В Чтв, 09/04/2009 в 15:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
Please provide a list of packages that use custom configure scripts,
that currently work with econf (including all the weird things it
already passes), that would break with this change and whose ebuilds
are using econf. I have yet to see
On N, 2009-04-09 at 10:37 +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote:
properties must be cached properly
==
No opinion, up to the package manager developers.
Don't see offhand why it should be an EAPI item at all. Feels like
an
implementation detail.
The metadata
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:51:06 +0300
Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote:
doins support for symlinks
==
Lacking information. Need to see if the PMS draft has anything about
it. The bug and summaries just talk about the support, but no
details. Would it be an argument
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:44:55 +0300
Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote:
But the metadata cache isn't per-EAPI in the sense of multiple
metadata caches, one for each EAPI. There might be per-EAPI metadata
cache items though.
The cache format is per-EAPI, with a degree of overlap.
I don't
Hello,
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 08:49 +0100, Tiziano Müller wrote:
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of
new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example).
So I think it's
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 04:51 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
--disable-dependency-tracking:
==
possible breakage of (custom) configure scripts that don't accept
unknown arguments. Would be nice to pass that for most packages, but
doing it always with econf seems
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct
improvements:
Some more small candidates to discuss:
* How would people feel about killing off automagic RDEPEND=DEPEND
behaviour?
* Officially kill off
Am Freitag, den 13.03.2009, 20:11 + schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct
improvements:
Some more small candidates to discuss:
* How would people feel about
On 22:53 Mon 09 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:39:41 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
* Calling unpack on an unrecognised extension should be fatal,
unless --if-compressed is specified. The default src_unpack needs
to use this.
Why?
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:43:58 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Currently, if a package does an explicit 'unpack foo.bar',
where .bar is an unsupported archive format, unpack just does
nothing. This isn't a good default behaviour; if a package really
wants something to be
No idea whether it's fast idea, but:
- USE flags aliases
This could solve problems with USE flag name changes and breaking dependency
tree because of it.
Placed, let's say in profiles/{use.aliases,use.local.aliases}
example - use.aliases: (no idea whether global aliases are really needed)
#
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:05:54 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote:
No idea whether it's fast idea, but:
- USE flags aliases
Aliases for anything aren't fast or easy.
The big problem is this: the interactions between installed packages and
the main repository, and between the main
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
* Utility commands, even the ones that aren't functions, should die. To
get a non-die version, prefix the command with nonfatal (e.g.
'nonfatal dodoc README', which just returns non-zero on failure
rather than splatting).
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:08:06 +0100
Michael Haubenwallner ha...@gentoo.org wrote:
Whats wrong with 'set -e' and doing '|| true' behind?
Waaay too many false positives.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of
new problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package
you depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an
example).
Here's
On Monday March 09 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
* src_test run unless RESTRICTed or explicitly disabled by the user
(bug 184812)
Yes, and I would go even further: keep src_test for unit tests and
some kind of pkg_posttest for either a routine to test the package
once installed or an elog test
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
Here're some more easy ones.
First up, un-optionaling some
On 21:22 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The syntax
you proposed is more to write but still equivalent to the one using
vars. And looking at the ebuilds - taking G2CONF as
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 21:22 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I think the idea of ebuilds as scripts showing directly how to build
software is a core part of the Gentoo build-system philosophy. This
proposal pushes ebuilds toward a formatted file that is not a script.
Instead, it is more like
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 23:31 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
On 21:22 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The syntax
you proposed is more to write but still equivalent to
Am Montag, den 09.03.2009, 10:12 +0100 schrieb Michael Haubenwallner:
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 21:22 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I think the idea of ebuilds as scripts showing directly how to build
software is a core part of the Gentoo build-system philosophy. This
proposal pushes
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
Here're some more easy ones.
First up, un-optionaling some optional things. No impact for developers:
* PROPERTIES must be cached properly (it's optional
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
* Limit values in $USE to ones in $IUSE (bug 176467). The existing
behaviour's majorly annoying; time for the package manager to start
enforcing things strictly.
