Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
> system until they remove it
> 
> so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
> they will be screwed, but OH WELL

Yea.  Even after they remove it though, libstdc++-v3 should be pulled in
after that.  Only issue I really see is people that have libraries compiled
with 3.3 and 3.4 and don't know why stuff is broken.  I don't know how large
of a problem that will be though.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
  http://www.halcy0n.com


pgpCpH4fDgQDq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 05:24:52PM -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> > Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
> > and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
> > I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
> > reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
> > binary packages.
> 
> Well, right after the upgrade, there will still be tons of non-binary
> programs built against the old libstdc++, so no.  Unless you want to
> force everyone to emerge -e world after the upgrade (which will make you
> very unpopular).

not really an issue ... gcc is SLOTed for everyone to gccmajor.gccminor

that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
system until they remove it

so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
they will be screwed, but OH WELL
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Bret Towe]

On 11/28/05, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:56 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> > > be worth the time spent on this?
> > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html
> >
> > looks interesting personally id like to see how it acts on kde also
> > and some small c++ apps to see if it hurts them any
> > a single benchmark for a change that would affect so much seems
> > a bit silly to me
>
> Yeah, but before I start to spend too much time hacking on this, I'd
> want to have a suggested metric and performance test setup here. If
> anyone has ideas for a decent test, I'd be happy.
>
> As for KDE, I think modern Gnome would benefit as well, since it has
> been heavily refactioned into libraries these days.

http://www.gnome.org/~lcolitti/gnome-startup/analysis/
you might find this interesting then was posted to lkml a day or 2 ago

one think i forgot to comment on is id like to see what kind of speed
prelink provides also maybe with and without this patch

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:56 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:

> >
> > So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> > be worth the time spent on this?
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html
> 
> looks interesting personally id like to see how it acts on kde also
> and some small c++ apps to see if it hurts them any
> a single benchmark for a change that would affect so much seems
> a bit silly to me

Yeah, but before I start to spend too much time hacking on this, I'd
want to have a suggested metric and performance test setup here. If
anyone has ideas for a decent test, I'd be happy.

As for KDE, I think modern Gnome would benefit as well, since it has
been heavily refactioned into libraries these days. 

//Spider
-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Bret Towe]

On 11/28/05, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>   I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
> possible performance boost they could give.
>
> The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
> running system than prelink is, on the other hand, it does require a
> more intrusive surgery into the core systems.
>
> So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> be worth the time spent on this?
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html

looks interesting personally id like to see how it acts on kde also
and some small c++ apps to see if it hurts them any
a single benchmark for a change that would affect so much seems
a bit silly to me

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

Hello, 
  I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
possible performance boost they could give.

The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
running system than prelink is, on the other hand, it does require a
more intrusive surgery into the core systems.

So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
be worth the time spent on this? 
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html



//Spider
  
-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[R Hill]

Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> 
>> Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
>> and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
>> I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
>> reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
>> binary packages.
>>
> 
> Well, right after the upgrade, there will still be tons of non-binary
> programs built against the old libstdc++, so no.  Unless you want to
> force everyone to emerge -e world after the upgrade (which will make you
> very unpopular).

Everybody _should_ be doing emerge -e world after the upgrade. :P

But moving the libstdc++-v3 dep from gcc to packagefoo-bin would cause breakage
for anyone who tries to run binary packages built against gcc 3.3 and not
installed through portage.  Firefox nightlies come to mind.


--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Alexandre Buisse (Nattfodd)

[Michael Cummings]

 "Tom Martin"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
... and he
participated in the Google Summer of Code in writing a generational
garbage collector, GMC, for the Perl 6 VM (http://www.parrotcode.org).

>
Sweet! Does this mean he can help us get parrot/pugs functional again in 
portage? :)

(sorry for any wrapping probs w/ this email, blame ipaq)

~mcummings

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:

> 
> Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
> and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
> I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
> reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
> binary packages.
> 

Well, right after the upgrade, there will still be tons of non-binary
programs built against the old libstdc++, so no.  Unless you want to
force everyone to emerge -e world after the upgrade (which will make you
very unpopular).

