On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26:57PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Zac Medico wrote:
So in your opinion, it would be fine to bump profiles/eapi to
EAPI=4 now?
Yes, it's feasible. As a consequence, we may get some complaints
from users who haven't upgraded during the last six months.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be
*extremely* beneficial, and cause much less chaos.
Speaking with my GNOME hat, it will
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
1) USE-flag based support to cross-compile packages (mostly implemented in
multilib-portage)
let me extend this a bit, first the reasoning behind it:
For amd64 users, there is sometimes the issue, that they
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:59:08PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that pushing EAPI
implementation into the tree and ignoring EAPI, or having this notion
that every repository must automatically
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think putting more pressure so systemd isn't given as granted would be
more healthy for both those who are not using it (because, again, is an
aberration for any kind of daemon not written for it) and those that want to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 08:38:31 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there something in particular that is causing alarm with systemd?
All I've seen is a package in the tree and some discussion. I'm sure
there will be requests for various packages to install some files
needed for
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd folks are
doing is nicely asking devs to include systemd unit files whenever
necessary or use the eclass whenever upstream supplies those files.
In other words,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-09-2011 09:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan
nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd folks
are doing is nicely asking devs to include systemd unit files
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:33:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:27:02 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
No, there isn't anything
On Saturday, September 17, 2011 06:40:03 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
(The other reason I think systemd and udev might merge at some point, or
at least have good IPC between them, because there is a potential for
speed gains
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:47:14 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
For example, people might think they can start masking
cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does
it mean something else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's
not a policy saying no use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
For example, people might think they can start masking
cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does
it mean something else? I have a
On Sep 18, 2011 12:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree,
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing
tree?
What's wrong with versioned masking of use-flags? The fact
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
I'm astonished by the large amount of misinformation that is being
spread around about systemd. If this originated on the gentoo-user
mailing list, I'm
On 09/18/2011 07:20 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
What other meanings could it have? What would be the problem with
moving the package use flag masks from package.use.mask to package.mask?
As Ciaran said, these two kinds of masks give two very different
behaviors that are not
Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted:
On Saturday, September 17, 2011 06:40:03 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
(The other reason I think systemd and udev might merge at some point,
or at least have
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted:
I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.
Interesting question. I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread,
either, and it
On 09/18/2011 07:27 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
You mean that no Linux users, in particular anyone not running or not
wanting to run GNOME and Fedora, shouldn't be worried about the way
some people in the GNOME and Fedora community seem intent to impose
their ways to everyone else?
Hello all,
Considering that the 'magical IUSE check' in autotools-utils (and a few
other eclasses) is considered broken, and taking Diego's word [1],
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your uses of IUSE=static-libs.
To be honest, I'd like to remove that magic soon which means that all
ebuilds
---
eclass/autotools-utils.eclass | 24
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass b/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass
index 76ad6fc..489efd9 100644
--- a/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass
+++ b/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass
@@
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
[snip]
'$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it may be
better to just drop the flag if no other package relies on it and no
user has ever requested the static build of that package.
I don't see any
On 3/21/11 1:24 AM, Corentin Chary wrote:
I recently started working on a small gentoo utility named euscan
(for Ebuild Upstream Scan)
For those who don't know debian's uscan, it allows to scan upstream
for new versions. It's used by packages.qa.debian.org (example:
On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
'$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it may be
better to just drop the flag if no other package relies on it and no
user has ever requested the static
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-09-18 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-libs/libicq2000 2011-09-13 11:39:24 pacho
app-portage/meatoo 2011-09-13 11:43:33 pacho
On 04:22 Sun 18 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:59:08PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that pushing EAPI
implementation into the tree and ignoring EAPI, or having this
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
TLDR: Let's remove FEATURES=stricter from developer profile, I bet
most people have it disabled anyway and it doesn't seem useful.
Really, I disabled it.
+1
Regards,
--
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux
31 matches
Mail list logo
