* stuff is slowly being cut out Which values work with all Portage versions, which work with only recent ones and which

Re: [gentoo-dev] missing ide discs mapping is udev's fault?

2006-02-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 17:56, Richard Fish wrote: On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And hdparm iterates through /dev/ide/* if found... I assume you are talking about the init script? Because my hdparm binary requires one to specify a device node, there is no

[gentoo-dev] time to unify xml/xml2

2006-02-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
ive update the xml use.desc entry to be generic and marked the xml2 entry as deprecated ... can people start fixing their packages themselves ? i'll give some lead time so as to cut down on the # of bugs that need to be filed to get this finished up ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] time to unify xml/xml2

2006-02-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 23:46, Mike Frysinger wrote: ive update the xml use.desc entry to be generic and marked the xml2 entry as deprecated ... can people start fixing their packages themselves ? i'll give some lead time so as to cut down on the # of bugs that need to be filed to get

Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision

2006-02-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 26 February 2006 14:45, Stuart Herbert wrote: Also, I cannot find this SRC_URI rule (as being applied by the QA team) in any official Gentoo policy document. that's because it's common sense ... filename collisions just dont work -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

2006-02-27 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 27 February 2006 12:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 + Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition | of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really | hope problems

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 27 February 2006 16:12, Stuart Herbert wrote: On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the discussion will just get repeated over and over. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] enable UTF8 per default?

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:47, Patrick Lauer wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 12:32 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:58, Patrick Lauer wrote: During that discussion we realized that having utf-8 not enabled by default and no utf8 fonts available by

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 04:49, Jakub Moc wrote: No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable; part=3chap=1 so what, you want us to duplicate everything in one document and place it in the

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:47, Lance Albertson wrote: 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

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 10:08, Jakub Moc wrote: 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policies (was: [RFC] QA Team's role)

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:39, Jakub Moc wrote: 28.2.2006, 17:24:21, Danny van Dyk wrote: If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your opposition earlier? I don't feel any need to raise opposition against some unofficial manual, what would be the point in that? I'm

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 13:00, Jakub Moc wrote: 28.2.2006, 18:11:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably broken. Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you use the webapp

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:10, Jakub Moc wrote: 28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote: 28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote: whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the subject considering the nature of the warning

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:58, Alec Warner wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote: 28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote: whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then they should be able to without having an invalid

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

2006-02-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have | problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please | comment on bug #114944. (this bug

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March

2006-03-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] how to turn off hardened gcc flags reliably?

2006-03-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:35, Duncan Coutts wrote: gcc-3 supports both -nopie and -fno-stack-protector. So always using these would be ok if it were not for gcc-4 which doesn't grok -fno-stack-protector. yes it does every gcc in portage by default supports -fno-stack-protector -mike --

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

2006-03-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 02:37, Jakub Moc wrote: 28.2.2006, 16:29:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: The whole devrel handbook is policy, except where otherwise noted. See Mike's reply. Then any significant change there requires a sane procedure. which does not change the fact that the devrel

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >