Paul de Vrieze posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:38:21 +0100:
> On Saturday 24 December 2005 00:52, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>> On Friday 23 December 2005 18:35, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>> > Just to add. This is not so much related to debugging information
However, by bitching about problems, there are some users that decide to
check WTF is this warning, in turn they urge devs to fix it (and that is the
main point of QA,
right?), they report it with their bug reports and so on. In other words, the
problem gets _NOTICED_
by everybody.
IMHO, lea
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 14:25 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
> Welcome codergeek! I'm his mentor so everyone wish him *lots* of luck,
> he's gonna need it. LOL
Jeez thanks for the wonderful encouragement, Curtis. Ha ha. :-P
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
GnuPG Public Key: 0xDA3634D7
signature.asc
De
Lares Moreau wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 10:34 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
>
>> what about defining something like
>> GENTOO_LEVEL="n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru" in
>> make.conf? And act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level
>> or two most of the
>> time.
>
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 10:34 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
> what about
> defining something like
> GENTOO_LEVEL="n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru" in make.conf? And
> act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level or two most of
> the time.
This is what happens anyway, bu
Lares Moreau wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 22:10 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>>>I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar'
>>>user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for
>>>the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in
>>>
Peter wrote:
To Gentoo nVidia users:
We are in the process of developing and testing
a unified nVidia driver ebuild. When implemented,
it will replace the nvidia-kernel, nvidia-glx, and
nvidia-settings ebuilds. It will also add the utility
nvidia-xconfig.
We would like your help in evaluating
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:09:08PM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote:
>
>>Basically it does ldd on all
>>the elf files in a package and then checks to which packages those
>>libraries belong.
>
>
> ldd is garbage for this purpose
>
> use `readelf -d ELF | grep NEEDED` or just `
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
| keep this info out of the sync-tree?
Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
FAQ:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-3
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 22:10 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar'
> > user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for
> > the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in
> > PORTLOG_DIR?
> >
>
Lares Moreau wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 21:41 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>>>On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>
>>>
Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice t
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 21:41 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >
> >>Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
> >>or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
> >>ebuilds die if thi
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:41, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
> >>or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
> >>ebuilds die if this is
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>>Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
>>or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
>>ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would
>>only hap
Danny van Dyk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
please help me to welcome Peter Gordon aka codergeek42, our latest
addition to the ranks of Gentoo Developers. And someone please explain
to him how to secure his bum in SpanKY's immediate vicinity ;-)
Welcome codergeek!
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:53:14 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Nnnope. If you modify an eclass it forces a cache regen for packages
| > using said eclass (except possibly if you're using an overlay, but
| > that's a separ
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:27:01 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| - We speak about ebuilds, which are installed and need to be
| reinstalled. There is no version cycling (or I do not get what you're
| after, please explain in that case).
foo-1.0: DEPEND="=foo-2.0"
foo-2.0: DEPEND=""
f
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Nnnope. If you modify an eclass it forces a cache regen for packages
> using said eclass (except possibly if you're using an overlay, but
> that's a separate issue...).
You're trying to solve something which is already solved, but this ha
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:55, Peter wrote:
> Thanks all for the feedback. It's important to realize that "userland" in
> this case is under 1 minute compile time. One of the modules, glx, doesn't
> even get compiled. A poster on this thread noted that glx took 14
> seconds -- it just copies cl
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:44, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Can you prove it, for the "allow USE and version cycling" case? (Hint:
O.k, let m treat you as a the hot potato that you're Ciaran:
- We speak about ebuilds, which are installed and need to be reinstalled.
There is no version cycling (o
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:44:01 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > eclass, and no -r bump.
|
| Then it would not be possible to build the Application against
| different KDE versions and those who want to stay with a previou
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:50:16 +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:49:04PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>> I thought that we (gentoo devs) were trying to split the modules from
>> ebuilds,
>> so that people don't need to waste time with userland when rebuildi
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:37:05 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > It's worse than O(n^n) if you try to do USE dep conflict resolution
| > too...
|
| Theoretically yes, practically the worst number of dependency levels
| we
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> eclass, and no -r bump.
Then it would not be possible to build the Application against different KDE
versions and those who want to stay with a previous KDE version wouldn't be
able to install any application. And conditional dependenci
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> It's worse than O(n^n) if you try to do USE dep conflict resolution
> too...
