On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:38:32 -0800
Josh Saddler wrote:
> Right now, there's no canonical (heh) way of handling SRC_URI for
> projects that have their files at launchpad.net. We need a standard
> way of handling Launchpad SRC_URIs, similar to what we do with
> mirror://sourceforge/ SRC_URIs.
>
>
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:41:25 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Marius Mauch schrieb:
> > It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly as the behavior
> > could change in future EAPI versions, and to ensure that you
> > actually think about which deps are build deps and
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage,
> RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in the ebuild
> itself. But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state, you
> have do explicitly set RD
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:15:54 +0100
Fabio Rossi wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > Fabio Rossi wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Duncan wrote:
> > >> Except that... in theory, some or all of those apps could
> > >> technically be used on/for other distributio
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:00:35 +0100
Fabio Rossi wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> > The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp,
> > /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by
> > Gentoo. In the oth
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:55:39 +0100
Fabio Rossi wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> > Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument
> > IMO, and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my
> > interpretation
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:12:23 +0100
Fabio Rossi wrote:
> I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo
> inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my
> system):
>
> /var/lib/eselect
> /var/lib/gentoo/enews
> /var/lib/herdstat/
> /var/lib/module-rebuild
> /var/lib/po
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:37:24 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Ben de Groot
> wrote:
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Nevermind, apparently GLEP 31 already requires ASCII anyway:
> >>
> >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0031.html
> >>
> > The way I read that
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:21:24 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01:44 Tue 09 Dec , Federico Ferri wrote:
> > today I hit this annoyance, because my laptop hung in the middle of
> > an 'emerge -e @world' (checking that my world set compiles with
> > gcc-4.3... stopped at ~ 300
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:19:18 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, and I'm afraid I cannot provide any single evidence that users
> actually need features like:
> - per package cflags/ldflags/features
> - per category use flags, accept_keywords, cflags
> - or tag clouds instead of
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:05:31 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
> metadata.xml already contains data that eix and other software should
> be able to search in (like longdescriptions), and having each package
> in kde-base report http://www.kde.org/ as its homepage is kinda
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:35:32 -0700
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My intention with the RFC was to see if the concept has any worth and
> to kick it around a bit. I do not really see this as a deficiency in
> Gentoo's technology (which I have a feeling is how many here have
> interpret
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:39:35 +0300
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This leads me to different conclusion. I was thinking about new
> portage feature: emerge --info . So to make portage show not
> only global information but per-package either. In many cases this
> will simplify analyzin
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:25:51 -0700
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bottom line here is that there is extremely valuable and critical info
> in our emerge output. In a way, these messages are like
> Gentoo-specific READMEs (or release notes and/or install
> instructions). However, it is
So, time has come for me to realize that my time with Gentoo is over. I
haven't actually been doing much Gentoo work over the last months due
to personal reasons (nothing Gentoo related), and I don't see that
situation changing in the near future. In fact I've already reassigned
or dropped most of
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:35:44 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 novembre 2008 à 18:16 +0100, Peter Alfredsen a écrit :
> [snip]
> > > Mart had already proposed a "static-lib" USE flag. Donnie just
> > > suggested on IRC we turn this use flag into a FEATURES fla
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:52:59 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone remind me again why we have the kerberos USE flag enabled by
> default?
AFAIK it was added so that the default profile provides support for
joining a Windows domain (same for the ldap flag).
> If no one oppose
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:20:32 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ignoring Vapier's tirade against ciaranm there, we need the
> xDEPEND-syntax for SLOTS as the real solution, however that still
> wouldn't resolve the portion that has CTARGET as part of the SLOT,
> since metadata g
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:19:27 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:47:06 -0700
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Utterly illegal, needs to die.
> >
> > Why? I don't agree th
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:39 +0200
Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 05:38:34PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 02:03 Tue 14 Oct , Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> > >
> > > There are some others sceneries but are not so common as the one
> > > presented coul
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:48:19 +0200
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whatever. Some of you seem to have some quite agressive dislikement
> to it. In the end it's just a name/tag. I guess I could live with
> anything, including c3p0.