Daniel


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Jan Kundrát]

On Monday 28 of November 2005 21:01 Curtis Napier wrote:
> I agree with this. I often don't feel like wading through 5 pages of bad
> results on google to find an obscure packages homepage. I look in the
> ebuild for this information all the time. A seperate tag like , as
> someone mentioned earlier, would also be a huge help but would still
> give you the homepage info as well.

Well, I was thinking about guides which usually link homepage of the 
respective package in the first sentence, but Diego is right, our guides are 
not homepages.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


pgpGeS5jtHA5p.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Addition of DVB_CARDS to USE_EXPAND

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 21:53 +0100, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> If nobody objects I will add DVB_CARDS to USE_EXAPAND on next saturday 
> (2005/12/03).
> 
> This will be used to decide which firmware-file to download and install 
> within 
> the to be created media-tv/linuxtv-dvb-firmware ebuild.

What will the ebuild do if DVB_CARDS is not set?

Please make it download/install them all.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] Addition of DVB_CARDS to USE_EXPAND

[Matthias Schwarzott]

Hi!

If nobody objects I will add DVB_CARDS to USE_EXAPAND on next saturday 
(2005/12/03).

This will be used to decide which firmware-file to download and install within 
the to be created media-tv/linuxtv-dvb-firmware ebuild.

Zzam

-- 
Matthias Schwarzott
Gentoo Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Curtis Napier]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:

On Monday 28 November 2005 16:47, Jan Kundrát wrote:


What about setting the HOMEPAGE of alsa-something to point to our
ALSA-guide?


Because that's not the homepage?
I go often on pgo to see the homepage of something, and it's usually to get 
*upstream* homepage, not Gentoo's guides.

It's misleading changing that, imho.



I agree with this. I often don't feel like wading through 5 pages of bad 
results on google to find an obscure packages homepage. I look in the 
ebuild for this information all the time. A seperate tag like , as 
someone mentioned earlier, would also be a huge help but would still 
give you the homepage info as well.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] New developer: Alexandre Buisse (Nattfodd)

[Tom Martin]

Hi list,

Nattfodd's joining to help with the text-markup herd. His real name is
Alexandre Buisse and he lives in Lyons, France, where he is studying
for computer science in the Ècole Normale Superieure de Lyon. He's
aiming to achieve either a Ph.D. in logic, although he's also
considering model theory, lambda calculus or "Curry-Howard things.

He is experienced in C and OCaml, which he considers his main languages.
He's also competent with Perl, Python and Common Lisp. In addition, he's
looking to learn Haskell and Coq (an Ocaml derivative designed for
creating formal proofs of mathematical theorems).

Alexandre has a patch in Hurd/L4, he is a co-maintainer and creator of
funk, a kernel in Ocaml (http://www.gna.org/projects/funk) and he
participated in the Google Summer of Code in writing a generational
garbage collector, GMC, for the Perl 6 VM (http://www.parrotcode.org).
He is also part of the Bed team (http://www.gna.org/projects/bed),
aiming to create a vim-like editor in Ocaml. There, he is responsible
for the GTK and Cairo side of things. And just to top it all off, he's
writing a cairo-based window manager, yauwm.

So, please welcome Alexandre to the team.

Thanks,
-- 
Tom Martin, http://dev.gentoo.org/~slarti
AMD64, net-mail, shell-tools, vim, recruiters
Gentoo Linux


pgpBncr36wqwd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Grobian]

On 28-11-2005 18:54:14 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:46:57 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured
> | > | in this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked
> | > | me anything regarding the GWN...
> | > 
> | > Not the first time this has happened...
> | 
> | Not the first time that people whine. Meh.
> 
> Yes, surprisingly enough people tend to get upset when they're
> misquoted and have their views utterly misrepresented in something
> which most users think is an official Gentoo publication.