Theoretically yes, practically the worst number of dependency levels we speak
of to walk up/down is not infinite ;). Of course there's no chance to get
this li
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:05:21 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tuesday 27 December 2005 04:08, Brian Harring wrote:
| > So note the comment in the email you are responding to about locking
| > down the used dep/rdeps for an install.
|
| That would be a maintenance nightmare. Eve
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:48:55 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Well, it shouldn't be unsolvable. Choosing can be done with the
| following process:
Your algorithm doesn't work for cases which can be solved by up / down
cycling of a version. It also doesn't work for cases where we n
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:20:50 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| If backtracking was all there was to it, it could be done very
| quickly of course. However, it's essentially a brute force method;
| I'm not very good with O notation but I think it's O(n^n). I've got
| an algorithm in my
On 12/27/05, John Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if upstream is more than one person, but less than an organization? What
> if there is more than one upstream such as for gentoo-sources, where the
> maintainer of each of the patchsets could be considered an upstream?
I don't see a problem
> On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:09:31 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each
> > revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for = and
> > ~ and < and
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 17:06, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> >
> > What about using the "&& ( kde-libs/kde:4 >=kde-libs/kde-4.0.1 )" syntax,
> > where the && would indicate that the atoms are to be folded, and consider
> > a single package that should satisfy them instead of the default where it
> > wo
On Friday 23 December 2005 22:36, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:33:13 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | - Checkout time of a full new tree (no load, and with load)
>
> Do we really care about this? SVN will do really really badly here, but
> does it matter?
On Saturday 24 December 2005 04:40, Jason Stubbs wrote:
>
> > I don't think its trolling when we've been let down on it in the past,
> > had it postponed to "the great redesign" ( project baghira, I think,
> > too) And so on.
>
> "Even though I'd probably not hold my breath"? It's something tha
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 01:33, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability.
>
> Right. But it's not that unlikely to see such a corner case sooner or later
> and it would be good if Port
On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:09:31 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each
> revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for = and
> ~ and < and <= depend
On Saturday 24 December 2005 04:50, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Saturday 24 December 2005 10:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:04:32 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | kde-libs/kde:3
> > | ^^^ need any kde, with slotting enabled.
> > |
> > | kde-libs/kde:3
On Saturday 24 December 2005 00:52, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 23 December 2005 18:35, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Just to add. This is not so much related to debugging information in the
> > library files (what gdb can use). That information never makes it from
> > disk so is not t
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 01:11, Marcelo Góes wrote:
> Fellow Gentooers,
>
> Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
> information to be included in metadata.xml:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt
>
> It is authored by ciaranm and me (vanquirius).
>
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:06, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:43:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >wrote:
> >| Will those new tags support the "restrict" attribute?
> >
> >Is restrict something that's in use and working, or did it never get
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:59, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Do you mind reading and replying to the second paragraph (which happens to
> be the only new information I brought to this thread). Underlining words to
> emphasize a point to me that I've opened by agreeing is really not
> necessary.
I did
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 22:45, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:00, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > If all three of those packages were first built against kdelibs:3.4 and
> > then kdelibs:3.5 became available then rebuilding any one of them without
> > rebuilding the others will
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:49:04PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I thought that we (gentoo devs) were trying to split the modules from
> ebuilds,
> so that people don't need to waste time with userland when rebuilding modules
> after kernel update.
We are. At least that's the policy
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:00, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> If all three of those packages were first built against kdelibs:3.4 and
> then kdelibs:3.5 became available then rebuilding any one of them without
> rebuilding the others will break digikam. I can't see how it's directly
> represented in the
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>>R Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
>>>under this rule. I'd like to start filing
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:57:55PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be
> > reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that
> > themselves
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 08:08, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license
> on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/
My point was that it is often not the license of the copyright holder, because
the copyright notice included in many licen
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 04:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> But it's not binary compatible between KDE slots. So, once we
> have :slot dependencies, you should link to a specific :slot (possibly
> controlled via USE). It's like packages that can use either gtk or gtk2
> -- this has to be handled vi
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 04:08, Brian Harring wrote:
> So note the comment in the email you are responding to about locking
> down the used dep/rdeps for an install.
That would be a maintenance nightmare. Every time a new KDE versions comes out
a new ebuild revision for every package depending
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 12:08, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:54:38AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:40, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > The version of digikam being merged requires slot=3.5- it should be
> > > depending on libk* slot=3.5, also, no
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be
> reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that
> themselves don't need it.
I don't really see the big difference (regarding this issue)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:32:25PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> >
> >>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be
> >>>seen as
> >>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in
Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
>
>>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen
>>>as
>>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that
>>>aren't generic, but include a copyright notice
On 26-12-2005 22:11:46 -0200, Marcelo Ges wrote:
> Fellow Gentooers,
>
> Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
> information to be included in metadata.xml:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt
using http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0046.html
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen
> > as
> > a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that
> > aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a
54 matches
Mail list logo