Well, while I dislike x64 I'm more concerned about
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:16:10 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri,
> 10 Oct 2008 00:05:00 +0200:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:11:01 +0200
> > Fabi
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:11:01 +0200
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> amd64-linux
> x64-openbsd
> x64-solaris
Is there a special reason why you're using "x64" instead of "amd64" in
those cases? (IMO x64 is the most stupid name for the x86_64
architecture)
Marius
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 03:46:41 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would also be important to have versioned sets (depending on a
> slot, for example). Marius Mauch (genone) suggested a very
> interesting way to solve this by using a
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:21:18 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please consider a PROPERTIES=set value that allows an ebuild to
> indicate that it should behave like a package set when selected on
> the command line.
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:24:57 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - another idea that hasn't been mentioned yet is that we could simply
> inject @system into world_sets in the portage ebuild when we detect a
> 2.1->2.2 upgrade (the ebuild already does a few othe
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:43:45 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> > Second for the suggestions on how to handle the transition:
> > - treating 'world' and '@world' differently is a no go from my POV.
> > One of
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:39:41 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As per glep 42 (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0042.html)
> here is the required email for a new news item. This news item is
> important because otherwise users will be missing updates to the
> system set if the
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:20:07 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/
> category better, thus obviating the need for that particular property
> in the first place.
I strongly belive that it's a horrible idea to add special mea
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=virtual value seem
> good? Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name,
> definition, or both?
If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any
file
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:39:58 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=live value seem good?
> Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name, definition,
> or both?
Not sure if 'live' is really the best choice here, as many things also
app
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:02:48 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> It might good to add support for a new RESTRICT=live value in
> ebuilds. By specifying this value, an ebuild would be able to
> indicate that it uses sr
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:50:01 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please make sure you commit any changes to use.local.desc to
> metadata.xml otherwise you risk the chance of having your changes
> lost. I'm currently in the process of converting use.local.desc to
> metadata.xml. Aft
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:45:29 -0500
Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are
> > already available.
>
> So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that
> isn't b
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:02:57 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world
> > updates (there are still many cases where it will be included), but
> > that's not th
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:41:58 +0400
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> В Чтв, 17/07/2008 в 04:51 +0200, Marius Mauch пишет:
> > At dev.gentoo.org/~genone/unpack.eclass is the draft for an eclass
> > to implement this feature.
>
> Marius, although it's poss
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:21:24 +0100
Robert Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
> > '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @sys
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:01:28 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >
> >> This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know
> >> how to address this but a lot of packages are going to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:00:32 -0500
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > The eclass also contains it's own implementation of unpack (renamed
> > to unpack2) and src_unpack so the logic which tools/packages are
> > used for unpacking can
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:14:18 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
> solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
> automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:34:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:23:26 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Right, just I'd expect the parsing of SRC_URI (with conditionals) to
> > be a bit tricky in bash, not
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:12:37 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:14:18 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
> > solutions in #gento-portage,
As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
A mapping of extensions and their unpack deps would be kept in the tree
(e.g. mapping '.tar.bz2' to '( app-
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for
> scm
> dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine
I thought we established that EAPI (no matter how it's defined) only
controls ebuild _contents_ ..
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
I guess like with most people it depends
a) If I'm already aware of the new version, or would
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:20:06 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMA
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> >> PV=${PV/0./}
> >>
> >> to that new ebuild. This is the
While portage-2.2 has support for license visibility filtering (aka
ACCEPT_LICENSE) this currently isn't very usable as we still don't have
the necessary default license group and ACCEPT_LICENSE setting in the
tree (and even the only existing license group is of questionable use,
see bug #228527).
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:32:22 +
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Portage 2.2 and others support sets, portage 2.2 even supports
> dynamic sets like the "@preserved-rebuild". Shouldn't be that hard to
> add a "live-ebuilds" dynamic set.
