-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/16/2013 11:57 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
El vie, 15-11-2013 a las 23:39 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
Dnia 2013-11-15, o godz. 14:53:00 Ben de Groot
yng...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
As I see it now, with respect to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:09:10 +0100
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
multilib eclasses as a whole were a big failure, both for users
(enough examples given here)
You mean those failures where they mix branches and thus cause blockers
between the
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:57:23 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
2: multilib-portage
I think this has been discussed multiple times, if I don't
misremember, PMS team is not willing to accept it until the
specification is done... and we are waiting for that for years
probably
El vie, 15-11-2013 a las 23:39 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
Dnia 2013-11-15, o godz. 14:53:00
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing
solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a
distro:
1:
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
El vie, 15-11-2013 a las 23:39 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
Dnia 2013-11-15, o godz. 14:53:00
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing
solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a
On 11/15/2013 03:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Ben de Groot wrote:
As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing
solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a
distro:
1: emul-* packages
2: multilib-portage
3: multilib.eclass
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't really want to bring up this episode again, but it is a
telling example, which you asked for.
I appreciate that. I did ask for an example. I'll also limit my
comments just to things that I think are more helpful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/11/13 02:13 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Ben de Groot wrote:
As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three
competing solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want
to go as a distro:
1: emul-*
Matt Turner wrote:
I think in large part recently it's because of use.stable.mask and
package.use.stable.mask. These really are a nightmare for users.
..
I think most of the confusion is caused by the necessity to put a
*stable* package atom into package.keywords to unmask a *USE* flag.
A lot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/11/13 10:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Matt Turner wrote:
I think in large part recently it's because of use.stable.mask
and package.use.stable.mask. These really are a nightmare for
users.
..
I think most of the confusion is caused by the
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:56:32 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
Attempting to merge =x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1
results in:
x11-proto/kbproto:0
(x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
pulled in by (no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:56:32 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
Attempting to merge =x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1
results in:
x11-proto/kbproto:0
(x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
pulled in by (no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/11/13 02:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:56:32 -0800 Matt Turner
matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
Attempting to merge =x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1 results in:
x11-proto/kbproto:0
(x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1::gentoo, ebuild
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:56:32 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
Attempting to merge =x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1
results in:
x11-proto/kbproto:0
(x11-proto/kbproto-1.0.6-r1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:56:32 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
There's a single problem. It can't enable abi_x86_32. Why didn't it
just say that?
As per the full output, it does:
!!! Enabling --newuse and --update might solve this conflict.
!!! If not, it might help emerge to give
Tom Wijsman wrote:
!!! Enabling --newuse and --update might solve this conflict.
!!! If not, it might help emerge to give a more specific suggestion.
That together with ABI_X86=(64) (-32*) (-x32) from the package line
makes it clear that it is trying to change that USE flag.
I disagree
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:10:41 +0100
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
!!! Enabling --newuse and --update might solve this conflict.
!!! If not, it might help emerge to give a more specific suggestion.
That together with ABI_X86=(64) (-32*) (-x32) from the package
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:56:32 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
There's a single problem. It can't enable abi_x86_32. Why didn't it
just say that?
As per the full output, it does:
!!! Enabling --newuse and
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:25:47 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Imagine I had simply forgotten to unmask the abi_x86_32 USE flag for
kbproto but was attempting to emerge unstable (or unmasked abi_x86_32)
libXt.
Tom Wijsman wrote:
Does replacing this explicit behavior by implicit behavior make
sense for the users in general?
Please don't warp the words. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like
that's what you're doing.
I'll try to clarify:
With explicit I was refering to allowing manual setting and
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:25:47 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Imagine I had simply forgotten to unmask the abi_x86_32 USE flag for
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:09:04 +0100
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
Does replacing this explicit behavior by implicit behavior make
sense for the users in general?
Please don't warp the words. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like
that's what you're doing.
I'll
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:21:53 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:25:47 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:21:53 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:25:47 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
I'm not sure if making broken (or experimental) things more easily
available or a suggestion would be a good idea; people already have
enough trouble as it is, adding more doesn't seem to be the right way.
It's not about broken/experimental, it's about the logical
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:29 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:21:53 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:57:06 +0100
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
I'm not sure if making broken (or experimental) things more easily
available or a suggestion would be a good idea; people already have
enough trouble as it is, adding more doesn't seem to be the right
Tom Wijsman wrote:
portage should say, with as similar wording as possible:
If you want to emerge libXt with those USE flags then you'll also
have to set those same USE flags for libYt and libZt because libXt
DEPENDs on them.
Bonus points:
Would you like me to set those USE
Dnia 2013-11-15, o godz. 14:53:00
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing
solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a
distro:
1: emul-* packages
2: multilib-portage
3: multilib.eclass
I would
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 23:26:57 +0100
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
portage should say, with as similar wording as possible:
If you want to emerge libXt with those USE flags then you'll also
have to set those same USE flags for libYt and libZt because libXt
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 23:39:34 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2013-11-15, o godz. 14:53:00
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing
solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a
On 11/14/2013 01:13 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-11-14, o godz. 07:49:55
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is
{package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
So just fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time ...
