> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> Let's also add -c for C programs, and -cxx for C++ programs. -py for
> pure Python stuff, -cpy when stuff includes extensions compiled in
> C, -cxxpy extensions in C++. We should also have special -x86asm
> suffix for packages that rely on non-porta
Hello, everyone.
I'd like to point out a major problem in Gentoo: there's a fair number
of developers who add various local workarounds to problems they meet
and don't bother to report a bug. Worst than that, this applies not
only for upstream problems but also to Gentoo eclass/ebuild-related
issu
On 17/10/16 08:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems
> to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in
> this thread.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Antarus/Package_Tags
>
> Ulrich
Looks rational to me .. blockers
On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to
> > hopefully get less binaries that are from source.
> >
> > To start I just wan
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:17:48 AM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems
> to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in
> this thread.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Antarus/Package_Tags
That is interestin
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:37:28 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to
>
On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:17:48 AM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems
>> to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in
>> this thread.
>> https://wiki.gentoo.o
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:20:42 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> Part of the idea everyone is missing is time... It takes time to go look at
> information a package metadata.xml If the package is coming in as a
> dependency. Instead of just being able to visually look at the package name
>
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides a
> direct technical benefit you cannot achieve with a USE flag.
>
> > If anything, I'd imagine if that case arose, it would manifest itself more
> > a
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:41:13 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. NO more.
It would be far better to simply have a PROPERTIES field in ebuilds or somesuch:
PROPERTIES="binary:upstream"
or
PROPERTIES="binary:gentoo"
Assuming th
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:23:09 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Therefore, I'd like to request establishing an official policy against
> workarounds with no associated bug reports.
>
> Your thoughts?
Obviously I assume this is still a "to taste" thing, because when
you're packaging something, and you
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> I'd like to point out a major problem in Gentoo: there's a fair number
> of developers who add various local workarounds to problems they meet
> and don't bother to report a bug. Worst than that, this applies not
> only
Monday 17 Oct 2016 09:23:09, Michał Górny wrote :
> Hello, everyone.
>
> I'd like to point out a major problem in Gentoo: there's a fair number
> of developers who add various local workarounds to problems they meet
> and don't bother to report a bug. Worst than that, this applies not
> only for u
Hi,
I'll take the coordiation role for FOSDEM 2017 again. I have already
submitted stand request to FOSDEM and hope we get accepted this year again.
If you want to contribute to the planning for this event please join
fosdem@g.o alias and #gentoo-fosdem on IRC.
Wiki page is set up at https://wik
On 17/10/2016 12:42, Patrice Clement wrote:
> We don't need yet another policy to "fix" two problems you've
> encountered
+1 ; policies don't always fix things
It's a worthwhile guideline though - as Gentoo devs, and maybe even
wider community, we should work together to fix problems.
That's one
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
>> NO more.
> I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo is a
> source-based distro .. any binaries are a last-resort or
My biggest opinion regarding workarounds and bugs, is that we're sweeping
things under the rug that should at least be documented, and perhaps
fixed...or even punted upstream if its serious enough.
Changing the status quo may require some adjustment though, but I suppose
we could start by openly
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
> Changing the status quo may require some adjustment though, but I suppose we
> could start by openly documenting a bug if we find a workaround that does
> not already have a bug number associated with it. I've seen several ebuilds
> whe
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:29:15 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides
> > a
> > direct technical benefit you cannot achieve with a USE flag.
> >
> > > I
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:46:12 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:41:13 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. NO more.
>
> It would be far better to simply have a PROPERTIES field in ebuilds or
> somesuc
On Monday 17 October 2016 09:23:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
Hello.
Coacher's here.
> Example 2: Coacher had problem with git-r3 not trying fallback URIs
> when earlier URI was https and https wasn't supported in git. So he
> reordered URIs to have https last. With tiny explanation
On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:20:19 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
> > On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
> >> NO more.
> >
> > I don't see what problem you are trying to
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:40:57 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:37:28 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
> > >
> > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > >
On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
>> for distinction."
> Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not
> address
> the pr
On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
> >> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
> >> for distinction."
> >
> > Essentially
On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
>>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
>>> for distinction."
>> Essentially what I would like to see in
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:52:24 AM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > >> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
> > >> equivalent, the name of the f
On 10/17/2016 04:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Even if we have a list, what next? There are reasons why they are not
> packaged
> from source, and that will not change. Good to be aware, but without any sort
> of plan or means to address. Not sure it will matter.
The list would be help
My personal opinion:
If you have to work around it, its already a bug.
On 17/10/16 14:52, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with
On 17/10/16 03:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> I'd like to point out a major problem in Gentoo: there's a fair number
> of developers who add various local workarounds to problems they meet
> and don't bother to report a bug. Worst than that, this applies not
> only for upstream
On 17/10/16 15:09, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 04:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> Even if we have a list, what next? There are reasons why they are not
>> packaged
>> from source, and that will not change. Good to be aware, but without any
>> sort
>> of plan or means to
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:23:09 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Example: udev people had problems with MULTILIB_WRAPPED_HEADERS
> in the past. Instead of contacting me (which would result in helpful
> explanation how to do things properly), they abused bash to disable
> the check function implic
On Monday, October 17, 2016 3:52:52 PM EDT Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> Off the top of my head I'm only aware of libreoffice-bin myself (and
> then it is a clear alternative to libreoffice if wanting the source),
> providing this as a binary is a convenience to end-users not wanting to
> spend
On Monday, October 17, 2016 3:13:32 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 15:09, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 10/17/2016 04:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> Even if we have a list, what next? There are reasons why they are not
> >> packaged from source, and that will not change.
On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:52:52 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
> >>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
>
>> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
>>> NO more.
>
>> I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo
On 17/10/16 10:54 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided
> optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build
> process,
> last I checked...but that was a few years ago.
>
Mozilla project has a dev that's supportin
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
>
> > On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
> >> NO more.
>
> > I don't see what problem you are trying t
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:39:25 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>
> > PROPERTIES="binary:upstream"
> >
> > or
> >
> > PROPERTIES="binary:gentoo"
> >
> > Assuming the right tooling, this allows a way to "canonically" define
> > what the type of binary is, and allow people to make whatever ch
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:32:30 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being
> > unable to test with one and the other co-installed?
>
> Did you see the comment where portage has this function now?
I don't actually know what he'
On Monday, October 17, 2016 11:01:40 AM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 17/10/16 10:54 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> > There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided
> > optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build
> > process, last I checked...but that
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:32:30 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being
> > > unable to test with one and the other co-installed?
> >
> > Did you see the
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > There's a lot of "but what if you care!??!" things, perhaps this may be
> > an important one to you, but some people care a lot about LICENSE and
> > some peopl
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> "Gentoo usually builds its packages from source. Exceptionally,
>> a binary package can be provided instead (e.g., if upstream doesn't
>> provide a source) or in addition. Such packages
On 10/17/2016 01:43 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> There is also no particular policy that I am aware of for ensuring
> packages are designed to be built from source first and foremost.
If all you're looking for is something to cite, then binary packages run
afoul of most of our existing QA and
On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > > There's a lot of "but what if you care!??!" things, perhaps this may be
> > > an import
On 10/17/2016 11:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
NO more.
On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:37:28 AM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree
> > >
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:09:52 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> does that even make sense when the blob or helper utility is only used by
> that package?
Makes it more useful in vetting and deploying security concerns.
pgpWmx3Rs8P_O.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > > > Th
On 10/14/2016 1:36 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
>> Problem
>> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages.
>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
>> not clear if tha
On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
> > >
> > > Portage shows the repo it comes from because it is
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:03:02 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 17 O
On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:34:15 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:03:02 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
> > >
> > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > > On Mond
William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 01:36:33 -0400 as
excerpted:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 4:37:50 AM EDT Duncan wrote:
>> William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400 as
>>
>> excerpted:
>> > Then how would you test that against non official? You cannot inst
56 matches
Mail list logo