Being quoted: ok
Being misquoted: very bad
Having an unofficial Gentoo publication on official Gentoo
infrastructure: priceless.

Seriously: reading the blog entry, I made more or less the same
conclusions as the GWN author, but the problem is just that the blog
item was rephrased and made 'stronger', whereas the official blog was
very careful in wording.  (Possibly an attempt by the GWN author to make
it more easily readable?)  This was just wrong because it was not agreed
on with the respective author, hence resulted in this thread.  GWN
authors need to be a bit more careful with this I think.  However, I
don't think that GWN authors should need permissions to grab exact
quotes which are to be found elsewhere publicly available on the web.
It is just sad to see that (what I assume to be) a "running out of time
and having no content issue" results in such unpleasant misquote for the
respective quoted person.
One can criticise the use of newspapers, but somehow they seem to be
useful for many people.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Grant Goodyear]

Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Nov 28 2005, 12:46:57PM CST]
> > Also, why not bring back the "post to -core" requirement? Make it a
> > rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless
> > it gets some review...

Heh.  Personally, I've never really been all that fond of the GWN being
"an official Gentoo publication"; I'd much rather see it as a true
community news source.  I've always thought that by making it an
official publication it _appears_ to be more propaganda than news.

> That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a
> fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two
> aren't single points of failure?

I suspect that the devs most likely to write an article for the GWN are
also those most likely to have a blog on planet.g.o.  Given the latter,
there's not much incentive for the former.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpd2fFt1C4Jf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:46:57 +0100
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Why not bring back the "the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also
> contribute!!!" mentality?

Release early, release often?


 JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Stephen P. Becker]

| I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted
| in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that
| this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should
| be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for
| the developer to accept.

Also, why not bring back the "post to -core" requirement? Make it a
rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless
it gets some review...


Why not bring back the "the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also 
contribute!!!" mentality?

That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a
fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two
aren't single points of failure?



E...since when did the number of people working on the GWN have 
anything to do with horribly misquoting somebody's blog?  Are you 
suggesting there is a critical number of folks working on the GWN which 
will automagically prevent this sort of thing from happening?  Sorry, I 
don't buy that.  The issue here is that Brix was never contacted to 
review the GWN content prior to having his blog publically twisted into 
inaccurate bullshit.


-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Lance Albertson]

Patrick Lauer wrote:

>>Also, why not bring back the "post to -core" requirement? Make it a
>>rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless
>>it gets some review...
> 
> Why not bring back the "the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also 
> contribute!!!" mentality?
> 
> That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a
> fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two
> aren't single points of failure?

That doesn't justify the reasoning of misquoting him. This could have
been caught if it would have been sent to -core like its been done in
the past. How can we contribute if you don't post what you're going to
send before you send it?

Cheers-

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:46:57 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured
| > | in this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked
| > | me anything regarding the GWN...
| > 
| > Not the first time this has happened...
| 
| Not the first time that people whine. Meh.

Yes, surprisingly enough people tend to get upset when they're
misquoted and have their views utterly misrepresented in something
which most users think is an official Gentoo publication.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (The one that looks before leaping)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Patrick Lauer]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured in
> | this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked me
> | anything regarding the GWN...
> 
> Not the first time this has happened...

Not the first time that people whine. Meh.

> | I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted
> | in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that
> | this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should
> | be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for
> | the developer to accept.
> 
> Also, why not bring back the "post to -core" requirement? Make it a
> rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless
> it gets some review...
Why not bring back the "the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also 
contribute!!!" mentality?

That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a
fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two
aren't single points of failure?

/me returns to lurking in some dark caves
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Bjarke Istrup Pedersen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
binary packages.

