On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:05:57PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 06:42 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Leaving it such that the PM has to enforce things like "don't have
> > multiple EAPI assignments" means by default, one of them isn't going
> &
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:05:26AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 01:36 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> 1) User downloads an overlay that doesn't provide cache. We want the
> >> packag
r that's incapable of looking for
> > > regex "^EAPI=" in a textfile, amd parsing the numbers that follow,
> > > has no business being used to process ebuilds.
> >
> > That doesn't get you the EAPI.
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:03:34AM -070
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 07:50:36PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including the
> > version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it doesn't
> > require us to guess what's going t
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:10:14PM +0100, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On 13.03.2012 07:22, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Still is god awfuly fugly though, and reliant on digits as the first
> > character to be readable. Consider exheres:
> > dev-foo/foo-bar-2.3.4.eapiexheres.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 02:41:13AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote
>
> > This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
> > use GLEP 55.
>
> A filename should not be (ab)used as a database. The main argument for
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:14:23PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 17:31, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Worse, it actually makes parsing _worse_ than it already is. ??What G55
> > had going for it was ease of filtering out unsupported eapi's.
> > Literally just
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> > If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a varia
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 06:55 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:06:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Yeah. Another way of putting it is that the requirement to spawn a bash
> >> process a
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:47:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 09:31 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >>
> What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at
> 'synta
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:06:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 11:20 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:49:44 -0500
> > Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> isnt the whole point of the proposal to get eapi without sourcing ?
>
> so that we can use new bash featu
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:52:40PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:31:24 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > >
> > >>> What if bash starts to parse the script completely a
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> >> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
> >> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
> >> think all the package managers planned on
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 02:37:07AM +, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> 2011/12/28 Zac Medico :
> > On 12/28/2011 05:12 AM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >> Seem to me that append a time slice to the function, in the name or as
> >> a parent function that call the underling function can solve most of
> >> th
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:42:15AM +0100, justin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to add
> arches after a "time out". At least not after a such a short one. The
> maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is their
> responsibility to
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:20:51PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> now that portage has ACCEPT_LICENSE support natively, we can go ahead and
> drop
> the manual check_license logic from all ebuilds/eclasses
When you punt it, might as well integrate the `ifndef EUTILS_IMPORTED
... `
bit in the p
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:27:48 -0800
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Simple example of why sets.conf cannot be relied on:
> >
> > # xorg sets
> > [x11-module-rebuild]
> > class = portage.sets.dbapi.Var
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:06:33PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 16:52:55 Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 12/06/2011 10:04 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set which is
> > > what would come in a stage3 rather than the c
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:10:17PM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > [...]
> > The dependency must be on both levels, because the SELinux module must be
> > installed before the package is installed (and in theory, RDEPEND could
> > trigger a
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 07:29:03AM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:15:12 -0800
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:22:44AM +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > On 12/03/2011 12:11 AM, Brian Harring (ferringb) wrote:
> > >
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:22:44AM +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 12:11 AM, Brian Harring (ferringb) wrote:
> > ferringb11/12/03 00:11:17
> >
> > Modified: ChangeLog Added:
> > pkgcore-0.7.7.1.ebuild Removed: pkgcore-0.7.6.1.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:48:15AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote:
> 2011/11/11 Brian Harring :
> The build issue was with -cups so useflag was removed and hard
> dependency enabled, fine with me.
> But why the fuck the bump was issued next day still hard-depending on
> it and in
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x
>
> 1x rebuild for cups useflag
> 1x update
> 1x rebuild for cups useflag
Chromium moves fast and you're obviously running unstable keywording.
Meaning you're *intentional
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 04:47:55PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> with the previously proposed/accepted GLEP 27 stalled, i'm looking into
> mitigating the current suckiness of enew{user,group}/egetent. the first step
> is simple: let's split these funcs out of eutils.eclass and into a dedicated
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:26:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 October 2011 14:53:07 Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the
> > >
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the
> toolchain.eclass supports multiple versions in parallel, and the IUSE value
> can vary greatly between them. so doing `use foo` without checking IUSE
> first
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 03:29:19PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM, "Pawe?? Hajdan, Jr."
> wrote:
> > OK, so what are the _blocking_ reasons for no EAPI 4 support in
> > python.eclass yet?
> >
> > I understand you have some complicated patches in flight etc etc, but
> >
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:58:02AM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 09/24/2011 02:40 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> >> This was just another episode of Vapier's hostile and arrogant behavior
> >> towards users. Every time someone comes up with a valid argument of why
> >> he's wrong, the final answe
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:16:46PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 04:22 Sun 18 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:59:08PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > What I said from the ge
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
> > Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly
>
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:46:10PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > At least an initial read suggests that you just multiplied the mirror
> > space requirements by however many times you use this trick. ?I don't
> > believe infra
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:59:08PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that pushing EAPI
> > implementation into the tree and ignoring EAPI, or having this notion
> >
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26:57PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
> >> matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 07:30:14AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 02:06 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > Specious argument; the point of controllable stacking was to avoid the
> > issue of overlay's forcing their eclasses upon gentoo-x86 ebuilds
> > (w
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:08:36AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:54:47 +0200
> Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either
> > > by its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and
> > > because otherwise we
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:00:19PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 20
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
> > > in useflags? My qui
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 01:45:23PM -0700, "Paweee Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 9/15/11 1:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
> > Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
> >> get caught with non-booting systems.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:35:21AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:53:50 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
> > "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
> > > I second the allowing dots in USE flag names. Definitely would be
> > > helpful for declaring
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:15:59AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:19:35 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > however, why wont this work sanely in src_* or pkg_* funcs ? the env
> > there is the one constructed by the PM which includes the merged IUSE
> > values.
>
> It's no
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > useful enough for EAP
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:43:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 23:04:06 Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:45:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 19:08:09 Brian Harring wrote:
> > &g
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:45:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 19:08:09 Brian Harring wrote:
> > Making it overridable seems wiser-
> >
> > usex() {
> > local flag="$1"
> > local tval=${2-yes}
> >
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > useful enough for EAPI ? or should i just stick it into eutils.eclass
> > ? OR BOTH !?
>
> I prefer to avoid EAPI whenever possible, as it just makes things slower
> and more
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 06:13:10PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 18:01:25 Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > this is so i can do:
> > >export some_var=$(usex some_flag)
> > > and get it set to "yes" or "no"
> >
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:53:50PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
> "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
> > I second the allowing dots in USE flag names. Definitely would be
> > helpful for declaring version related USE
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:31:29AM -0700, Tim Harder wrote:
> On 2011-08-24 Wed 00:21, Diego Elio Petten?? wrote:
> > Il giorno mar, 23/08/2011 alle 23.52 -0700, Tim Harder ha scritto:
> > > I thought xz-utils can be assumed as well since it was added to the
> > > system set almost six months ago [
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 08:54:54AM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > Purely as a quality of implementation issue, scheduling a PDEPEND
> > reasonably soon after (or even before) the package requiring it may be
> > a good idea, simply beca
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:28:51PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get
> > wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:34:21PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > That's not a "massive change" to vdb behaviour either; file
> > collisions aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the fil
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
> Jonathan Callen wrote:
> > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use
> > portage". Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if
> > they *do not* match the che
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:55:02PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 07:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr:
> >> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the
> >> game". It's those that want to break existing
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:43:21PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> A. Storing tag data in metadata.xml ( package -> tag association )
> B. Developing a tool that aggregates the contents of metadata.xml to
> produce a cache for the data going the other way ( tag -> package )
>
> People searching for
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 08:02:57AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Here's a completely different way of doing tags:
>
> First, standardise sets. We probably want to go with a format along the
> lines of:
>
> eapi = 4
> description = Monkeys
>
> dev-monkey/howler
> dev-monkey/spid
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die;
> > at the time of the rule, portage couldn't handle resolving graphs of
> > th
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:41:54PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:14:06AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:58:56 +0200
> > Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >
> > > Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebuilds DEPEND on
> > > sys-apps/sed, which is a s
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> As I suggested earlier, I'm attaching an example implementation
> of github-snapshot.eclass.
