Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

2005-07-18 Thread Marius Mauch
Anthony Gorecki wrote: In the future, it might be helpful to post those patches in-line, along with the message. That way no-one needs to open a separate program to view the changes. There are mailreaders without an internal textviewer? I have a few problems believing that. I'd strongly

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Environment Whitelisting

2005-08-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On 08/21/05 Alec Warner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Was talking with Brian about the build environment and how settings were to be passed into the build environment. Essentially three scenarios were presented. 1) The full environment is passed to the build

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: initial EAPI awareness

2005-08-29 Thread Marius Mauch
On 08/27/05 Brian Harring wrote: Hola. Attached is a patch that A) adds EAPI awareness to portage; mainly, if 0, complain and be unwilling to merge the package Actually I just wrote also a patch for it (for 2.1), however instead of complaining I just masked them (without unmask

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: initial EAPI awareness

2005-08-30 Thread Marius Mauch
On 08/30/05 Brian Harring wrote: What's the point of using anyway? Simplicity in the code right now, since stable will *never* support anything but eapi0. It's an easy check. You really want to tell me that you consider if myeapi 0: as simpler than EAPI_COMPATIBLE=0 if myeapi

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: initial EAPI awareness

2005-08-30 Thread Marius Mauch
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote: Somebody care to split a masking patch for stable rather then the emerge modifications I did btw? I'm poking at ensuring an eapi=0 portage's generated eapi=1 cache entries are not used by an eapi=1 portage without a forced regeneration atm. Well, the

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Custom eclass question

2005-10-09 Thread Marius Mauch
Mikey wrote: The utility that fetches packages via emerge mangles the resulting file name, as well as wget (does emerge use wget?). When fetching the above url, emerge or wget saves the file as package_ids.php?action=packageid=10105. This of course throws a wrench into my use of custom ebuilds

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Custom eclass question

2005-10-10 Thread Marius Mauch
Mikey wrote: On Sunday 09 October 2005 19:32, Marius Mauch wrote: Well, ebuilds (and therefore eclasses) can't override anything related to the fetch process (other than setting RESTRICT and/or SRC_URI). Your problem has to be fixed server side (assuming you want a proper solution), as portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Custom eclass question

2005-10-11 Thread Marius Mauch
Brian Harring wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:37:43AM +0300, Marius Mauch wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 06:52:24PM -0500, Mikey wrote: http://codeserver.wherever.net/pman/package_ids.php?action=packageid=10105 [snip bits about wget screwing up] Others have

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-21 Thread Marius Mauch
Jason Stubbs wrote: After thinking about it, incremental feature creep does seem like the best way to go at this late stage in 2.0's life. The problem is how to guage what is and what is not more trouble than worth. Perhaps adhering to the kernel's rule of Separate each logical change into its

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:14:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cheapness is exactly why I was questioning. Consider: # svn cp tags/2.0.53 branches/2.0.53-branch # cd branches/2.0.53-branch # patch something-that-needs-fixing-now.patch # svn ci # cd ../.. # svn cp

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] elog-base

2005-10-22 Thread Marius Mauch
First patch for elog integration in 2.0.x adding the basic elog framework without the actual modules, config samples or other docs. The code is mostly unchanged from the 2.1 branch and only lightly tested on 2.0. Known issues with this patch: - needs better integration of isolated-functions.sh,

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] elog-modules

2005-10-22 Thread Marius Mauch
This patch depends on elog_base (although it doesn't break anything without it) and adds the actual logging modules. I've just atatched the files completely, as a) svn diff doesn't play nice with generating new-file diffs and b) they are just new files to be dropped in pym/elog_modules (together

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] elog-base

2005-10-24 Thread Marius Mauch
Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 23 October 2005 00:08, Marius Mauch wrote: - needs better integration of isolated-functions.sh, probably should be a separate patch (Brian?) Not sure what you mean by better as I'm happy with the current method. Other than the hardcoded path, it should work fine

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] handling config stuff in portage (for package compression, etc)

2005-11-06 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 20:58:57 -0600 Jason Pepas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I have been going over how class config works in portage, but I am still unsure of where to fit in the changes I would need. I suppose I'll lay out the structure of what I had in mind and ask y'all for advice.

