Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Try to specify how to get that a USE flag is present in current ebuild

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El sáb, 22-09-2012 a las 13:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió: >> On Friday 21 September 2012 15:08:20 Pacho Ramos wrote: >> > In that one, we try to use the following: >> > has vala ${IUSE//+/} && ! use vala && return 0 >> >> inherit eutils >>

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] tools-portage packages

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote: > On 07/17/12 at 03:48PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote: >> All: >> >> (Apologies if you get this twice. I never saw my initial send of the >> message hit the mailing list) >> >> Sending this here before I send to the gentoo-dev list. Below is

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] tools-portage packages

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Paul Varner wrote: > All: > > (Apologies if you get this twice. I never saw my initial send of the > message hit the mailing list) > > Sending this here before I send to the gentoo-dev list. Below is the > list of packages that are managed by the tools-portage h

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] portageq: add "colormap" helper

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger > --- >  bin/isolated-functions.sh              |    2 +- >  bin/portageq                           |    8 >  pym/portage/output.py                  |    6 ++ >  pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [GLEP59v2 5/5] GLEP59: Change live Manifest2 hashes to SHA256, SHA512, WHIRLPOOL

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/02/2011 05:46 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 09:40:13PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >>> If we control these hashes via metadata/layout.conf, then we can toggle >>> it atomically for all commiters. Otherwise, we'll have

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/4] Manifest2 hash: Whirlpool

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 21:27:39 Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> Provide public-domain implementation of the Whirlpool hash algorithm to >> be used as new Manifest2 hash. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson >> --- >>  pym/portage/check

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage docbook documentation -> why not asciidoc ?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday, November 27, 2010 16:39:04 Alec Warner wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> > As it is, I'm fairly comfortable with docbook. Now you want me to learn >> > a new for

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage docbook documentation -> why not asciidoc ?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/27/2010 01:25 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> On 11/26/10 21:18, Zac Medico wrote: >>> The asciidoc format seems nice, but personally, I think I prefer docbook >>> since the SGML/XML approach seems more flexible and extensible. >> >> Are y

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] A question regarding portage & GFS2

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Mikko Rinne wrote: > Hey, > > It's my first time I'm mailing to this list so be warned. > > I have a problem with GFS2. In the past there's been sys-fs/gfs2 ebuild > available in the portage, but for now it's been removed as one of it's > dependencies (openais) was

[gentoo-portage-dev] Fwd: Random patch

Ugh I hate this list name ;p -- Forwarded message -- From: Alec Warner Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM Subject: Random patch To: gentoo-dev-port...@gentoo.org Get rid of if True...True is always true in CPython. replace icky:  'foo' + \  'bar' cons

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portageq doesn't clean-up generated tmp/ and var/

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: > amit0 ~ # ls -la /var/db/pkg/var > ls: cannot access /var/db/pkg/var: No such file or directory > amit0 ~ # ls -la /var/db/pkg/tmp > ls: cannot access /var/db/pkg/tmp: No such file or directory > amit0 ~ # portageq match /var/db/pkg portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Conflicting RDEPENDS

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Alec Warner wrote: >> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) >> wrote: >> Duncan wrote: >>>>> Patrick Börjesson po

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Conflicting RDEPENDS

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Duncan wrote: >> Patrick Börjesson posted >> 20090529201741.gb11...@nexon.nexus, excerpted below, on Fri, 29 May 2009 >> 22:17:41 +0200: >> >>> Why exactly would you want to use

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Conflicting RDEPENDS

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:33 AM, René 'Necoro' Neumann wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Patrick Börjesson schrieb: >>> >>> # emerge -1av bacon >>> >>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order: >>> >>> Calculating dependencies... done! >>> [e

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] using python in installation scripts

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: >> I want to read/write an XML file while an ebuild executes. Since I'm >> unaware of any XML support in bash, I'm thinking of using python: I'd >> write some python code

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] qfile assumes category names contain a hyphen

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: > Hi all. > > While working on my overlay, I stumbled on an issue where qfile refused to > acknowledge an installed file as being part of my package. > > Looking into q's implementation (portage-utils-0.1.29), I see: > > amit0 portage-utils-0

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Who's maintaining the "Eclass HOWTO" page nowdays?

