On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:07:01 +0200
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Do you prefer having everything hardcoded in PMS or can you accept
outsourcing bigger code pieces into some sort of eclass (i am thinking
about some external code base, which can be duplicated by the package
manager with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/19/2012 08:14 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
and possibly split RDEPEND/DEPEND to have HDEPEND to list build
dependencies that need to be run on host.
What should the difference between DEPEND and HDEPEND be?
Not library but program that have
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:12:13 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Pacho Ramos wrote:
I would like to know if there is some place where things going to be
included (or proposed to be included) for eapi5 are listed (if such
place exists). Currently, looks like
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:07:55 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could someone open bugs for all of that? I was looking for user
patches on the future EAPI tracker, and I don't see it there.
Please don't. User patches were discussed on this list, and there's
already wording written. We
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:02:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:07:55 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could someone open bugs for all of that? I was looking for user
patches on the future EAPI tracker, and I don't see it there.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:12:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:02:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Please don't. User patches were discussed on this list, and there's
already wording written. We don't need a bug to track it.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:14:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:12:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:02:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Please don't. User patches were
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:22:22 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I believe we consider the user patches feature to be finalised, so
if you want something else, it should be treated as a new feature
rather than a change. But please don't rehash anything that's
already been covered.
On di, 2012-06-19 at 18:53 +0200, hasufell wrote:
On 06/17/2012 10:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form.
Both attached and published as a gist:
https://gist.github.com/2945569
(please note that github doesn't render
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I believe we consider the user patches feature to be finalised, [...]
I disagree with this. As it is currently worded, every ebuild would be
required would be required to call a special function in src_prepare.
This is the worst possible solution,
Meeting with bug: #409471 suggested that some ebuilds could benefit from
expanding -march=native to the actual flags the compiler use.
Cannot suggest where to use it at the moment, but implementation was
simple enough and possibly someone on this list could have a use for it.
# @FUNCTION:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:44:36 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I believe we consider the user patches feature to be finalised,
[...]
I disagree with this. As it is currently worded, every ebuild would be
required would be required to
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:44:36 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
I disagree with this. As it is currently worded, every ebuild would
be required to call a special function in src_prepare. This is the
worst possible solution, IMHO.
Every
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:45:31 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd say that EAPI 5 should provide an apply_patches_here function
that can be called by ebuilds, but if the ebuild hasn't called the
function, then it should fall back to applying user patches just after
src_prepare.
But
On 06/20/2012 05:05 PM, Marien Zwart wrote:
On di, 2012-06-19 at 18:53 +0200, hasufell wrote:
1. Optional deps are SUGGESTIONS from the dev which he considered
nice/good/sane at the time of writing the ebuild. Other people might
totally disagree with those suggestions.
As useflags in
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:57:19 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. Afais useflags that are already in IUSE and used for build-time
stuff must not be used for IUSE_RUNTIME too.
This is a random rule IMO. I don't have many cases in mind where
this would be annoying (could think of
On 06/20/2012 07:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Please read the rationale. Again. The whole thing. Three times.
Please read my suggestions. Again. The whole thing. Three times.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:11:33 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/20/2012 07:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Please read the rationale. Again. The whole thing. Three times.
Please read my suggestions. Again. The whole thing. Three times.
Can we all agree to just stop this and just
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:24:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we all agree to just stop this and just restrict the arguing to
being between SDEPEND and DEPENDENCIES? Cheers.
I clearly favour going with SDEPEND now as this fits better what people
are used to and
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is
implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the firmware,
Secure Boot issues disappear.
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is
implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a
user does
On 06/20/2012 04:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly
when a user does not want to upgrade something. I had this problem
with WINE and glibc because I wanted to avoid the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?
--
Maxim Kammerer
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:39:42 +0300
Maxim Kammerer m...@dee.su wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a
great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not want to
On 06/20/2012 10:25 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a
On 06/20/2012 04:39 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?
It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:35:41PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:02:10 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can
deal with the package managers.
Why? It's highly doubtful the package manglers could switch shells
even if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:05:55 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric description
of it.
I missed this tibbit. I am not sure what
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 05:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:05:55 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric
description of
On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly
when a user does not want to upgrade something. I had this problem
with
On 06/20/2012 05:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Technical hurdles will likely prevent this unless we an get vendors to
release documentation. Is there any chance you could contact people at
Intel requesting programming documentation on their memory controller
and anything else we would need to write a
40 matches
Mail list logo