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-14 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-15 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:42:56 -0600 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: Replace 2.1.0 with 2.2.0 and I'll agree. Skipping 2.1 accomplishes what? Avoid any possible

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Bugzilla Bug 112779: New and Improved Way to Handle /etc/portage

2005-11-17 Thread Marius Mauch
Anthony Gorecki wrote: On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: I wouldn't mind having a feature like this. I would provide a way for automatic unmasking tools to keep their changes separate and easily reversible. This seems to be borderlining on being unnecessary, in my

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Manifest signing

2005-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:59:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 19 November 2005 20:41, Mike Auty wrote: If portage can already handle multiple hash formats, Portage can't handle multiple hash formats at the moment. It is only smart enough to not throw a fit when other

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Display of keyword in emerge : code proposal

2005-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:13:13 +0100 jb benoit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $ diff -Naur portage.py.sav portage.py --- portage.py.sav 2005-11-17 15:32:20.0 +0100 +++ portage.py 2005-11-17 15:15:24.0 +0100 @@ -3866,6 +3866,42 @@

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] inital Manifest2 support

2005-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:40:14 -0600 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: - digestfn = mysettings[FILESDIR]+/digest-+mysettings[PF] + digestfn = portdb.finddigest(mysettings[CATEGORY]+/+mysettings[PF]) Like this mod

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Manifest signing

2005-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:01:27 -0800 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ergo, instead of a Manifest being re-generated each time, it needs to act like a FIFO queue. Or in other words: transactional manifests. Each queue element consists of: - checksum/existing Manifest element of items

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Manifest signing

2005-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:29:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 19 November 2005 15:01, Robin H. Johnson wrote: After my post to -core about how to move ahead with signing, I thought the next best place to continue is in a discussion of how Portage handles manifests

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Bugzilla Bug 112779: New and Improved Way to Handle /etc/portage

2005-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:01:38 -0600 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 07:36:05PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: Okay, I wrote a small patch that handles everything supported by /etc/portage except bashrc (package.mask, package.unmask, package.keywords, package.use,

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Display of keyword in emerge : code proposal

2005-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:47:40 +0100 jb benoit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: - Doesn't work with binpkgs (though that's probably also a problem in getmaskingstatus() itself) - there is more than keyword and p.mask for masking (profiles) - the function name is misleading

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] multiple hash functions

2005-11-23 Thread Marius Mauch
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:12:22 -0600 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Add the keys only if there is a func that can be used- list of required chksums is a config thing (and repoman thing during commiting), so I'm not seeing any reason to have None as a value in your hashfunc mapping...

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Help with KDE Arts

2005-11-25 Thread Marius Mauch
Robert wrote: Hey, for some reason I cannot seem to install arts (KDE). Try asking that on the gentooo-user list, it has nothing to do with portage development. Marius -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Bugzilla Bug 112779: New and Improved Way to Handle /etc/portage

2005-11-25 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:30:15 +0200 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Gorecki wrote: On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: I wouldn't mind having a feature like this. I would provide a way for automatic unmasking tools to keep their changes separate

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-11-25 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:01:15 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I don't think there's really anything else that can be done for 2.0.53 so am thinking that we should probably push _rc7 + docs out and let the arch teams mark it stable when they're ready (or stick with

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-11-26 Thread Marius Mauch
Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 26 November 2005 11:07, Marius Mauch wrote: On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:01:15 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only other new thing in trunk that I know of is logging but there's still a question mark over the ordering of messages... Can

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Latest version vs specific version

2005-12-02 Thread Marius Mauch
Andrea Carpani wrote: Hi all. Here's my problem. I'm using a lot binary packages of in portage and custom created ebuilds. I have a virtual ebuild I use that contains only dependencies and I use this one to merge given versions of packages all in one shot: sort of a shanpshot of a given moment

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-06 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I'm going to make a decision and offer until Friday (Saturday in my time) for opposers to solidify and state any opposition. If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into ~arch as

