Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-writing/variables: better describe ROOT

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Göktürk Yüksek wrote: > Mike Gilbert: >> The current description of ROOT makes no sense and just confuses >> people. The new description is paraphrased from PMS. --- >> ebuild-writing/variables/text.xml | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] ebuild-writing/misc-files/metadata: rewrite the section per GLEP 67 #572144

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Michał Górny: > On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:57:48 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek > wrote: > >> @@ -244,12 +221,7 @@ optional: without this attribute must also >> exist. That tag without the restrict attribute will serve as the >> default.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 15/05/16 23:55, Duncan wrote: > Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:04:57 -0700 as excerpted: > >> If the dev in question hasn't done that before, then it's entirely >> possible they *thought* they tested, or tested it *before* making some >> other edit and absent-mindedly committed.

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2016-05-15 23:59 UTC

/libmnote 20160511-10:01 kensington 826a634 Additions: app-backup/untangle-https-backup 20160515-19:39 mjod0efbfc app-emacs/go-mode20160508-09:06 idella494ea431 app-i18n/skktools20160513-12:42 hattya 7bbe4ab app-i18n/yaskkserv

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] flag-o-matic.eclass: bugfix for get-flag()

> On Sun, 15 May 2016, rindeal wrote: [Looks like your mailer is broken. All the tabs in your patch have been mangled and appear as spaces.] > + # reverse loop > + set -- ${!var} > + local i=${#} > + while [[ ${i} > 0 ]] ; do > + local arg="${!i}" Using

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Committing without testing, as long as you don't push, is fine, even > meritorious. It's the push that uploads those commits to the gentoo > reference repo, however, and testing should *definitely* be done before > pushing,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 05/15/2016 03:55 PM, Duncan wrote: > Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:04:57 -0700 as excerpted: > >> If the dev in question hasn't done that before, then it's entirely >> possible they *thought* they tested, or tested it *before* making some >> other edit and absent-mindedly

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:04:57 -0700 as excerpted: > If the dev in question hasn't done that before, then it's entirely > possible they *thought* they tested, or tested it *before* making some > other edit and absent-mindedly committed. Again, legacy CVS thought pattern. In

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:16:30 -0700 as excerpted: > On 05/15/2016 03:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> However, is it that much of >> an effort to test eclass changes using ebuilds *before* committing it? >> It wasn't that hard even in times of CVS (esp. that we're talking

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] flag-o-matic.eclass: bugfix for get-flag()

> On Sun, 15 May 2016 21:35:41 +0200 > rindeal wrote: > >> > Dnia 15 maja 2016 15:31:29 CEST, Jan Chren >> > napisał(a): >> >>+ local f="${!i}" >> >>+ if [ "${f#-${findflag#-}}" != "${f}" ] ; then >> > >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] flag-o-matic.eclass: bugfix for get-flag()

On Sun, 15 May 2016 21:35:41 +0200 rindeal wrote: > > Dnia 15 maja 2016 15:31:29 CEST, Jan Chren > > napisał(a): > >>+ local f="${!i}" > >>+ if [ "${f#-${findflag#-}}" != "${f}" ] ; then > > > > I know

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] flag-o-matic.eclass: bugfix for get-flag()

> Dnia 15 maja 2016 15:31:29 CEST, Jan Chren napisał(a): >>- fix case: >> - `CFLAGS='-O1 -O2'` >> - `get-flag '-O*'` >> - before `-O1` >> - now `-O2` >>- fix case: >> - `CFLAGS='-W1,-O1'` >> - `get-flag '-O*'` >> - before `-W1,O1` >> - now return 1 >> >>`get-flag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Sonntag, 15. Mai 2016, 11:53:27 schrieb Ryan Hill: > > I thought his response was pretty tame actually. If you break the tree > because you couldn't be bothered to do the barest minimum of testing you > absolutely deserve to be called out on

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] distutils-r1.eclass: Do not apply patches if DISTUTILS_OPTIONAL is used

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Do not apply PATCHES and user patches (either via the EAPI 6 default or > pre-EAPI 5 code) when DISTUTILS_OPTIONAL is being used. In this case, > distutils functions are usually called conditionally, in a subdirectory, >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] flag-o-matic.eclass: bugfix for get-flag()

Dnia 15 maja 2016 15:31:29 CEST, Jan Chren napisał(a): >- fix case: > - `CFLAGS='-O1 -O2'` > - `get-flag '-O*'` > - before `-O1` > - now `-O2` >- fix case: > - `CFLAGS='-W1,-O1'` > - `get-flag '-O*'` > - before `-W1,O1` > - now return 1 > >`get-flag march` == "i686"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On Sun, 15 May 2016 04:18:39 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 05/15/2016 02:15 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > On Sun, 15 May 2016 11:05:21 +0200 > > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 > >> Michał Górny wrote: >

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] flag-o-matic.eclass: bugfix for get-flag()

- fix case: - `CFLAGS='-O1 -O2'` - `get-flag '-O*'` - before `-O1` - now `-O2` - fix case: - `CFLAGS='-W1,-O1'` - `get-flag '-O*'` - before `-W1,O1` - now return 1 `get-flag march` == "i686" syntax still works. --- eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass | 13 + 1 file changed, 9

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 05/15/2016 02:15 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 15 May 2016 11:05:21 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > >> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 >> Michał Górny wrote: >> >>> Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or >>> reading diffs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 05/15/2016 03:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 > Aaron Bauman wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:54:11 AM JST Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote: On Friday, May 13, 2016

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 05/15/2016 02:53 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 > Aaron Bauman wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:54:11 AM JST Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote: On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:52:09

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 05/14/2016 01:23 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:21 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 14/05/16 18:52, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:07 PM, landis blackwell >>> wrote: No fun allowed >>> Are you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 Aaron Bauman wrote: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:54:11 AM JST Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:52:09 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote: > > >> On Sat, 7

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 Aaron Bauman wrote: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:54:11 AM JST Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:52:09 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote: > > >> On Sat, 7

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] distutils-r1.eclass: Do not apply patches if DISTUTILS_OPTIONAL is used

Do not apply PATCHES and user patches (either via the EAPI 6 default or pre-EAPI 5 code) when DISTUTILS_OPTIONAL is being used. In this case, distutils functions are usually called conditionally, in a subdirectory, while both PATCHES and user patches are usually intended to be applied top-level.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On Sun, 15 May 2016 11:05:21 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or > > reading diffs before committing? > > > Somebody could have a go

[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: sci-libs/torch

# David Seifert (15 May 2016) # Masked for removal. Deprecated, relies on ancient CUDA APIs, # does not build with current CUDA releases. See bug #583068. sci-libs/torch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or > reading diffs before committing? Somebody could have a go at implementing this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390651 It's been brewing for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] ebuild-writing/misc-files/metadata: rewrite the section per GLEP 67 #572144

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:57:48 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek wrote: > @@ -244,12 +221,7 @@ optional: > without this attribute must also exist. That tag without the restrict > attribute will serve as the default. The format of the restrict > attribute > is that of