Bjarke
Mark Loeser skrev:
> This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
> archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
> give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I see
> as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> errors.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDi0h3O+Ewtpi9rLERAibAAKCedui46gqRaBmwMpkufdQdw88ikQCfcgQu
UybgL9DJQXbD93CxuiHztEQ=
=+tUe
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured in
| this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked me
| anything regarding the GWN...

Not the first time this has happened...

| I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted
| in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that
| this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should
| be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for
| the developer to accept.

Also, why not bring back the "post to -core" requirement? Make it a
rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless
it gets some review...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (The one that looks before leaping)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

On Monday 28 November 2005 16:47, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> What about setting the HOMEPAGE of alsa-something to point to our
> ALSA-guide?
Because that's not the homepage?
I go often on pgo to see the homepage of something, and it's usually to get 
*upstream* homepage, not Gentoo's guides.
It's misleading changing that, imho.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpgWZOKjIFM3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal of auto-use in portage-2.0.54

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 17:48 +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 05:12:45PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > As I said earlier, we'd like to get rid of the nasty auto-use feature, 
> > including the support for the USE_ORDER variable. Right now we intend 
> > this for 2.0.54 (might not be the final version number) unless there are 
> > major objections to it.
> 
> What will happen to the USE flags currently in use.defaults when this
> is removed? Perhaps some of them be moved to the profiles instead?

This would be the best way to go about it, yes.

> I'm mostly concerned about the 'udev' USE flag. Some packages rely on
> this to be able to function correctly on an udev enabled system.
> Since udev seems to be the default choice for our default-linux
> profiles, it would make sense to also set USE=udev in those profiles?

I think it should be set in default-linux.  This means it would need to
be use.mask'd on any 2.4 profiles.  The real issue here is what happens
to anyone that uses both 2.4 and 2.6 from the same profile?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Jan Kundrát]

On Monday 28 of November 2005 11:55 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I like this idea, as it would also allow to specify user documentation that
> can be found on GDP, allowing users to find out the link to alsa guide
> directly from an alsa-* package's metadata.

What about setting the HOMEPAGE of alsa-something to point to our ALSA-guide?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


pgp1TFQu6qee2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:22:33AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Only thing I see
> as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> errors.

there is a bug open about this issue ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I see
as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
errors.

Thanks,

Mark


pgpdMDxaPMvpc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:46:47PM +0100, George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Monday, 28. November 2005 12.30, Simon Stelling wrote:
> > Is there a good reason for sending this to -dev? 
> Because he wanted to let users know of corrections? At least the ones who 
> care.

Exactly.

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd


pgpTaaXTC81r2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[George Shapovalov]

On Monday, 28. November 2005 12.30, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Is there a good reason for sending this to -dev? 
Because he wanted to let users know of corrections? At least the ones who 
care.

As for the original issue, isn't this the policy and how it has always been in 
fact? Back in earlier days (in just early days we did not have GWN :)) 
everybody that I know of was contacted, well I even so pings on -dev by GWN 
people asking for an "interview" :).

George
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Simon Stelling]

Is there a good reason for sending this to -dev? You basically complain 
about the way the GWN authors handled the issue, so why do you tell it 
all the devs? It seems a bit like a lame attempt to blame them in public 
for their faults.


Other than that, I agree with you.

--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

On Monday 28 November 2005 12:20, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Perhaps we should do both, as "title" attributes are not easy for machines
> to understand, as they are freeform. The kind attribute would not be and
> only allow certain values such as: "maintainer", "user",
> "administration", "troubleshooting", "misc"
Sort of the way a dev in a project has role and description, then.
Good for me :)

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpzmkf9GAzQS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Monday 28 November 2005 11:55, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2005 11:39, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > In any way I like the idea to add a tag to the metadata.xml files. I
> > would however want to do it differently. I'd like to propose a
> > general  tag with the usual attributes (version/deprange,
> > language) and as new attributes a "src" and a "kind" attribute.
>
> I like this idea, as it would also allow to specify user documentation
> that can be found on GDP, allowing users to find out the link to alsa
> guide directly from an alsa-* package's metadata.
> Maybe instead of a kind attribute we can have a "title" attribute, it
> would be anyway simple to recognize maintainers' guides, as they would
> be all title="Maintainer's Guide".