My first guess is 'no one.' I'd try devmanual.gentoo.org over anything in /proj/en/devrel/, however developer relations owns stuff in /proj/en/devrel, so if there are incorrect things in it you probably want to file bugs at bugs.gentoo.org against devrel for changes. On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:15

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] missing-rebuild package set

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Lucian Poston wrote: >> The following patchs add a library dependency rebuilder as a package >> set, @missing-rebuild, to portage-2.2_rc6. Similar to the --library >> flag in revdep-rebuild, th

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] equery: RFC and code review

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > Hi all, > > It's been a few months since we first discussed refactoring equery on > this list and I think made pretty good time and I'm reasonably happy > with it. So I'm throwing out to you all. I've tried to keep a running > list of visi

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Python style (Was: equery refactorization)

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Michael A. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Actually I don't like spaces for indentation at all. A tab character and a > space character take the same number of bytes, so it takes two-to-eight > times > as much sp

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: equery refactorization

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Douglas Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Michael Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I had the same idea and even began working on a roadmap for it. >> >> Step 1: move gentoolkit to site-packages >> Step 2: move individual command

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: search functionality in emerge

- maybe this compression should be later added and optional. > > Tambet - technique evolves to art, art evolves to magic, magic evolves to > just doing. > > > 2008/12/2 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Tambet <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: search functionality in emerge

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Tambet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/12/2 Emma Strubell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> True, true. Like I said, I don't really use overlays, so excuse my >> igonrance. > > Do you know an order of doing things: > > Rules of Optimization: > > Rule 1: Don't do it. > Rule

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] How to extract the version/revision of an installed package?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Amit Dor-Shifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there syntax in eix for querying: "is package X installed with a version > X.Y or higher?" > Amit portageq has_version / > > René 'Necoro' Neumann wrote: >> >> Amit Dor-Shifer schrieb: >> > Thanks :) >> >> > Reason

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Label profiles with EAPI for compatibility checks

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi everyone, > > Please consider a new "eapi" profile configuration file that will > designate the EAPI to which any package atoms within a given layer > of the profile stack

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add deprecation warnings to classes that have has_key() methods.

You should hardcode the warning somewhere. also quote 'in', eg. 'please use the \'in\' operator' -Alec On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Ali Polatel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These don't apply to the trunk anymore. > Updated patches can be found at: http://dev.gentoo.org/~hawking/py3k/portage/

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote: > > On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote: > > > > Because package.mask in CVS

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] please explain use of hooks

On 3/1/08, Jonas Bernoulli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > I was aware that the alternative package managers provide hooks for > some time now, but only found out recently that portage also has this > feature. Unfortunately I was not able to find any documentation about > it. I found som

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] manual uninstall

On 2/14/08, Lanza Fabrizio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > I need to manually uninstall a package (without emerge --unmerge). Er, manually meaning 'I want to delete anything it installed by hand'? or 'I want to run the phases by hand'? Why doesn't emerge -C work for this case? > How do I

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: More general interface to use flags

On 11/4/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > > the current interface to use flags, useq, usev, use_with, use_enable, as > > defined in /usr/lib/portage/bin/ebuild.sh lacks generality. The common > > thing is testing a use flag and possibly echoing a string, b

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] RFC: replacing "packages"

On 10/24/07, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As package sets are mostly done now, I'm starting to think about > something else. One of my pet peeves with portage is the "packages" > file in profiles, for several reasons: > 1) it has two completely independent purposes ok > 2) it impleme

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] localization.py

There have been various efforts to add localization for errors and other portage messages. The codebase is not well designed for it though, and the people who want it done keep getting busy with other tasks, so it mostly lies unused. On 10/19/07, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <[EMAIL PROTECT

[gentoo-portage-dev] Gentoolkit cleanup

I've gone ahead and ported the namespace changes for HEAD into gentoolkit so it can now import modules properly. If the new-style modules fail it will fall back to the old-n-busted import style, keeping backwards compatability for people with different portage versions. I also removed the string

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [SoC] Idea for emerge

>> and I'd assume users might get rather confused to answer questions >> that are then thrown away later. > I don't unterstand what do you mean by that... > It's a chicken and egg problem. Portage's job is to examine your systems configuration (key here is USE flags) and the calculate dependences

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Add a couple new warnings to QA check

Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:05:35 -0600 > Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'd like to add two warnings to the QA GCC warning message reporter >> for GCC 4.2. > > I think it would be useful if the set of warnings could be customisable > outside of portage (in particula