> (Comments on the feasibility of my idea from po
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:38:18 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ignoring possible semantic issues for the moment,
>
> Please point them so I could fix them properly ^^
For example all the ordering issues pointed out by others in this
t
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:05:01 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I
> > have a few technical questions for you:
> >
> > 1. GLEP54
>
> Just for fun I took some of the ideas a
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:42:34 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Things I believe should be trivial to implement:
> > > - Custom output names in SRC_URI, also called arrows (bug #177863)
> >
> > This I'd definitely delay as it probably affects a number of things.
>
> Such as
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:11:32 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 June 2008 18:26:55 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now
> > has USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the
> > horizon. It'd be nic
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:51:22 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Replying to myself is evil, but I'm going to try to clarify a bit
> more. GLEPs are more like RFCs. We can't force any application to do
> anything with a GLEP. We technically can't even force Portage to do
> anything i
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:01:00 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Here's a G
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package
> metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have
> had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools" to
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:44:06 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
>
> >> With #1 the user will get a message about the blockers immediately.
> >> With #2 his emerge (maybe of many packages) will needlessly die
> >> when it reaches y
On Sat, 31 May 2008 04:26:39 -0700
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to jump in quickly; this thread is about adding --as-needed to
> the default CFLAGS. To get this accomplished you need to:
>
> A. Convince the portage developers to put it in
> make.conf/make.defaults.
Wrong.
W
On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300
Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Portage developers - is there anything we should do to get --as-needed
> to make.conf.example and other places, beyond fixing the known bugs on
> the appropriate bug tracker?
make.conf.example is no big deal, that's jus
On Thu, 29 May 2008 11:02:55 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> As much as we want preserve-libs to be an all-curing magic, it's
> not. When you need to replace a library you need to do so
On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:28:16 +0100
Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> | The purpose of this is to keep the system operational after library
> | upgrades until all affected packages could be reb
As portage-2.2 is about to be unmasked into ~arch soon (there is one
weird bug to solve before) it's time to ask for some input on one of
the important new features, FEATURES=preserve-libs.
(if you're already familiar with it you can skip this paragraph)
Simply said, when this feature is enabled p
On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:07:41 +0200
Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Santiago M. Mola wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Tiziano Müller
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> >>> While we're changing things around, perhaps we can then also
> >>>
On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:05:07 +0200
Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I think the herds concecpt is somewhat useless, I'd rather like
> to see something like this instead:
>
>
> foobar
>
>
> This makes it clear that it is a team instead of a person (where
> would have been us
Moving the discussion to -dev per leios request.
On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:42:19 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As this topic jus came up in #-dev, and most people there seemed to
> agree with me I thought it might be worth to bring this topic up
> again. The topic
On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:58:55 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
> - bison and flex should get out of the system package set, what
> clearer than moving them out of sys-*?
"system" and the sys-* categories don't have much of a relationsship,
so that's no argument IMO.
> Ye
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:17:54 +0200
Frank Gruellich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Santiago M. Mola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 15. Apr 08:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
> > Currently is use ':' as sed delimiter when paths are involved. I'd
> > also like to hear from you abou
Since a few weeks ago project pages can contain a new
section to list open positions within the project that require fresh
blood (thanks to neysx for implementing this). Historically those were
only listed centrally
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/staffing-needs/index.xml, which
had a number
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:59:01 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rémi Cardona wrote:
>
> > What would be the point of such a change? What problem are you
> > trying to solve or to improve?
> >
> Secondly efficiency; in the case of a pbuild it could be run from
> within the PM; for somet
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:32:41 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > There's an updated, pre-built copy of current PMS at:
> >
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf
>
> Thanks for keeping up with this.
>
> > * 174335: Some ebuild use FEATURES. Can we get the
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:02:09 +
Sébastien Fabbro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have contacted some talented ebuild submitters who neither want to
> spend the time nor feel the responsibility of a full dev.
Maybe we should try to solve that problem instead of making our
hierarchy even more com
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:07:37 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
> The tasks are minor tasks that don't require a lot of time at hand,
> but gives a good way to judge if the person is in for the experience
> or the money, and might be able to cut the deal even for Gentoo dev
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:41:58 +0530
Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> If it's not too late for this month's m
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:32:45 -0800
joshua jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> Google is once again doing the summer of code for students. I'm
> helping organize it this year and am putting out a call for some
> elements to help.