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-06 Thread Marius Mauch
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:41:27 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into ~arch

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-07 Thread Marius Mauch
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:33:00 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't about expectations. Ok, I misunderstood your previous posts on this topic then. I just think it's bad engineering to use the same version prefix for two rather different codebases. ... After all, wasn't

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] chunking up portage

2005-12-15 Thread Marius Mauch
Brian Harring wrote: So... thoughts? I'm not much for making portage depend on tarsync just for emerge-webrsync improvements, would rather chunk the bugger out. How about runtime detection? Marius -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] ACCEPT_KEYWORDS depreciation

2005-12-15 Thread Marius Mauch
Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Thursday 15 December 2005 13:05, Marius Mauch wrote: package.keywords isn't better or worse than ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, it's just different in its behavior. I disagree. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is problematic for (new) users, because of its behaviour. problematic != worse

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] chunking up portage

2005-12-16 Thread Marius Mauch
Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Brian Harring wrote: So... thoughts? I'm not much for making portage depend on tarsync just for emerge-webrsync improvements, would rather chunk the bugger out. How about runtime detection? runtime

[gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] making the tree depend on portage

2005-12-19 Thread Marius Mauch
Ok, the subject might be confusing, so let me explain this a bit: Whenever we want/need to make structural changes to the tree that are going to break backwards compability we have a serious problem (see GLEP 44 in case you don't know about it). To reduce the impact of that problem I've got the

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Package moves in overlays

2006-01-09 Thread Marius Mauch
Mike Auty wrote: Yeah, I agree that the updates should only affect that individual tree. Whilst I can imagine cases where a move in the main tree should affect overlay trees (such as recategorizing some net-misc ebuilds into a net-proxy category), that could at least be emulated with a

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

2006-01-10 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:21:49 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

[gentoo-portage-dev] making aux_get more usable for vardbapi

2006-01-10 Thread Marius Mauch
Currently vardbapi.aux_get only works for a subset of all auxdbkeys, as some like KEYWORDS or DESCRIPTIOn aren't stored in vdb directly. They are however stored in environment.bz2, but not accessible there. This is unintuitive and limits tools like equery or my own auxget and metascan tools in

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plausible idea for GLEP 19?

2006-01-21 Thread Marius Mauch
Mikey wrote: I have been emailing the published addresses for GLEP 19 for 2 months now with no success. I am very interested in any ideas or projects that might help gentoo be more server friendly, in an enterprise environment, for lack of a better term. I have an idea towards stabilizing

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plausible idea for GLEP 19?

2006-01-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:25:37 -0600 Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 21 January 2006 22:39, Marius Mauch wrote: Check the archives for gentoo-dev and gentoo-server, several implementation plans have been presented in the not-so-distant past. However everyone seems to have

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plausible idea for GLEP 19?

2006-01-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:02:37 -0600 Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 22 January 2006 13:02, Marius Mauch wrote: Well, posting YAIP (yet another implementation plan) won't really help either. Correct, plans never seem to go anywhere in regards to this... Don't see the goal

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Plausible idea for GLEP 19?

2006-01-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:55:48 -0600 Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Users are discouraged from changing make.globals. It would be better to implement in make.conf or as a command line option to emerge itself. It is a configuration item for a user preference, not a (global) portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] making aux_get more usable for vardbapi

2006-01-23 Thread Marius Mauch
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:39:03 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regex you've got there allows for pulling the wrong text- recall, ebd originally was doing grep based filtering (regex). Had to rewrite that in a major hurry since bash syntax (specifically here ops) forces you to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Order of operations: buildpkg

2006-01-24 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:19:22 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 24 January 2006 03:43, Francesco Riosa wrote: Indeed, could someone shade a light on what happen to /var/db/pkg and world file when using ebuild this manner ? Could be rephrased as Does it act exactly the

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache integration

2006-01-24 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:50:31 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] making aux_get more usable for vardbapi

2006-01-24 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:08:00 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:44:44PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 03:47:11 -0800 Can't follow your thinking here. As said, the code won't corrupt any data, at worst it will tell the user