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Add a couple new warnings to QA check

Ryan Hill wrote: > Hey all. > > I'd like to add two warnings to the QA GCC warning message reporter for > GCC 4.2. > > The first is a new warning that is given when GCC makes an optimization > assuming that overflow for operations on signed ints is undefined, as > per the standard. Apparently a

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Guessing a package by short name

Zac Medico wrote: > Daniel Barkalow wrote: >> I think emerge should be able to do better with guessing what I mean by >> "sudo". How about, if: > >> 1) "ask" or "pretend" is on, and >> 2) exactly one package with a given short name is in world or is installed > >> it will print a message explain

[gentoo-portage-dev] Default Phase Hooks

In order to facilitate better ease of use with phase hooks, I propose a paludis-style default phase hook. Basically ebuild.sh provides a default hook that looks in PORTAGE_HOOKS_DIR/{pre,post}_${EBUILD_PHASE}/ for shell scripts and sources them. The patch to ebuild.sh only generates hooks 1 p

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Depending on "active" version

Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:27:10 -0500 > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Hmm; one could get the same benefit by introducing a new interface >>> (e.g. pkg_env_check()) which is defined to return true if the >>> environment

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Depending on "active" version

Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:06:51 +0100 > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The idea is to add a special category (let's call it "active" for >> now) that has the following properties: >> - this category doesn't exist in portdir or vdb (= no ebuilds) >> - when portag

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Depending on "active" version

> > > Hmm; one could get the same benefit by introducing a new interface > (e.g. pkg_env_check()) which is defined to return true if the > environment is ok, false otherwise (with some text to stdout, perhaps). > The package manager would then run this function, after building the > depgraph and

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Depending on "active" version

Marius Mauch wrote: > Sometimes a package has to depend on a specific version of a slotted package > being the "active" one to build correctly, like in the current "tr1" > discussion on -dev [1] or with packages that depend on the running kernel. > > Currently this isn't really possible, however

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] keyword anti-match (foo/-foo) overrides other matches

Zac Medico wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Barkalow wrote: If the configuration has keywords "foo bar", and a package has "-foo bar", mask the package ("masked by -bar keyword"). This is the sensible behavior if we ever make use of listing multiple keywords in the c

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Repoman SVN support

Fabian Groffen wrote: On 25-11-2006 03:00:10 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: Fabian Groffen wrote: Hi all, Please find attached the patch of the prefix repoman sources against the current trunk. I hope I removed all hunks that have prefix-only changes. You realize I wrote generic SCM support into

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Repoman SVN support

of course excludes GIT, since it's a huge non-standard piece of crap. I may work on fixing that code up and putting it into HEAD before I retire. -Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Mask packages that don't cross-compile

Brian Harring wrote: So why abuse keywords for it, when restrict exists? Keywords has a specific purpose now, it's not used to store bools for random capabilities (one could argue that archs are just that, but that's a bit of a reach). That said, RESTRICT *is* used to store random bools fo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Feature request: --history

Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I was doing my usual tests the other day when I noticed that I needed history information upon performed emerges, together with what variables were being used and the success state. I know that the log files are there, howe

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Moving ebuild-related where they belong

Zac Medico wrote: Fine, but the EAPI can still be used to imply that some other functions may or may not be available. >>> Not really. Via moving parts of the format into gentoo-x86 it's >>> implciitly setting it up such that whatever tree portage is working >>> against now defines EAPI

[gentoo-portage-dev] Portage Sets

So I have implemented merging of sets (more or less) in a local portage branch. However there are some use cases for which the appopriate action is ambiguous. Use Case #1: Set1 = { postfix, gentoolkit, lsof, bind-utils, vixie-cron } A set of standard tools to be on a machine. Assume a new insta

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] use.force and package.use.force (bug #142853)

Zac Medico wrote: > Alec Warner wrote: >>> Zac Medico wrote: >>> >>>> Users can unforce them via >>>> /etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} in the usual "-flag" >>>> way. >>> Why new files? Why isn't t

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] use.force and package.use.force (bug #142853)

>> Brian, default USE in IUSE is not a backwards compatable change and this >> is easier ;) > > An EAPI bump is pretty simple from where I'm sitting, and implementing > it isn't all that hard. > > Meanwhile, the question should be "which is desirable", not "which can > I glue in quickest" ;) >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] use.force and package.use.force (bug #142853)

