Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Matthias Langer
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate > (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... can people try upgrading to > it and post any feedback they have with it ? it should mostly be a > bugfix release over 1.11.13 si

[gentoo-dev] Commiting of ~arch virtual/* ebuilds causes deptree issues

2005-12-21 Thread Jakub Moc
Hello here, the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug 116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a particular arch. Betelgeuse is working on a repoman check for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing description for the xml global use flag

2005-12-21 Thread Christian Andreetta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Better to use the correct list: > > $ metascan -av IUSE xml IUSE xml2 > Generating package list ... done > Scanning packages for ['IUSE', 'IUSE'] ... done > > media-libs/libwmf-0.2.8.3-r1 > net-fs/samba-3.0.20-r1 > net-fs/samba-3.0.14a-r3 > net-f

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate > (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... can people try upgrading to > it and post any feedback they have with it ? it should mostly be a > bugfix release over 1.11.13 si

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12:49, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate > > (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... can people try upgrading to > > it and post any feedback they h

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:49:37AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate > > (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... can people try upgrading to > > it and post any feedback t

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:13 +, Roy Marples wrote: > On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12:49, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate > > > (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... c

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 14:26 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:49:37AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate > > > (1.11.14) isnt getting much air ti

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:30:56AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:13 +, Roy Marples wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12:49, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch,

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 14:45 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:30:56AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:13 +, Roy Marples wrote: > > > On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12:49, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:36 +, Mike F

[gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.53 now stable on x86

2005-12-21 Thread Petteri Räty
I just marked 2.0.53 stable on x86. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108082 for details. You can check the various dependencies of this bug for the bug fixes that went into this release. This release includes at least one new program. pena jamvm # emaint --help usage: emaint [options] al

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.14 stabilization

2005-12-21 Thread Paul Varner
> since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate > (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... can people try upgrading to > it and post any feedback they have with it ? it should mostly be a > bugfix release over 1.11.13 since we arent doing any more real features > for the 1.11

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commiting of ~arch virtual/* ebuilds causes deptree issues

2005-12-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jakub Moc wrote: the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug 116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a particular arch. Shouldn't it be the reverse? Rather, t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commiting of ~arch virtual/* ebuilds causes deptree issues

2005-12-21 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 19:28, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > IOW, it doesn't matter if an ~arch virtual depends on stable packages. > It matters if stable packages depend on an ~arch virtual. So that's like any other package in the tree.. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~fla

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commiting of ~arch virtual/* ebuilds causes deptree issues

2005-12-21 Thread Mark Loeser
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hello here, > > the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug > 116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals > need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a > particular arch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.53 now stable on x86 and amd64

2005-12-21 Thread Luis Medinas
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 19:25 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: > I just marked 2.0.53 stable on x86. See > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108082 for details. You can check > the various dependencies of this bug for the bug fixes that went into > this release. This release includes at least one new

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commiting of ~arch virtual/* ebuilds causes deptree issues

2005-12-21 Thread Petteri Räty
Mark Loeser wrote: > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >>Hello here, >> >>the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug >>116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals >>need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable

[gentoo-dev] 2006 and ebuild headers

2005-12-21 Thread Petteri Räty
# Copyright 1999-2005 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # $Header: $ I remember last year the mirror system having problems when some people went and changed tons of ebuild headers. What I don't remember is if we set some kind of policy then, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2006 and ebuild headers

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:33:14PM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote: > What I don't remember is if we > set some kind of policy then, but best to put this issue on the table > well before New Year so that everyone will be aware of what to do when > the time comes. we did the policy is that you only upd

[gentoo-dev] Tcl/Tk correction

2005-12-21 Thread Vadim Konovalov
I've noticed wrong homepage specified for tclpython (shoud be http://jfontain.free.fr/tclpython.htm ) gevad ~ # emerge -s tclpython Searching... [ Results for search key : tclpython ] [ Applications found : 1 ] * dev-tcltk/tclpython Latest version available: 3.1 Latest version insta