[gentoo-portage-dev] Deprecating 'emerge action' syntax

2006-02-16 Thread Marius Mauch
Right now 'emerge action' and 'emerge --action' are both supported. But as we learned with the rsync case 'emerge action' has potential namespace conflicts with 'emerge package' I'd propose to deprecate 'emerge action' before we hit another real conflict. (The alternative would be to deprecate

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Deprecating 'emerge action' syntax

2006-02-16 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:04:20 + Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:31:25 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Right now 'emerge action' and 'emerge --action' are both supported. | But as we learned with the rsync case 'emerge action' has potential

[gentoo-portage-dev] [Patch] Restriction framework, new search code, metascan2

2006-02-18 Thread Marius Mauch
This is another attempt to prepare the way for including metascan, this time based on a new restriction framework (which has absolutely nothing to do with the one in savior/bcportage) included in the attached and completely undocumented patch (once you get the concept it should be self-explanatory

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Switching LOCALE during build?

2006-02-28 Thread Marius Mauch
Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, this is an idea we had at FOSDEM to make bugreports easier to read: During build portage should change the locale to en_us so that any error messages are easy to read even if the user has set it differently. This shouldn't affect users much and could get rid of the

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Manifest2 reloaded

2006-03-03 Thread Marius Mauch
So while on my way to FOSDEM I decided to do something useful with the time and wrote a new manifest2 implementation. This has nothing to do with the original prototype I posted a while ago, it's been written completely from scratch. Basically all functionality (creation, parsing, validation) is

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [rfc] variable naming for marking binaries as QA ignorable

2006-03-05 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:46:25 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 05 March 2006 19:48, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 23:32 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: so we've found some cases where a package installs objects

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

2006-03-14 Thread Marius Mauch
tvali wrote: Ok, i send a lot of them, but hopefully they're interesting :) I did research a bit about adding SQL support to portage -- as much as i see, mysql is smallest sql server, which could be emerged with python module. In beginning, i think that SQL database structure should be

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

2006-03-14 Thread Marius Mauch
tvali wrote: I did think about some priorities too, so that it could be perfect for me. It should be possible to add package with a priority. I will give you an use case and explanation how i would use portage. Heh, make the dep resolver even more complex ;) Also don't really see a need for

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello! portage UI

2006-03-14 Thread Marius Mauch
Brian wrote: On Tue, 2006-14-03 at 13:14 +0200, tvali wrote: Ok, i was, yes, speaking about kde. I will check out this Porthole :) I was actually thinking more about c ++, but nothing against python -- i was quite a fan of python when i first found it. I believe Kuroo is in C, maybe c++

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Manifest2 reloaded

2006-03-15 Thread Marius Mauch
Marius Mauch schrieb: The first should be delayed until there is some consensus how the gpg stuff should work in the future, the others I don't see the use for. Also I only checked portage.py for changes, so emerge/repoman/... might still have to be fixed. Last but not least: I did some basic

[gentoo-portage-dev] tree dependency check

2006-03-25 Thread Marius Mauch
So after manifest2 is in, I'll revive the other issue that IMO is a requirement for 2.1: enforcing dependencies needed to use the tree (see old threads or glep44 for reasoning). A patch for that is available at dev.gentoo.org/~genone/patches/treedeps.diff. Unless somebody objects I'll add that

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] tree dependency check

2006-03-29 Thread Marius Mauch
Marius Mauch schrieb: So after manifest2 is in, I'll revive the other issue that IMO is a requirement for 2.1: enforcing dependencies needed to use the tree (see old threads or glep44 for reasoning). A patch for that is available at dev.gentoo.org/~genone/patches/treedeps.diff. Unless somebody

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

2006-04-06 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:11:49 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The manifest code doesn't have very many use cases so I'd expect that we would have hit most major problems by now (even with a small sample). Any necessary changes are likely to be small patches. As an alternative, we

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] glsa implemented as a special set

2006-04-24 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:55:58 -0700 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking that /etc/portage/sets/glsa could be a symlink to set list in the current metadata/glsa directory of the portage tree. That file should be relatively easy to auto-generate from the existing glsa*.xml files there