Perhaps we should do both, as "title" attributes are not easy for machines 
to understand, as they are freeform. The kind attribute would not be and 
only allow certain values such as: "maintainer", "user", 
"administration", "troubleshooting", "misc"

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpZvmcTUR2df.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Split ELF Debug (defult or not?)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 16:30, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Could this debug info be NFS shared? assuming like computers, or would
> it be different on each computer.

It is probably as shareable as normal library files are. Maybe there is 
more in common, but if the source was different, the end result will be. 
As much code contains conditionals based a.o. on the system architecture 
built on, the information would probably be incorrect if e.g. generated 
on a x86, but used on a ppc. I'm not an expert, so it might even be that 
the information is incompatible, but I wouldn't expect it to (except from 
endianess problems).

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpd12TF5W54y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split ELF Debug (default or not?)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:01, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
>
> What is this debugedit thing for us non-devs ? IMO portage should have
> some way to keep the sources around for debugging, for the patch you
> are proposing to be fully useful.

It allows some hacks on the debug info. For example the debug info records 
the location where the source was when the executable was built. 
Debugedit allows one to change this to some other location. As one 
doesn't want to retain the source in /var/tmp, this is probably a good 
idea. Besides that one can use debugedit to find out which files are 
involved and put only those at the other location.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpzr4GWiaDoo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

On Monday 28 November 2005 11:39, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> In any way I like the idea to add a tag to the metadata.xml files. I would
> however want to do it differently. I'd like to propose a general 
> tag with the usual attributes (version/deprange, language) and as new
> attributes a "src" and a "kind" attribute.
I like this idea, as it would also allow to specify user documentation that 
can be found on GDP, allowing users to find out the link to alsa guide 
directly from an alsa-* package's metadata.
Maybe instead of a kind attribute we can have a "title" attribute, it would be 
anyway simple to recognize maintainers' guides, as they would be all 
title="Maintainer's Guide".

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpLWt874MJVA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Split ELF Debug (defult or not?)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Saturday 26 November 2005 18:50, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
> executables in bfd aware programs. It's been in testing with a small
> hand full of devs and works quite well, but before it's pushed in we
> would like to get input from our devs & users.
>
> Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we
> want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined.
>
> Having a split debug pretty much obsoletes the need to add nostrip to
> your features in order to get debug info.

If we decide to do this, I think we should also find a solution that 
ensures that the executables actually get built with the debugging 
information, and that the upstream makefiles don't strip the binaries 
before we can stop them to.

I see two things we can do to fix these problems:
- In portage mode, add a null split binary to the path, such that
  makefiles that try to split, actually don't. Easier than anything else
  as specifying --debug often also means that you get awful CFLAGS
- Make gcc-wrapper be smart about it, and inject a "-g" CFLAG into the
  command line of the actual gcc.

Of course this all should be turned on/off with a feature or useflag or 
whatever.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgp3O3VThIGOW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 18:43, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2005 12:31, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > What I'm waiting for now are comments if someone has ideas where to
> > put guides that does not belong directly to an existant project. And
> > if someone wants to join the effort of documenting maintenance
> > process for his packages, it would be helpful, too.
>
> Trying not to let this idea die, as I still think it might be good in
> the long run, especially if there's a way to get them collected in a
> single place. Right now the main problem is that they are spread across
> projects (at least video/sound projects).
>
> Possible solutions I thought of:
>
> 1) have every herd controlled by a project, so that the maintainers'
> guides can be committed there; it would be difficult to find the
> maintainer's guide for a package this way;
> 2) have a single repository for maintainers' guides that does not
> belong to other projects;
> 3) have a single repository for *every* maintainers' guide.
>
> The problem with 1 and 2 is that the maintainers' guides would be
> difficult to locate in the mess of projects. The problem of 3 is that
> we have already complex maintainers' guides such as xine's and the one
> spyderous wrote for X11 herd, that might be difficult to fit in a
> single organization..
>
I agree with you. Although it is straightforward to provide a reverse 
mapping from packages to herds to projects, that currently doesn't exist.