Zac Medico wrote: >Users can unforce them via /etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} >in the usual "-flag" way. Why new files? Why isn't this just pushed into the use stacking order over-ridable by the user (default USE flags, and not forcing)? Then they can over-ride it in package

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: > You do if you want to convince me that I'm wrong. I promise that I'll > eat humble pie. Tempting? > Luckily we don't have to do that, you just have to convince us that you are correct; and you have failed thus far. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: >> Go find a mathematician and discuss this matter with him. Tell him what you >> told >> me, and he will slap you with a large frying pan. > > Here's a non-programming example, to make things clearer. > > It's a sunny Sunday, and Fred is watching a labourer trying to build

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: >> There is a third option. Reporting an error. > > But it is not an error. The answer is known to be False, through the > application of logic. There are really 3 states here Either you have enough information to prove something true; OR you have enough information to prove

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: > Hi, I was directed to this list after my Portage patches were rejected. > I'm hoping that someone *other* than the rejecter will look at the bug, > and: See it as a valid bug, reopen it, and take SpanKY's keyboard away > so he can't reject it again. > > The bug is: http://b

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: emaint

Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 11 June 2006 18:38, you wrote: >> The man page says you're the author (of the man page anyway) of >> emaint. I don't quite understand this utility. > > i just usually write all the man pages > >> I've noticed that emerge now has something called a "set" of which

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] per-package use.mask (bug 96368)

Since you're sliding this in, why not slide it in using use dep syntax? No, not going to fight over this not being in package.mask, what I'm saying is this _is_ masking of a use dep atom, just use use dep syntax in the file instead. If y'all get use deps, it'll be a bit simpler for folks t

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Manifest verification

> Now I get it. So could somebody add a line to > make.conf.example that says which features are on by > default? I didn't notice strict was on. We can't tell you that, FEATURES are stacked, first make.defaults, and then from your profile setting; aka the default FEATURES are only known at runtim

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Update www-apache/mod_jk to 1.2.15

Paul Dlug wrote: On 6/6/06, *Grant Goodyear* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Paul Dlug wrote: > The following patch upgrades www-apache/mod_jk to 1.2.15 (current latest > available version in portage is 1.2.13 which has numerous evil bugs). > This

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1-rc3-r5 extraneous but (I think) harmless message?

Duncan wrote: I've been noticing this for a couple revisions I think, but am not sure if it's new behavior or if I'm just noticing what's been there all along. At the end of a new package merge, after the binpkg tarball (I'm using FEATURES=binpkg) has been created, then decompressed and merged,

[gentoo-portage-dev] tiny manpage fix

Attached is a tiny diff for make.conf, can someone with l337 skills in manpages look it over before it gets commited. Thanks -Alec Index: make.conf.5 === --- make.conf.5 (revision 3414) +++ make.conf.5 (working copy) @@ -208,6 +208,9

[gentoo-portage-dev] secpass=1 and wheel

# Portage has 3 security levels that depend on the uid and gid of the main # process and are assigned according to the following table: # # Privileges secpass uidgid # normal 0anyany # group 1anyportage_gid # super 20 any # # If the "whee

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Perl, sort, and locale

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Seems like something is wrong, but I don't know what. This happens on > other versions of Linux. It is not a gentoo specific problem. > IIRC the locale issue is known, but it would be best to contact upstream (GNU?) in this case. Many of the problems in portage are s

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Stablizing portage 2.1

Zac Medico wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alec Warner wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Alec Warner schrieb: Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 in

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Stablizing portage 2.1

Marius Mauch wrote: Alec Warner schrieb: Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 in the tree and fixing up it's code instead. Why not pre10? Because pre10 see

[gentoo-portage-dev] Stablizing portage 2.1

Per some discussion on IRC, I am bring stablizing 2.1 at the pre9 or pre10 branch to the table. Reasons for doing so include: 2006.1 - They say if 2.1 is to be in 2006.1, mid-july Xorg Modular - They cannot stable xorg modular until 2.1 is stable FreeBSD - Their entire port depends on features an

