Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/5] gui-libs/gtk: add a "poison" macro support to disable X/wayland

2024-06-26 Thread Sam James
Eli Schwartz writes: > On 6/26/24 5:03 AM, Sam James wrote: >> Eli Schwartz writes: >> >>> Many packages perform automagic dependencies on gdk's backend >>> implementations by checking if the macro is defined and then using the >>> code it unlocks, rather than having a buildsystem option such

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/5] gui-libs/gtk: add a "poison" macro support to disable X/wayland

2024-06-26 Thread Eli Schwartz
On 6/26/24 5:03 AM, Sam James wrote: > Eli Schwartz writes: > >> Many packages perform automagic dependencies on gdk's backend >> implementations by checking if the macro is defined and then using the >> code it unlocks, rather than having a buildsystem option such as >> -Dwayland=true. >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/5] kernel-install.eclass: move mount-boot check to, dist-kernel-utils.eclass

2024-06-26 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan wrote: > --- a/eclass/dist-kernel-utils.eclass > +++ b/eclass/dist-kernel-utils.eclass > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ case ${EAPI} in > *) die "${ECLASS}: EAPI ${EAPI:-0} not supported" ;; > esac > > -inherit toolchain-funcs > +inherit

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/5] mount-boot.eclass: check for ESP as well as /boot, split, eclass

2024-06-26 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan wrote: > +# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 6 7 8 AFAICS, no EAPI 6 ebuild inherits mount-boot, so EAPI 6 could be dropped? signature.asc Description: PGP signature

32bit vs 64bit, was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans

2024-06-26 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> 32-bit arches > > This includes stable arches x86, arm, ppc, sparc32, dev arches s390, and > maybe more. Those are in much worse situation, with a mess on various > fronts, some of them super hard to continue support. For example > qtwebengine is less and less likely to manage

Re: ia64, was: Re: Misc arch plans (Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans)

2024-06-26 Thread matoro
On 2024-06-26 16:29, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > ia64 > > Dev 64-bit arch. Kernel dropped support, glibc dropped support, devbox > died - days are short before full exp status or full removal of arch. Yeah, no interest in ia64, sorry. I'd like it to just go. This is probably

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Arch Status and Future Plans

2024-06-26 Thread Immolo
Hi all, As a 32bit user on many arches I'll try to answer Flow's question below. On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 07:38, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > Hi Arthur, > > thanks for taking the time to write this mail. > > On 25/06/2024 19.33, Arthur Zamarin wrote: > > x86 > > > > Stable 32-bit

ia64, was: Re: Misc arch plans (Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans)

2024-06-26 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> > ia64 > > > > Dev 64-bit arch. Kernel dropped support, glibc dropped support, devbox > > died - days are short before full exp status or full removal of arch. > > Yeah, no interest in ia64, sorry. I'd like it to just go. This is probably unavoidable given that our devbox and

riscv, was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans

2024-06-26 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> riscv > > Dev arch. I don't have much info on it, but I heard some mess with > riscv32 and riscv64, so maybe time to split it? I leave it to riscv arch > team, which works quite well, but I'll be happy to open discussion for it. riscv is something new and growing, but for now

Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans

2024-06-26 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> alpha > > Exp arch, with nearly (or maybe already) full correct dep-tree. matoro > did a lot of great work here, so I think we should promote it to dev > arch, so dep-tree remains unbroken. We dekeyworded a lot of stuff, > cleaned it up, so a nice "completion bonus". > >

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 5/5] sys-firmware/intel-microcode: complain less when /boot is not, mounted

2024-06-26 Thread Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan
From c5cf62a41038e344312d8758a4ba232fcd726053 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Ammerlaan Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:36:46 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] sys-firmware/intel-microcode: complain less when /boot is not mounted When using dist-kernel users can correct the problem and then emerge

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 4/5] sys-kernel/linux-firmware: complain less when /boot is not, mounted

2024-06-26 Thread Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan
From 45a34aecafa64a666976e3d3d7944f8c8ff1e058 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Ammerlaan Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:32:42 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] sys-kernel/linux-firmware: complain less when /boot is not mounted when using dist-kernel we can correct the problem and then emerge --config ...

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/5] linux-mod-r1.eclass: check /boot if we are re-installing, dist-kernel

2024-06-26 Thread Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan
From 3c5267472fb72223336063007173157a5de3f0cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Ammerlaan Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:15:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] linux-mod-r1.eclass: check /boot if we are re-installing dist-kernel Previous commit already adds the check when we call

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/5] kernel-install.eclass: move mount-boot check to, dist-kernel-utils.eclass

2024-06-26 Thread Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan
From c4c5ef732670f8b23f20b1215af49cdceacd28a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Ammerlaan Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:12:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] kernel-install.eclass: move mount-boot check to dist-kernel-utils.eclass ebuilds and eclasses using dist-kernel_reinstall_initramfs should also

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/5] mount-boot.eclass: check for ESP as well as /boot, split, eclass

2024-06-26 Thread Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan
From 53f844361df57d480480b5e0ab0f35d2788ebf6a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Ammerlaan Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:08:49 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] mount-boot.eclass: check for ESP as well as /boot, split eclass This eclass is used by when the dist-kernel has to re-installed. Depending on

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/5] mount-boot.eclass: revises /boot checking for dist-kernels, add checks for ESP

2024-06-26 Thread Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan
Part of: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/37292 This series builds on the previous patch: "kernel-build.eclass: identify dist-kernels, and warn users" Effectively, the change amounts to harmonizing the way ebuilds/eclasses using "dist-kernel_reinstall_initramfs" re-install the

nomenclature, was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans

2024-06-26 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> As you all know, Gentoo supports many various arches, in various degrees > (stable, dev, exp). Let me explain those 3 statuses fast: > > * stable arch - meaning we have stable profile for this arch, and stable > keywords across base-system + varying degree of seriousness. We stable > stuff

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] kernel-build.eclass: identify dist-kernels, and warn users

2024-06-26 Thread Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan
Part of https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/37281 From c88eee66089333fbcee6377b5f580e70a4ec2a8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Ammerlaan Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 22:18:46 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] kernel-build.eclass: identify dist-kernels, and warn users Many, many, new users at some

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/5] gui-libs/gtk: add a "poison" macro support to disable X/wayland

2024-06-26 Thread Sam James
Eli Schwartz writes: > Many packages perform automagic dependencies on gdk's backend > implementations by checking if the macro is defined and then using the > code it unlocks, rather than having a buildsystem option such as > -Dwayland=true. > Doesn't gtk3 need this too? Also, could we have an

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/5] Fixing automagic dependencies on gtk[wayland,X],

2024-06-26 Thread Sam James
Eli Schwartz writes: > There is a bug in how gtk 3 and gtk 4 are built against by other > packages. GTK supports optionally enabling X and wayland support -- when > you do so, the ABI of GTK changes. The series looks good to me, but I'd like leio to ack it before we merge it. It's not ideal,

[gentoo-dev] Re: Arch Status and Future Plans

2024-06-26 Thread Christian Bricart
Am 26.06.24 um 09:38 schrieb Florian Schmaus: Hi Arthur, thanks for taking the time to write this mail. On 25/06/2024 19.33, Arthur Zamarin wrote: x86 Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should be stable arch anymore. I have the impression as

[gentoo-dev] Re: Arch Status and Future Plans

2024-06-26 Thread Florian Schmaus
Hi Arthur, thanks for taking the time to write this mail. On 25/06/2024 19.33, Arthur Zamarin wrote: x86 Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should be stable arch anymore. I have the impression as well. The time to drop stable keywords for x86