Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree. Exactly, I don't understand the problem here. /me votes to remove vmware Yeah, like that will ever happen :) thanks, greg k-h -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?
On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:25:22 -0700 Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree. Exactly, I don't understand the problem here. /me votes to remove vmware Yeah, like that will ever happen :) Bet you wouldn't mind if the nVidia and ATI drivers got punted though, eh? Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:36:27AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:25:22 -0700 Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree. Exactly, I don't understand the problem here. /me votes to remove vmware Yeah, like that will ever happen :) Bet you wouldn't mind if the nVidia and ATI drivers got punted though, eh? Not in the slightest :) And the load of wifi drivers that are also not OpenSource. See, I bet people didn't really think through that whole no closed source packages in the tree statement, now did they... thanks, greg k-h -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 05:29:44 PM Christian Faulhammer wrote: Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]: but the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. You will get them tomorrow...promised. :) Too many bugs, not enough devs...as always. Well, I've offered my help with the amd64 team three times now. Was ignored two times and the third time an initial discussion lead to nowhere so I guess it's not exactly of getting more devs but wanting them - or not. Best regards, Wulf pgpDoSZj7PhFR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Carsten Lohrke wrote: If we want to take this to measure, it' a bigger problem for KDE users (unless built with --as-needed). The list of packages is unfortunately quite impressive. What was your plan wrt. stabilisation of Gnome? I can look at the remaining issues this evening, so maybe we can speed up the process a bit. The bigger problem I see on the side of the arch teams. I got used to (nah, not really) mips and alpha lagging behind for several months, but the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. Carsten I'm doing all the bugs for alpha right now. I'm working on all the kde bugs, and kdepim is so sloow compiling. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Christian, Raúl - you guys rock! Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 12:44 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: The Emacs team has converted the following virtual packages: virtual/emacs You made a new-style virtual with the same name as a package? This can cause problems with binary package usage, as you will now end up with two packages with the same name but different versions. We likely won't be able to include emacs on Gentoo releases any more because of this. Just thought I would let you know. (Just realizing I need to finish configuring this mail client at work...) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 15:25 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: virtual/emacs virtual/flim Oh, and naming the new-style virtuals the same as the real thing kills binpkgs. :/ Sorry, I don't get your point here. The real thing is, e.g., emacs-21.4-r12 and the virtual is emacs-21. How is this not sufficiently different? You end up with this: /usr/portage/packages/All/emacs-21.4-r12 /usr/portage/packages/All/emacs-21 When you go to merge your virtual, it will always merge the package, even if you're *trying* to merge an emacs alternative. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 20:08 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote: Duncan wrote: It's probably a bit late now (unless we want to wait yet another few months), but tying this to a profile upgrade might have been a more practical solution. 2007.0, or now 2007.1. Old profiles would stick with the old expat, and new ones would get the new one. People are generally prepared for at least a /bit/ of extra upheaval when they do profile upgrades, and that would have made the PR a bit easier as well, since that's a natural time for it. Sounds good to me. To complement what Mart (leio) said earlier, a good timing for Gnome is either 2.16.3 or 2.18.0/1, the latter not being due for stable in for another few weeks. My opinion: the sooner the better. But having new stages for new installs so that users don't have to find out about revdep-rebuild the minute they finish their install is probably the best way to go. The profile idea looks ideal. No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People coming from stage3 would be fine, of course. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti: No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People coming from stage3 would be fine, of course. stage3 has expat too so they need to revdep-rebuild too Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People coming from stage3 would be fine, of course. I would have been happy to do that, but honestly Chris, the thought of approaching you and asking you to bump something like that into 2007.0 scared the crap out of me. You seemed way overburdened for the release as it was. I have no problem waiting for 2007.1, if Gnome and KDE don't mind. I don't know what hackery has to take place to do that, but I'm sure someone out there does. Caleb -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Chris Gianelloni wrote: No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Exactly my point. Let's do it for the next release if neither Gnome nor KDE folks can predict our/their next releases. Cheers, Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
virtual/emacs
You made a new-style virtual with the same name as a package? This
can cause problems with binary package usage, as you will now end up
with two packages with the same name but different versions.
There are several others, BTW:
{virtual,media-libs}/glut
{virtual,sys-devel}/pmake
{virtual,dev-db}/mysql
New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely
wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the
same name, but in different categories?
We likely won't be able to include emacs on Gentoo releases any more
because of this. Just thought I would let you know.
