On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:53 +
hasufell wrote:
> Steven J. Long:
> >
> > "I'll see you when you get there, if you ever get there.."
> >
>
> No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev,
> unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage.
Do that and we'll h
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2014-06-15 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-perl/perl-PBS 2014-06-11 09:30:35 zlogene
games-strategy/openxcom 2014-06-14 19:28:46 mr_bones_
media-plugins/
Tom Wijsman posted on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:19:54 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:06:57 +0700 "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov"
> wrote:
>
>> My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking build at
>> all. And, in parallel, to add groupping.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Any objections
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:00:15 -0400 as excerpted:
> Besides, I think user-patches are a GREAT feature to have, and one I use
> all the time (without even thinking about it if a package with a patch
> gets rebuilt). As I said in the meeting, if we were selling Gentoo to
> make m
hasufell schrieb:
> No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev,
> unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage.
>
> More packages are popping up that randomly break. Recent failures were
> related to tc-getBUILD_CC.
>
> This isn't stable in any way. I'm not b
Steven J. Long:
>
> "I'll see you when you get there, if you ever get there.."
>
No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev,
unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage.
More packages are popping up that randomly break. Recent failures were
related to tc-g
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot
> on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with previous
> one. It was because it introduced new APIs which applications could
> make use of. Since I belie
Dnia 2014-06-15, o godz. 07:00:15
Rich Freeman napisał(a):
> The Eclass argument goes like this:
> Eclasses already work in every PM. Half of what we're debating is
> already in eutils. Why move this code into the PM, where it has to be
> re-implemented everywhere? If anything we should be mov
Am Sonntag, 15. Juni 2014, 11:06:57 schrieb Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov:
> My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking build at all.
Please No. It just generates a big mess.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:06:57 +0700
"Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote:
> My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking build
> at all. And, in parallel, to add groupping.
>
> [...]
>
> Any objections/approvals/suggestions?
What are the use cases of this idea? What is its goal?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:00:15 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> The Eclass argument goes like this:
> Eclasses already work in every PM. Half of what we're debating is
> already in eutils. Why move this code into the PM, where it has to be
> re-implemented everywhere? If anything we should be moving m
I debated where to post this, but the topic is fairly dev-oriented and
has big long-term impact so I landed here. This really isn't
organizational in nature.
During the council meeting there was a bit of a philosophical debate
over the proper role of EAPI vs implementing functions in eclasses. I
Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov:
> My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking build at all.
> And, in parallel, to
> add groupping.
>
> How I imagine that:
>
> etc/portage/patches/app-cat//
> |
> | - group_name/
> | |
> | |- 01_foo.patch
> | |- 02_ba
Dnia 2014-06-15, o godz. 16:06:57
"Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" napisał(a):
> My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking build at all.
> And, in parallel, to
> add groupping.
>
> How I imagine that:
>
> etc/portage/patches/app-cat//
> |
> | - group_name/
> | |
My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking build at all.
And, in parallel, to
add groupping.
How I imagine that:
etc/portage/patches/app-cat//
|
| - group_name/
| |
| |- 01_foo.patch
| |- 02_bar.patch
| |- <...>
|
|- 01_moo.patch
15 matches
Mail list logo