My impression is that most ebuild developers tend to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:56:19 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
* Limit values in $USE to ones in $IUSE (bug 176467). The existing
behaviour's majorly annoying; time for the package manager
On 20:26 Mon 09 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:49:16 +0100
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
Here're some more easy ones.
This list sounds mostly good to me.
* Limit values in $USE to ones in
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:26:24 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
* src_test run unless RESTRICTed or explicitly disabled by the user
(bug 184812)
This one is not uncontroversial and will not go in a 'quick' EAPI I
think.
/loki_val
Tiziano � wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example).
So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:39:41 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
* Calling unpack on an unrecognised extension should be fatal,
unless --if-compressed is specified. The default src_unpack needs
to use this.
Why?
Currently, if a package does an explicit 'unpack foo.bar',
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:38:51 -0500
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
Should the next EAPI (as proposed) be a major release in terms of
naming?
We don't use major.minor numbers for EAPI or have a concept like that.
It's too much mess.
And should it really be adding features?
Well... So
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example).
So I think it's time for a short eapi bump
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:08:37 -0800
Josh Saddler nightmo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there a reason why we should ram through a new EAPI for something
that *looks* like another Paludis supports this so let's make it a
Portage standard proposal? Is there some kind of time deadline here
that you all
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Last time I checked, every single use of foo? as a direct child of ||
in the tree was wrong, as were the Portage docs. Let's say you have the
following:
DEPEND=|| (
foo? ( cat/foo )
bar? ( cat/bar )
cat/baz
)
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 00:08 -0800 schrieb Josh Saddler:
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
I get Not Found - Error 404 for this URL.
Ulrich
2009-03-08 10:43:44 Tiziano Müller napisał(a):
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 00:08 -0800 schrieb Josh Saddler:
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 12:05 +0100 schrieb Arfrever Frehtes
Taifersar Arahesis:
2009-03-08 10:43:44 Tiziano Müller napisał(a):
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 00:08 -0800 schrieb Josh Saddler:
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but
On Sunday 08 March 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of
new problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package
you depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an
example).
So I think it's time
On 08:49 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct
improvements:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
It's still being edited, so I have no idea whether I'm commenting on the
same version as was originally
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
- I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I
strongly oppose this implementation because it makes ebuilds less
like bash scripts that are easy to understand. Instead I suggest
extending
On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
- I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I
strongly oppose this implementation because it makes ebuilds less
like bash scripts that are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
| Hi everyone
|
| With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
| problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
| depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 10:01:05AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
How would that work? I can't see an obvious way of doing it that isn't
more or less as verbose as just using multiple calls.
It would just eliminate all but one call to
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:50:19 -0430
Jesus Rivero neurog...@gentoo.org wrote:
~if python-2.6 is the selected interpreter and it misses the tk
use flag. Is there a way to workaround this? am I missing something?
or is just something else
~to take into account for next eapi?
Fixing this
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 08:49 +0100, Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example).
you can
On 10:01 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
- I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I
strongly oppose this implementation
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 10:01 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
- I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I
strongly oppose this
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 19:06 +0100 schrieb Stelian Ionescu:
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 08:49 +0100, Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
depend on
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 17:22 +0100 schrieb Robert Buchholz:
On Sunday 08 March 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
Hi everyone
With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of
new problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package
you depend on doesn't have
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 11:24 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
On 10:01 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
- I understand the reasoning for the
On 19:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 11:24 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
On 10:01 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org
On 19:27 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 10:01 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how
many you've got, this can shorten things up a fair bit. Here's an
example:
econf \
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 15:16 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
On 19:27 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 10:01 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how
many you've got, this can shorten
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:42:29AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 08:49 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano M?ller wrote:
So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct
improvements:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ
- I understand the reasoning for
On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The syntax
you proposed is more to write but still equivalent to the one using
vars. And looking at the ebuilds - taking G2CONF as an example - it
seems that people don't have a
54 matches
Mail list logo