>
> All the eclass does is providing a default src_unpack() unpacking
> the github snapshot into ${S}. Right now it simply do
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:05:03AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 30 Mai 2011, 23:55:52 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > If someone has a definition that is commonsense, then propose it- the
> > current "you must log everything" is very, very heavy handed and
&
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 04:03:42PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Птн, 20/05/2011 в 13:19 +0300, Mart Raudsepp пишет:
> > On T, 2011-05-17 at 13:32 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110510-summary.txt
> > >
> > > Please note that you must now upd
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
> What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
> still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards
> of a loss of integrity there aren't as high as with most of the tree
> content. It'd
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog
> and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of having the rsync
> servers create the Changelogs before populate the portage tree. Having
> the servers d
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:06:47PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
This argument sucks; if the tool
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:27:47PM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2011-04-04 13:48:43 Brian Harring napisał(a):
> > > # @ECLASS: python-namespaces.eclass
> > > # @MAINTAINER:
> > > # Gentoo Python Project
> > > # @BLURB: Eclass fo
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I am actually with Samuli on this. Unless there is a particular reason
> for removing a package, I don't see any point of documenting this change
> anywhere.
> What difference would it make to you if you see an entry " -foo-1.0
> o
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:06:37AM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> This openrc upgrade is the *least* painful Gentoo upgrade I have
> experienced. What a waste of time (IMO) to "script" some defaults.
Basically answering my question- it wasn't considered since it
ain't worth the time.
Danke- consi
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:03:43AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
Frankly getting fairly annoyed people are immediately taking it to
the rhel/ubuntu extremes- that is *not* what I asked and is frankly
a strawman argument. Occasional pain on upgrades is a given in
gentoo, although anyone claiming
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 07:13:59AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Brian Harring posted on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:59:45 -0700 as excerpted:
>
> > Checking the boot levels, udev included, same thing- if ROOT=/ and
> > baselayout is there already you likely *could* look at the running
> &
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 09:19:50PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:41:35AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Exact results please; the pkg_pretend crap proposed elsewhere (which
> > is yet another way to crap up stage builds) frankly sucks.
> >
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:39:04PM +0200, Lars Wendler wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 21 April 2011, 03:12:21 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > It seems like nobody's really clear on what exactly happens though,
> > since I've seen people talking about this *maybe* resulting in an
> > unbootable system. Has any
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:38:17PM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> I would like to add python-namespaces.eclass. This eclass will be used by a
> small number of
> special packages, which will provide Python namespaces. These packages will
> be used as
> dependencies of other
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:08:53PM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 17:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > is there any reason we should allow people to commit unsigned
> > Manifest's anymore ? generating/posting/enabling a gpg key is
> > ridiculously easy and there's really no
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 09:44:47AM +0100, Michaaa GGGrny wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:34:29 +0100
> Constanze Hausner wrote:
>
> > On 17:44 Sat 05 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > * some filesystems don't support xattrs at all, and the package
> > > manager needs to support installing to
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:24:46AM +0100, "Paweee Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/6/11 1:50 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> >> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
> >
> > This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED?
>
> I don&#
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 05:34:29PM +0100, Constanze Hausner wrote:
> On 17:44 Sat 05 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > * tar and xattrs is a massive problem, so how do binaries work?
> tar can be patched to support xattrs. If we want to use caps, we will
> have to apply those patches too. (iirc
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:22:09PM +0100, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
>
> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
This seems mildly insane; sure you didn'
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 02:24:22PM +0100, Constanze Hausner wrote:
> fcaps() {
> debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "$@"
> debug-print "${FUNCNAME}: Trying to set capabilities for ${4}"
> local uid_gid=$1
> local perms=$2
> export fallbackFileMode=$perms
> local ca
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:15:01PM +0100, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 17:02 Mon 03 Jan , Alex Alexander wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:40:57PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > > Quoting PMS, Chapter 8:
> > >
> > > This is very inconvinent rule for example, github tarballs where the
> > >
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:57:21PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Enrico Weigelt schrieb:
>
> Sorry, forgot the attachement ;-o
This doesn't pick up eclasses, fails on EAPI='1', and generally, isn't
the best way- use proper tools please, they exist for a reason.