Have any problems appeared that impact anybody who hasn't tried to
take advantage of the new multilib features (ie modified their config
files/etc)?
On 14 November 2013 13:13, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2013-11-14, o godz. 07:49:55
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is
{package.,}use.stable.masked
On 11/14/2013 08:13 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
So just fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time ...
Have any problems appeared that impact anybody who hasn't tried to
take advantage of the new multilib
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14 November 2013 13:13, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
And how is it possible to discuss anything properly in Gentoo?
That's because we have no proper leadership. We're an anarchistic
collection of people
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Apart from me masking a few things because portage couldn't figure out a
way to a consistent state, and all that ...
That is vague. It may be true, but it does nothing to help anybody
understand what is going on. I
On 14 November 2013 20:32, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14 November 2013 13:13, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
And how is it possible to discuss anything properly in Gentoo?
That's because we have no
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I said
As it is always happy to point out, Council doesn't see itself as
leadership, just as a supreme court of appeal, when everything else
seems to have failed. It likes to get involved as little as possible.
The last
On 14 November 2013 23:12, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I said
As it is always happy to point out, Council doesn't see itself as
leadership, just as a supreme court of appeal, when everything else
seems to have
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was particularly hit by this as maintainer of freetype, see bugs
455070 and 459352 for some of the mess that could have been avoided.
Looks like 455070 was the source of problems there (the other is just
a tracker with
Dnia 2013-11-14, o godz. 20:03:36
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 11/14/2013 01:13 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multilib_porting_status
That's the closest thing to a roadmap.
So just fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time ...
Rich Freeman schrieb:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
So just fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time ...
Have any problems appeared that impact anybody who hasn't tried to
take advantage of the new multilib features (ie modified
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:07:39 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
- multilib-portage was planned to add features with a future EAPI
version, so in the end needs agreement from maintainers of package
managers, the pms team and the council. If anyone from those groups
only claims you
On 11/15/2013 01:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
So tell me, what you exactly want or need? Or is it just bare
complaining for the sake of complaining?
Well, you accidentally cut out all references to TommyD's work again.
Almost as if you don't even want to discuss a working proper solution
that
On 11/15/2013 03:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:07:39 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
- multilib-portage was planned to add features with a future EAPI
version, so in the end needs agreement from maintainers of package
managers, the pms team and the council.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Martin Vaeth
va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
The new features use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
have turned maintaining systems with mixed ARCH and ~ARCH keywords
into a nightmare:
I agree. I have helped two friends convert to Gentoo recently
On 15 November 2013 17:56, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
After using it for a month, he's now convinced that
Gentoo is clearly the most difficult to use.
I'm inclined to agree,
I'd have to disagree there slightly, arch is more easy to use if you
stick to the core set, the binary
On 15 November 2013 01:32, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was particularly hit by this as maintainer of freetype, see bugs
455070 and 459352 for some of the mess that could have been avoided.
Looks like 455070 was
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Ben de Groot wrote:
As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing
solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a
distro:
1: emul-* packages
2: multilib-portage
3: multilib.eclass
I would like to vote for option 1, as it is the
Hello.
The new features use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
have turned maintaining systems with mixed ARCH and ~ARCH keywords
into a nightmare:
Similarly to the (fortunately dropped) concept of forcing
useflags if certain packages are installed this forces a
magic on the user which can
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:28:02 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
Hello.
The new features use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
have turned maintaining systems with mixed ARCH and ~ARCH keywords
into a nightmare:
They are considered unsupported by many;
Hi,
On 11/13/2013 12:39 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:28:02 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
Hello.
The new features use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
have turned maintaining systems with mixed ARCH and ~ARCH keywords
into a
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/13/2013 12:39 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:28:02 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
Hello.
The new features use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
have turned
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:25:11 +0100
Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/13/2013 12:39 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:28:02 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
Hello.
The new features use.stable.mask and
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:37:51 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
That said, your original email contained a few separate issues and
they're probably best dealt with individually.
Just to set things straight: Note that these were different authors.
We're not going to have a common
Dnia 2013-11-13, o godz. 10:28:02
Martin Vaeth va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de napisał(a):
As I understand, it tries to solve a social issue
(that an ARCH user might set a USE-flag which eventually
pulls in an ~ARCH package) on a technical level
(by forcibly disabling the USE-flag for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/13 09:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
1. For several reasons I always want the most current
emul-linux-x86* libraries, so they are in
package.accept_keywords. Due to global ABI_X86=32 (which I also
want), this forced me of course to put
On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is
{package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to manage the partial
transisition between emul-* and multilib-build dependencies
^^
Why is there a partial random transition
Dnia 2013-11-14, o godz. 07:49:55
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is
{package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to manage the partial
transisition between
60 matches
Mail list logo