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tcl/Tk correction

2005-12-21 Thread Mark Loeser
Vadim Konovalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I've noticed wrong homepage specified for tclpython (shoud be > http://jfontain.free.fr/tclpython.htm ) Please file a bug on https://bugs.gentoo.org > Also, I want Perl module for Tcl/Tk interconnection to be available > within as ebuild. Module is name

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tcl/Tk correction

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:36:43PM +0300, Vadim Konovalov wrote: > I've noticed wrong homepage specified for tclpython (shoud be > http://jfontain.free.fr/tclpython.htm ) use http://bugs.gentoo.org/ > Also, I want Perl module for Tcl/Tk interconnection to be available > within as ebuild. use htt

[gentoo-dev] tcltk splitting [again]

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
came someone please remind me why we havent split the tcltk USE flag into tcl and tk ? wanting tcl support on a server makes sense, and doing something like 'tcltk? ( X? ( tk ) )' is just dumb -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

2005-12-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: I know some of you have done research on how gentoo-x86 converts over to other systems besides CVS such as SVN, arch, etc. But I can't find the info anywhere in my archives. Could whoever's got it, post it? I'm particularly interested in hearing about CVS, SVN, mercurial,

[gentoo-dev] New Developer: Peter Volkov

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Doty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 All- Please take a moment to welcome our newest developer, pva. Peter is joining to help out with netmon. In his own words, "I was born in Moscow (it's in Russia). I graduated physical department of Moscow State University. And my speciality is phys

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Peter Volkov

2005-12-21 Thread Renat Lumpau
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:28:03PM -0600, Mike Doty wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > All- > > Please take a moment to welcome our newest developer, pva. Peter is > joining to help out with netmon. Time to start a Russian conspiracy! Dobro pozhalovat'. -- Renat Lump

Re: [gentoo-dev] tcltk splitting [again]

2005-12-21 Thread George Shapovalov
Um, I cannot remind why we did not split, because I remember (unless I am hallucinating of course. That was like 2 years ago, or more..) that we actually had them split and then they were joined.. For whatever it is worth.. As for reasons, not really sure, did not check at the time (as I did not

Re: [gentoo-dev] tcltk splitting [again]

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:24:10PM +0100, George Shapovalov wrote: > Um, I cannot remind why we did not split, because I remember (unless I am > hallucinating of course. That was like 2 years ago, or more..) that we > actually had them split and then they were joined.. For whatever it is > worth

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Peter Volkov

2005-12-21 Thread Andrej Kacian
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:28:03 -0600 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > All- > > Please take a moment to welcome our newest developer, pva. Peter is > joining to help out with netmon. > > In his own words, "I was born in Moscow (it's in Rus

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commiting of ~arch virtual/* ebuilds causes deptree issues

2005-12-21 Thread Mark Loeser
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hello here, > > the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug > 116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals > need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a > particular arch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing description for the xml global use flag

2005-12-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 02:55, Duncan wrote: > What about doing with xml what was done with gtk, when gtk2 was > deprecated? IOW, where both are possible, default to one or the other, > which ever one is merged, or choose one (preferably making it a > Gentoo-wide default, for consistency) if b

[gentoo-dev] Annoying X.Org tarball naming (and how to deal with it)

2005-12-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'd appreciate some ideas better than what I've come up with so far to deal with the very strange X.Org release naming. When modular tarballs are part of a full X.Org release (7.0, 7.1, etc), then they are named PN-PV-XORG_RELEASE.tar.(gz|bz2) and S

Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

2005-12-21 Thread Bret Towe
On 12/21/05, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > I know some of you have done research on how gentoo-x86 converts over to > > other systems besides CVS such as SVN, arch, etc. But I can't find the > > info anywhere in my archives. > > > > Could whoever's got it,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

2005-12-21 Thread Ryan Phillips
* Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-21 23:16]: > On 12/21/05, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > I know some of you have done research on how gentoo-x86 converts over to > > > other systems besides CVS such as SVN, arch, etc. But I can't find the > > >