> To solve 1's and 2's problem, the solution could be adding a
>  tag to metadata.xml, that carries the URL to the
> maintainer's guide for the package. It would also make simpler, for
> example, the case where a single guide is used for more than one
> package (see always xine's).

In any way I like the idea to add a tag to the metadata.xml files. I would 
however want to do it differently. I'd like to propose a general  
tag with the usual attributes (version/deprange, language) and as new 
attributes a "src" and a "kind" attribute. For your case it would then 
be:



This way other gentoo (and other) documentation could be linked to the 
package.

Paul

ps. We might even link to external (upstream) documentation, and have 
packages.gentoo.org provide that info.

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpTkeXdPGHSZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured in
this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked me
anything regarding the GWN...

So I fired up a web browser and there it was - first section in the
GWN [1]. Seems the GWN authors have read my blog entry [2] and decided
to bring their own version of it to the public.

* The GWN talks about WiFi Protected Access (WPA). My Blog talks about
  IEEE 802.11/wired authentication in general.

* The GWN talks about "my plans" for deprecating xsupplicant. My blog
  doesn't say anything about this.

* The GWN talks about removing xsupplicant from Gentoo Portage. My
  blog certainly doesn't say anything about this.

* The GWN doesn't even link to my blog entry, from which they must
  have gotten the initial idea for this article, thus not allowing
  their readers to see that the information provided is incorrect.

Now, why wasn't I contacted prior to quoting my blog in the GWN? A
simple "will this be ok?" kind of mail would have sufficed. I could
have pointed out the wrong assumptions in the article before it was
spread to thousands of users world wide, and instead we could have had
a concise article which reflected the truth.

Instead I now face the possibility of being flamed in my inbox for "my
plans to remove xsupplicant from Gentoo Portage". I've already been
approached twice on IRC about these "plans"...

I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted
in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that
this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should
be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for
the developer to accept.

Regards,
Brix

[1]: http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20051128-newsletter.xml
[2]: 
http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/brix/2005/11/25/wpa_supplicant_vs_xsupplicant
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd


pgpFzV36nVCaj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[Daniel Ahlberg]

Hi,

This is an automatically created email message.
http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 14890 ebuilds.

The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the ebuilds. 
The tests are:
* if a version has been masked for 30 days or more.
* if an arch was in KEYWORDS in an older ebuild, but not in the newer ones.
* if SRC_URI contains hosts specified in thirdpartymirrors.
* if ebuild uses patch instead of epatch.
* if ebuild sets S to ${WORKDIR}/${P}.
* if ebuild redefines P, PV, PN or PF.
* if ebuild doesn't inherit eutils when it uses functions from eutils.
* if ebuild doesn't inherit flag-o-matic when it uses functions from 
flag-o-matic.
* if ebuild has $HOMEPAGE in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
* if ebuild has $PN in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
* if ebuild forces -fPIC flag to CFLAGS.
* if ebuild has deprecated WANT_AUTO(CONF|MAKE)_?_?.
* if ebuild uses is-flag -fPIC, should be changed to has_fpic.
* if ebuild appends $RDEPEND or $DEPEND to $RDEPEND or $DEPEND to $DEPEND.
* if ebuild has arch keyword(s) in iuse.
* if ebuild overrides MAKEOPTS.
* if ebuild has automake, autoconf or libtool in RDEPEND.
* if ebuild exists in ChangeLog.
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.

The database is updated once a day and this email is sent once a week.
Questions and comments may be directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Script has been running for 509 minutes.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list