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] glsa implemented as a special set

2006-04-24 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:04:13 -0700 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-24-04 at 14:20 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:55:58 -0700 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking that /etc/portage/sets/glsa could be a symlink to set list in the current

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

2006-05-03 Thread Marius Mauch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I doubt this is the right place to bring this up, but maybe some one can tell me where to go :-) Yeah, this is definitely the wrong place, not really sure where the appropriate place for this is though. Probably a perl or coreutils related list/forum might help

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] default postsync

2006-05-04 Thread Marius Mauch
Zac Medico schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ned Ludd wrote: How do you think we should handle it? Should we install a post_sync in a postinst phase outside of portage's handling if and only if not post_sync already exists? Should we change it to handled a postsync.d by

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] GWN -portage-2.1 announcement.

2006-06-12 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:18:44 -0700 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-12-06 at 18:58 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: Brian wrote: Did I understand it wrong or did they get this mixed up in the GWN announcement: /etc/portage/package.unmask/kde,

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] GWN -portage-2.1 announcement.

2006-06-12 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:20:16 -0700 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also just did a man portage and the man page did not appear to be updated for this change. I guess quite a few docs aren't up to date in 2.1. Anyone wanna work on that? Marius -- Public Key at

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Manifest verification

2006-06-18 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 04:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Andrei Slavoiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I want to raise a issue with the way that package integrity verification is done by portage. For an example of such an issue see bug 136742. The idea is that portage now checks the Manifest as a whole,

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 'emerge' request: make --tree not imply --pretend

2006-06-24 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:02:19 -0700 Dan Corson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sorry, you are indeed correct. What I should have requested is: a way to have the package list output in non-interactive, package-installing (that is, not --pretend) execution. It may be that --pretend is a little

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage phase hooks patch

2006-07-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:52:38 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Kelly wrote: In my case, I feel this functionality would be very useful as it allows for me to integrate my GLEP 27 implementation into portage without portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Naming Conventions

2006-07-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:25:01 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris White wrote: 1) Create aliases to the new functions, then at some yet-to-be-determined point, kill the aliases and bomb on the scripts (this suffers from

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Atom matching behavior

2006-08-01 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:48:23 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but I'd suspect that many people share my original assumption and expect it to only match full version components Hear a bit of screaming from it once every 4-6 months; personally, I interpret that as devs know

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

2006-08-07 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:14:11 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:13:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: Semantics of USE=-gtk not working on a package that has gtk forced doesn't sound all that nice btw; Which is why the flag

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Max parallelization setting

2006-10-10 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:04:57 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I might be daft (likely), but why not just introduce a var indicating max parallelization instead? Tweak portage to push that setting into MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS+${MAKEOPTS} } -j${PARALLELIZATION}. Might sound daft,

[gentoo-portage-dev] RFC: new virtual metadata variable to list combined deps

2006-10-26 Thread Marius Mauch
Ok, I have to admit the subject may be a bit confusing, so let me get the motivation first: Often people want to know the dependencies of a package. Not much of a problem when they know how to use auxget or the portageq metadata commands. However these all work on the specific DEPEND, RDEPEND and

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] GPG support for mod_mail

2006-10-28 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:42:50 +0300 Ali Polatel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, I wonder if GPG support for mod_mail would be useful.I wrote some basic code that works.The user is required to export his public key and put the path to PORTAGE_ELOG_MAILGPG. Attached is the patch

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] --config-root command-line option

2006-11-16 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:33:05 -0800 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, that's one way to solve that particular problem. However, I feel that command line options are more aesthetically appealing than environment variables (maybe it's just me). Zac It's just you ;) Marius --

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] --config-root command-line option

2006-11-16 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:43:48 -0800 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:33:05 -0800 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, that's one way to solve that particular problem. However, I feel

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

2006-11-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:10:45 -0500 (EST) Daniel Barkalow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are packages (such as perl) which work fine on both x86 and arm, but don't build on x86 cross-compiling for arm. Furthermore, pam-0.78 can be cross-compiled (with a patch available in bug comments), but

[gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Depending on active version

