On Thursday 31 May 2012 08:55:25 Michał Górny wrote:
+# Note: this function implicitly calls pkg-config. You should add it to
+# your DEPEND when using it.
should clarify: implicitly calls pkg-config when your package provides a .pc.
+ if [[ ! ${removing_all} ]]; then
+ local
On Sunday 03 June 2012 18:16:30 Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/02/2012 10:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
# @FUNCTION: _multijob_fork # @INTERNAL # @DESCRIPTION: # Do the
actual book keeping. _multijob_fork() { [[ $# -eq 1 ]] || die
incorrect number of arguments
local ret=0 [[ $1 == pre ]] :
v4
-mike
# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
# @ECLASS: multiprocessing.eclass
# @MAINTAINER:
# base-sys...@gentoo.org
# @AUTHOR:
# Brian Harring ferri...@gentoo.org
# Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
# @BLURB:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:57:42 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you go back and look at the tree you see a bunch of signed and
unsigned commits. How do you easily detect how the unsigned ones got
there (via a dev with a merge commit, or via other means)?
Well, that's not a very
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:57:53 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, good catch on package.mask. Hhadn't thought of that, that
*will* be the most contentious point. That can be dealt w/ via
having git on portage-1 profile format so we'd have package.mask as
directories (which
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:47:33 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/04/2012 10:06 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:26:00 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
But minetest in sunrise for example which has two
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
But could there be a case where fixing a build in the engine
wouldn't require data being rereleased? Or having the tag pointing
to the same commit it was pointing to previously?
If upstream splits a package, and supports building/installing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/04/2012 05:26 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello, will send this to gentoo-dev mailing list per Zac's
suggestion ;):
...They usually do a good job maintaining them, the only issue I
see they hit from time to time is forgetting to run JUST
El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
[...]
There's never anything important in all that text. - Anonymous
Gentoo User
We've already determined that the users don't read the output. This is
a known fact. Something I repeat in #gentoo more often than I care to
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:57:42 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you go back and look at the tree you see a bunch of signed and
unsigned commits. How do you easily detect how the unsigned ones got
there (via a
i'm pleased to announce the initial x32 release candidate:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/x32/stage3-amd64-x32-20120605.tar.xz
the x32 ABI is the default one, and includes x86/amd64 ABIs. it is not using
/lib32/ (and /lib is not a symlink) like our existing amd64 multilib as that
is being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:44:08 -0400
Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
There's never anything important in all that text. - Anonymous
Gentoo User
To be fair, most einfo and elog messages are useless spam. When elog
was introduced, it was
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:04:33AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:57:53 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, good catch on package.mask. Hhadn't thought of that, that
*will* be the most contentious point. That can be dealt w/ via
having git on
On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild
the dependent packages.
We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to
be rebuilt can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/05/2012 02:44 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
There's never anything important in all that text. - Anonymous
Gentoo User
The bad part is, that even reading of these messages can result in a
breakage. I update a bunch of machines with these
compiler wise, you do not need to specify -mx32 yourself. the toolchain
defaults to the x32 ABI (and all programs in there are compiled as x32). you
only need -mx32 if you want to do something like distcc and execute with
toolchains that aren't targeting x32 by default.
as for what are valid
On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with
revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages
with tests)?
I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like the
pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase
On Tuesday 05 June 2012 14:44:13 Mike Frysinger wrote:
i'm pleased to announce the initial x32 release candidate:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/x32/stage3-amd64-x32-20120605.tar.xz
to be kind to infra, i've put this on the mirrors:
http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/x32/
this URL
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:40 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
The SLOT operator dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT
variable as discussed
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:31:01 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
We all know what would be the ideal solution, the problem is how to
implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working).
We do? Please tell us. I was under the impression that we still didn't
fully know what
On 06/05/2012 10:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:40 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
The SLOT operator dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
unslotted packages, then we need to
21 matches
Mail list logo