Quick scan of the tree via `p
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 05:33:06PM +0200, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> > There's still that stupid !virtual/blah thing to deal with. Old style
> > virtual providers are allowed to block their own virtual to mean "there
> > must not be any other provider of this installed" (although it's not
> > clear wha
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:34:09PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:18:46 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > And by "right now", I assume you meant to say "minimally a year down
> > the line after a portage is stabled supporting g55 semantic
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:05:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles. i dont have a strong
> >> opinion on that small su
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:05:34 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > > GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514.
> > > GLEP 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55
> > solves all EAPI issues/world hunger.
> >
> > Seriously, if t
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 08:46:07AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:48:32 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > Regardless of my personal opinions about the technical issues on this
> > glep, I agree with the above statement. I am personally tired of
> > seeing the discussion flar
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:26:46PM +0200, Tom Chvvvtal wrote:
> Hi,
> since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
> agenda.
>
> I am adding this mail only to g-dev and g-dev-announce to see if
> everyone notice, sorry if it slip your radar. Also if you have something
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 06:48:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:27:32 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > As for 'blatant hack', if you've got no users nor preexisting ebuild
> > data, you can design whatever you want- it's quite easy t
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:15:15PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 04:27, Brian Harring wrote:
> > If an EAPI adds a new global function that cannot set/influence EAPI,
> > PM's that don't support that EAPI will spit complaints about 'missing
> &g
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 07:22:20PM +0200, Matti Bickel wrote:
> On 08/05/2010 05:27 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > If a PM encounters an EAPI it doesn't understand/support, by
> > definition the metadata it tried generating is not usable- the PM
> > doesn't support
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:55:07PM +0200, Matti Bickel wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 10:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Aren't you really after per-package eclasses, not elibs?
>
> Yes. I don't care whether the snippets may affect metadata. They already
> don't (at one time they did, but we got warned
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:05:11PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Срд, 04/08/2010 в 09:42 +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto пишет:
> > There are already a few bugs that can be attributed to this.
>
> Ok, let's say that this depends on upstream. And for Gentoo this means
> that the decision how to
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:18:59PM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> A milder warning will be printed.
Guessing you didn't get the part about "no warning should be put in"
that everyone stated? You're ignoring that this message also will
make users think that switching their
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:56:08AM +0200, Matti Bickel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been told that my use of eblits in dev-lang/php is something I
> should get rid of as soon as possible. Suggested alternative by ferring:
> use elibs.
>
> So here goes: I want to see GLEP33[1] implemented in portag
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:49:21AM -0700, "Paweee Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 7/29/10 8:48 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > It's basically annoying people into changing to partially
> > sidestep a couple of bugs, instead of fixing the issue- and that's the
> >
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 05:15:19AM +0200, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 07/30/10 01:16, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > + eerror "See http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/utf-8.xml for
> > information on how to fix locale."
>
> I'm with Brian on this one - my locale (C/POSIX) is no
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 01:16:42AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> --- python.eclass
> +++ python.eclass
> @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@
> # Check if phase is pkg_setup().
> [[ "${EBUILD_PHASE}" != "setup" ]] && die "${FUNCNAME}() can be used
> only in pkg_setup() phase"
>
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 06:21:03AM +0300, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> wrote:
> > I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
> > Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
> > ML do
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 01:54:43AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> this is being used in the tree already.
Doesn't make it right ;)
> IIRC, since the introduction of EAPI-2 in the tree, there were a few
> solutions present to the dev ml and the one agreed by people was the
> abuse of d
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:56:05AM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> case ${EAPI:-0} in
> 2|3|4) ;;
> *) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;;
> esac
>
> why not:
>
> case ${EAPI:-0} in
> 0|1) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;;
> esac
Do not go adding invalid DEPEND like that. Make the eclass die
inst
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 01:05:02AM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> The Council will have its next meeting on the 26th of July, 2010.
>
> The meeting will begin at 1900 UTC.
>
> You may use [0] to find out the correct time in your timezone.
>
> Here's a draft list of the meeting topics so far:
> *
101 - 200 of 735 matches
Mail list logo