2007-01-30 Thread Marius Mauch
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 I while ago I got an idea how to

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

2007-01-30 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:25:31 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:06:51PM +0100, 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

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

2007-01-30 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:01:47 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

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

2007-01-30 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:04:41 +0200 Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

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

2007-01-31 Thread Marius Mauch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:47:26 + Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

[gentoo-portage-dev] Storing origin repository in VDB

2007-02-16 Thread Marius Mauch
There are several cases where the information from which repository (portdir, overlays, ...) a package originally came from when it was installed. Currently that information isn't really available, at most you can use some heuristics on environment.bz2 or comparing ebuilds directly, but those

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] dep resolution weirdness

2007-02-17 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:30:31 +0100 George Shapovalov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys. I am quite confused by the following: aldar ~ # emerge -puD world --tree These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order: Calculating world dependencies... done! [nomerge ]

[gentoo-portage-dev] New preserve-libs feature

2007-02-17 Thread Marius Mauch
If you haven't noticed, I just added a new 'preserve-libs' feature for bug 62207 that moves shared object that are still used but would be removed on an update into the new package instance (so on a update from expat-1 to expat-2 the user would still have libexpat.so.0, owned by expat-2). The

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] dep resolution weirdness

2007-02-17 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:42:49 +0100 George Shapovalov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, found it. Thanks Marius! (for the debug hint) It was indeed forcing gnat-gcc-4.1.1 by asis-gcc-4.1.1 which has =dev-lang/gnat-4.1.1 (this is an extension to compiler and has to match it 1 for 1, forgot to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] New preserve-libs feature

2007-02-17 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:55:26 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: So everyone who has valid objections to the _general idea_ of this implementation (preserving old libraries to avoid some runtime linker errors) speak up now. For how long are these libraries

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] LC_ALL and friends in make.conf

2007-03-08 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:14:26 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an old issue, but I want to suggest a re-visit :) As we all know, setting LC_ALL and friends can cause all sorts of trouble in package builds. However, many users really appreciate being able to set it so

[gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Properties of package sets

2007-06-28 Thread Marius Mauch
Please reply on gentoo-portage-dev, _not_ on gentoo-dev, thanks. One missing feature in portage is the lack of package sets. Before we (re)start working on that however I'd like to get some feedback about what properties/features people would expect from portage package set support. Some key

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Properties of package sets

2007-06-28 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:03:54 -0700 Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 05:07 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Please reply on gentoo-portage-dev, _not_ on gentoo-dev, thanks. One missing feature in portage is the lack of package sets. Before we (re)start working

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Properties of package sets

2007-07-05 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:07:28 +0200 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please reply on gentoo-portage-dev, _not_ on gentoo-dev, thanks. One missing feature in portage is the lack of package sets. Before we (re)start working on that however I'd like to get some feedback about what

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] About system and world

2007-10-21 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:23:45 -0700 Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 13:01 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: So, what do people think about removing (some) of the special treatment for the system and world targets? Mainly I'm interested in removing the selective parameter

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

2007-10-21 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:23:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: Hello, Does localization.py exist for a reason? Over the years we've had a few people express a desire for

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

2007-10-22 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:54:59 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007-10-21 22:49:10 Marius Mauch napisał(a): On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:23:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Arfrever Frehtes

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: About system and world

2007-10-23 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:29:02 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ryan Hill wrote: Zac Medico wrote: implement greedy atoms for the world set. I've been pondering the idea of making world non-greedy for slots by default [1], since you

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] About system and world

2007-10-23 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:12:31 +0200 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, the primary goal is to make all sets behave in a consistent way. And some sets have the explicit purpose to rebuild stuff, so making sets selective by default also has issues. The proposed change would also make

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: About system and world

2007-10-23 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:11:48 +0200 Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007/10/23, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:29:02 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, you can already use SLOT atoms in your world file if you don't

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: About system and world

2007-10-23 Thread Marius Mauch
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:03:47 +0200 Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bah, you're introducing a new options set, and have (i think) ways to emulate all of the old ones with them, so what is stopping you? You would just have to forbid mixes of old style and new style on the

  1   2   >