>
> 1) We need idea's for things to do. Diego has already
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:40:23 +0100
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20-02-2008 19:23:26 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please e
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been
> brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit
> support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe.
>
> What's th
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
>
> so instead of
>
> src_unpack() {
> unpack ${A}
> cd "${A}"
> eautoreconf
> }
>
> would just add
>
> EAUTORECONF="
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:56:43 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15:12 Wed 06 Feb , Alec Warner wrote:
> > On 2/4/08, Jonas Bernoulli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 20:11 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 09:50:21 +0100
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vlastimil Babka a écrit :
> > How about just some elog "If you use make install, emerge
> > --noreplace debianutils" in the kernel's postinst or something.
>
> Bellow is my contribution to this thread :)
>
> Cheers,
>
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:57:39 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:52:16 -0500 (EST)
> "Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems like all source control/revision control programs live in
> > dev-util, but they might be better served in something like
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:43:38 +0100
"Matthias B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's wrong with making it an optional dependency? Something like a
> useflag
Because if this would be done consistently we'd end up with several
thousand use flags long term, not really what I'd call managable.
Unfor
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:46:58 +0100
"Hanno Böck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the correct way to handle this? I'd suggest that enewuser might get
> some "force"-parameter that tells it to delete and recreate the user if it
> already exists. Thoughts?
Tell the user to do it manually in pk
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:09:20 +0100
"Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008-01-15 15:05 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał(a):
> > - what feature would you like most to be implemented in portage?
> > (parallel builds, loc
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:33:48 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so per the one discussion in #-dev this evening, I'm looking for
> questions to put on a new user survey.
>
> For style of questions, multiple choice (both pick-one and pick-many) or
> simple integers would be
About portage:
Current status:
The portage project is mostly fine, though we've missed my original
plan to release the first 2.2 test versions last year, mostly because
of lack of time on my part. I hope we can fix that within the next two
or three months.
As Paul has already mentioned, the tools-
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:42:57 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
> I already ranted about the fact that the dependency tree of our
> ebuilds is vastly incomplete, as many lack dependency on zlib; trying
> to get this fixed was impossible, as Donnie and other insisted that
>
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc?
> [...]
> > No need to change the format of use.desc
>
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:40:57 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is
> > a blocker for me)
>
> T
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:09:33 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's
> > not an issue as it's sim
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:03:12 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has
> >
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:34:44 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand the ban on non-EAPI-0 features in in-tree profiles, since
> users could be using old PMs, but it's fine using them in /etc/portage/*,
> provided one has upgraded to an appropriately compatible PM, correct?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:50:02 +0300
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This hack is just to solve portage problem which does not ignore .ebuild
> files which does not follow pkg-ver.ebuild syntax and suggested solution
> is not the only solution. Other possibilities are, which I like more:
>
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:43:10 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the
> discussion
> will be more technical.
Still doesn't address my concerns, namely:
- silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond e
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:21:06 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see what's wrong with EAPI (if set, otherwise implicitly whatever
> the ebuild sets, or 0 if not set there) only applying to the file it's
> declared in.
Because that doesn't work at all, see
http://article.gmane.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:58:39 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:57:12 +0100
> Markus Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > server12
>
> See previous discussions on why this can't be global (essentially, it
> has different meanings for
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:55:06 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Stuck ranges into metadata.xml for which EAPIs applied?
> > >
> > > No package manager required information can be in XML format.
> >
> > Says who? Us. We can change that, if we decide it's the best answer.
> >
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:22:22 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> something like
>
> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
Unfortunately the "emerge --eapi $foo" part would be passed as a single
argument to /usr/bi
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:10:13 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, that seems a fine definition of what an eapi is. Everybody agrees on it?
Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has to export
to an ebuild/eclass. That includes syntax and semantics of expor
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:07:22 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:45:01 +0100
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is one significant problem not covered in the GLEP: If a
> > package contains an ebuild with
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:20:01 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> attaching the GLEP.
>
> most current version:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.txt
There is one significant problem not covered in the GLEP: If a pa
1 - 100 of 432 matches
Mail list logo