[gentoo-portage-dev] Breakout etc-update, dispatch-conf

A bunch of bugs have been fixed with both of these lately, anyone against splitting them out, please speak up now, otherwise I will split them out later this week and portage will depend on some nasty virtual whose name I have not come up with yet ( new style virtual ). -Antarus -- gentoo-portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Refactoring of emerge code

> like to make this another patch as well. > > I noticed that this patch won't apply to the new portage (pre10 broke > it). Should I be working against that or different code (from the cvs > tree perhaps)? (I'd like to get a patch in that people can try before > it bec

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Refactoring of emerge code

Is there any chance you can break this up? Mostly one patch for each * below? OTherwise it's rather large ( 1000 lines ) and is difficult to figure out what/when/where happened m h wrote: > Upon further testing, I'm updating a line in the patch > > On 4/28/06, m h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: r3200 - main/trunk/bin

Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:36, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Modified: >> main/trunk/bin/sed >>Log: >>Make sed wrapper not executable. > > > why ? it isnt hurting anything to be set executable > -mike At present it is not in the

Portage Features That Depend on Binaries [WAS: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Re: 2.1 release candidate soon? ]

Philipp Riegger wrote: > On Apr 15, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Duncan wrote: > >>> But i really think this is not about helping but about confusion. If i >>> post my emerge --info you don't know if i really use confcache even >>> if i >>> have FEATURES="confcache", because emerge --info does not say if i

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Outstanding decisions

Simon Stelling wrote: > Next bunch of bugs that need a decision: > > Bug: portage: emerge unmerge ... should stop in case of an error > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118515 > Another WONTFIX/WILLFIX issue > > Bug: need a way to package.unmask packages in profiles > http://bugs.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Outstanding decisions

Simon Stelling wrote: Hey all, I'm just wading through a list of ~200 bugs of which some need decisions what should be done, whether it should be done at all or simply whether it is a bug or not. Bug: SRC_URI: spaces not supported http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102607 Is this a 'NOTA

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 05:15:53PM +0200, Philipp Riegger wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Alec Warner wrote: We have a new cache format, confcache, parallel fetch, etc... The bonus is these features are already mature and relatively old ( a year + as of now

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

Zac Medico wrote: > > > This kind of thing will be less of a problem if we shorten the period of the > release cycle. If we shorted it to 2 months or so, then it won't matter much > when something gets bumped to the next cycle. > > >>>Also this isn't exactly news to you all as I sent my inte

[Fwd: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?]

Sorry, send with wrong address earlier. Original Message Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon? Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:09:06 -0400 From: Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <[EMAIL

[gentoo-portage-dev] Repoman Help Extraction

ngs: + elif x in repohelp.qawarnings: print yellow(`stats[x]`) else: print red(`stats[x]`) @@ -342,16 +161,16 @@ if len(sys.argv)>1: x=1 while x < len(sys.argv): - if sys.argv[x] in sh

[gentoo-portage-dev] Pychecker

I spent some time running pychecker on some of the files in pym/ to just get a gander at what is going on. I've noticed a lot of bogus imports and bogus variable scopes, and one bug i thought we fixed ages ago but apparently we didn't. If no one objects out of hand I will go through and start fix

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency

tvali wrote: Can someone tell me, which portage python commands should be used or which kind of file created, if i'm going to test this idea? -- in beginning, i would like to just add simple deps - are ebuilds the only place to change and is there any clear doc of them [as i wouldnt like to go

[gentoo-portage-dev] EAPI

This has been on my list for a while, Brian Harring put EAPI into portage 2.0.53; it's used for introducting new features into the tree. A) Are we planning on using it at all? I like the idea of it, but no one has really said much about it besides Brian himself. If so I'll work up a list of thin

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better

ode. Uhhh you don't like normalizing your schemas? Normalizing does two things, reduces redundant data, and increases database speed as tables are designed in a manner that minimalizes merging time. Running with a schema you pulled out of your ass is likely to give poor database performance. -A

[gentoo-portage-dev] ExtractKernelVersion

The kernel ( along with QA ) has reported that the portage generated $KV is sometimes quite horribly wrong. They would like us to retire the kernel generated $KV, ebuilds that need $KV should inherit linux-info, unless they are themselves a kernel-module, in which case they should inherit linux-mo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions regarding the new portage API (savior branch)

Marius Mauch wrote: > > Does that mean we should drop the SVN branch? > > Marius > I've already removed it from the documentation and added links to Brian's current work on ge.org. As far as the actual repo, I think keeping it around a bit longer might be beneficial, but who knows. signatur