If you believe that this will make users happy, go ahead. :7
Ulrich
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
virtual/emacs
You made a new-style virtual with the same name as a package? This
can cause problems with binary package usage, as you will now end up
with two packages with the same name but different versions.
There are several others, BTW:
{virtual,media-libs}/glut
{virtual,sys-devel}/pmake
{virtual,dev-db}/mysql
New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely
wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the
same name, but in different categories?
It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with
the same name, you have the same problem.
We likely won't be able to include emacs on Gentoo releases any more
because of this. Just thought I would let you know.
If you believe that this will make users happy, go ahead. :7
It has nothing to do with making users happy and everything to do with
our inability to work around this issue with the current binary package
support in portage.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the same name, but in different categories? It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant It's quite annoying when one needs the real ANT ( dev-java/ant ), not the vim menu plugin so vi can invoke ant or etc. IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. Personal pet peeve of some time now, just lacked the occasion to mention it till now ;) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote: You end up with this: /usr/portage/packages/All/emacs-21.4-r12 /usr/portage/packages/All/emacs-21 When you go to merge your virtual, it will always merge the package, even if you're *trying* to merge an emacs alternative. This is no longer an issue in (stable) portage-2.1.2.2. I just talked to zmedico and he confirmed that 2.1.2 avoids collisions. So, no need to rename virtual/emacs. Ulrich -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Carsten Lohrke wrote: the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. welp's been away ;) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Steve Long napsal(a): welp's been away ;) Oh well, the dreaded *buntu maintenance eats time, you know... *g* -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a number of ebuilds following that scheme... regards Thilo pgps9kzRfHjIU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
Thilo Bangert napsal(a): It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo and app-xemacs/emerge, g -- jakub signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] yazdı: It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo which is soon to be dead... -- Ali Polatel (hawking) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawking.nonlogic.org/ gpg: 0x8E724EDC fp: DBC2 2BC7 95B8 6D6C 8BC3 37EC CA00 CFC1 8E72 4EDC () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
While I always was for uniq package names, tree-wide, renaming doesn't solve anything. Gentoo's binary packages are fundamentally broken. You can't have two binary packages of the same ebuild differing e.g. in use flags, architecture, toolchain, etc. pp. either. Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200 Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo That's getting the axe in a few weeks. IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a number of ebuilds following that scheme... Well, sudo and ant aren't syntax plugins, so that wouldn't make any sense. Also, we're keeping the same names that the upstream script writers use, just as we do everywhere else in Gentoo. The whole point of having category names is so that we can have two packages w/ the same name and not have issues. -- Mike Kelly -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
Quoting Mike Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200 Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a number of ebuilds following that scheme... Well, sudo and ant aren't syntax plugins, so that wouldn't make any sense. Also, we're keeping the same names that the upstream script writers use, just as we do everywhere else in Gentoo. The whole point of having category names is so that we can have two packages w/ the same name and not have issues. All this is so familiar... where have I heard that before? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27770/focus=27838 The thread is pretty long, but some of the issues of the current thread have been covered in length there. -- Georgi This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] docbook-sgml-util build problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 George Hedfors wrote: Hi list This is my first post and I just joined so I apologize if the question already has been raised previously. I've been trying to build the docbook-sgml-util package now for a while without success. Nothing on the internet really seem to solve my problem either. I'll attach the build log along with my emerge --info and hopefully someone will be able to provide a useful answer :). Thanks, George. This mailing list is for issues that are directly related to the development of sys-apps/portage. For build issues with specific packages, you can get help on the gentoo-user mailing list. If it turns out to be an ebuild problem, a bug should be filed at http://bugs.gentoo.org. That said, your build begins to fail with the jade command here: jade:../../docbook-utils.dsl:9:96:W: cannot generate system identifier for public text -//Norman Walsh//DOCUMENT DocBook HTML Stylesheet//EN jade:../../docbook-utils.dsl:19:39:E: no style-specification or external-specification with ID DOCBOOK I'd probably try reinstalling the docbook-* packages that are direct dependencies of docbook-sgml-utils: emerge --oneshot app-text/openjade app-text/docbook-dsssl-stylesheets ~app-text/docbook-xml-simple-dtd-4.1.2.4 ~app-text/docbook-xml-simple-dtd-1.0 app-text/docbook-xml-dtd ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-3.0 ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-3.1 ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-4.0 ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-4.1 Good luck, Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGS5ob/ejvha5XGaMRAv+oAKCOjqImiY+WLhAeXUkC3thgBoI1cACfaByk Jv28VgxeMTBAvAyXk6i5Y1w= =38jY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