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Saturday 25 February 2006 10:40, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Please review for badness, otherwise I'll commit this soon ;) > > > - self.backupenv = os.environ.copy() > - self.configlist.append(self.backupenv) # XXX Why though? &g

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Saturday 25 February 2006 10:40, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Please review for badness, otherwise I'll commit this soon ;) > > > - self.backupenv = os.environ.copy() > - self.configlist.append(self.backupenv) # XXX Why though? &g

[gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

Please review for badness, otherwise I'll commit this soon ;) --- portage.py 2006-01-15 00:08:06.170717008 -0500 +++ - 2006-01-15 00:22:00.597106000 -0500 @@ -931,17 +931,8 @@ self.use_defs = copy.deepcopy(clone.use_defs) self.usemask = copy.deepc

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-2.1_pre5

Paul Varner wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 20:07 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: Your testing is appreciated. I'll file a bug for this one, once I investigate further. 'genlop -t' doesn't get along with it very well. # genlop -t screen * app-misc/screen Thu Dec 15 2

[gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-2.1_pre5

Zac Medico has graciously done a pre5 release of the 2.1 tree and placed it in his dev space and on the mirrors. The ebuild is not currently in the portage tree, but please feel free to test it prior to it's actual release. The intent here is to hopefully catch any show stopping bug prior to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] IUSE_DEFAULTS-v0.1

Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 13:44, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Well that problem would be, no one wants to modify everything in >>app-portage/ :). If my portage EAPI is 1, but my tools don't support >>processing +- in IUSE, how does EAPI help me

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] IUSE_DEFAULTS-v0.1

Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:23:26PM +0000, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Soo apparently I wasn't subscribed...stupid address changes ;) >> >>Patch ( which is actually v0.2 since 0.1 was a proof of concept.. ) for >>having USE flag defaults in e

[gentoo-portage-dev] IUSE_DEFAULTS-v0.1

set USE_ORDER="" in make.conf, otherwise the USE_ORDER from make.globals is used, and that USE_ORDER does not contain iuse_defaults. -Alec Warner diff -u -r --exclude portage_dep.py --exclude .svn --exclude '*.pyo' --exclude '*.pyc' ./bin/ebuild.sh /home/skyfw/gen

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] --nospinner in emerge_default_opts

if it's a bug it's a bug ;) Although that is probably a solution in the meantime :) - -Alec Warner (antarus) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQ9wn32zglR5RwbyYAQKMwBAAkMsuOiscuSnOH9

[gentoo-portage-dev] RDEPEND = DEPEND

ood[2]. Then Swegener came out and said it was going away[3]. So I ask, which is it, and if the behavior is going away, why not the check in repoman now ;) - -Alec Warner [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79337 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=111750102823602&

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] portage config cleanup bits

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 *bump* Alec Warner wrote: > config has two sets of environment + use stuff. > > one is called configlist, the other configdict. They are essentially > copies of each other, and since for me dicts with named keys are easier, > plus t

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache integration

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Harring wrote: > Yo. > > Looking to integrate confcache support into trunk some time in the > near future- had users testing it for about 2 months (give or take), > so far it's behaved pretty decently. A few packages eat themselves > when ra

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] first pass at --debug-build

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 19 January 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>here's what i was talking about when i mentioned the mutate() idea >> >>tested and it works for me ... binary is built properly and environment.bz2 >>contains the cor

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] portage config cleanup bits

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 config has two sets of environment + use stuff. one is called configlist, the other configdict. They are essentially copies of each other, and since for me dicts with named keys are easier, plus the old code was written crappily and is hard for me to

[gentoo-portage-dev] Fwd: /etc/portage/profile/{pmask,arch.list, categories}

My Apologies, KMail died, and when I restarted it it had the mail but stripped the attachment ;) -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: /etc/portage/profile/{pmask,arch.list, categories} Date: Monday 09 January 2006 09:59 From: Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: gentoo-porta

[gentoo-portage-dev] /etc/portage/profile/{pmask,arch.list, categories}

- so it wouldn't nuke existing entries in the pmask file. Comments welcome as usual. Alec Warner (antarus) pgpe9C7P88z5H.pgp Description: PGP signature

<    1   2   3   >