On 03/09/2017 05:06 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> "How do we update insecure libraries?" would have been a good question
> to ask *before* adding Go to the tree, because the answer is pretty
> clearly "we can't."
As it is now, if a go-package is to be in stable tree; the package
maintainer adding
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:06:54 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> 2. Work with the PMS team to come up with a solution for the
> problem.
I think dependency labels & parts fill nicely that void.
I have not done proper research about it but I have yet to see a
serious proposal for its inclusion tho
On 03/09/2017 10:36 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:49:08PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 03/08/2017 02:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> Another option is to not force this and rely on everyone to use
>>> --with-bdeps=y to make the rebuild happen.
>>>
>>
>> That feat
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:49:08PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 02:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > Another option is to not force this and rely on everyone to use
> > --with-bdeps=y to make the rebuild happen.
> >
>
> That feature is portage-only. Slot operator deps in DEPE
On 03/08/2017 02:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Another option is to not force this and rely on everyone to use
> --with-bdeps=y to make the rebuild happen.
>
That feature is portage-only. Slot operator deps in DEPEND are meaningless.
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:20 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:44:01AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 03/08/2017 01:27 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:13:38PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:44:01AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 01:27 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:13:38PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >>> If all dev-go libraries wind up in RDEPEND solely to f
On 03/08/2017 01:27 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:13:38PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> If all dev-go libraries wind up in RDEPEND solely to force rebuilds on
>>> upgrades, why not do the same with the standard libra
W dniu 08.03.2017, śro o godzinie 21∶07 +1300, użytkownik Kent Fredric
napisał:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:40:06 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > What I need is a way to force all go programs on your system to rebuild
> > when the version of dev-lang/go on your system changes, and this method
> >
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:40:06 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> What I need is a way to force all go programs on your system to rebuild
> when the version of dev-lang/go on your system changes, and this method
> with virtuals is the only way I can think of to make that happen and
> allow you to remove d
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:13:38PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> If all dev-go libraries wind up in RDEPEND solely to force rebuilds on
>> upgrades, why not do the same with the standard library (dev-lang/go)?
>
> They should not end up in
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:13:38PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 07:02 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
> >
> > You also need to recompile to get security bugs fixed. With go it's not
> > just compiler options, it's also the standard library updates that need
> > a recompile to get.
> >
On 03/07/2017 07:02 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
>
> You also need to recompile to get security bugs fixed. With go it's not
> just compiler options, it's also the standard library updates that need
> a recompile to get.
>
If that's the reasoning, then don't you have the same problem with every
oth
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:51:12 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 05:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was attending SCALE, but now I'm back to answer this.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:46:22PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> What kind of dependency do we nee
On 03/07/2017 05:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was attending SCALE, but now I'm back to answer this.
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:46:22PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> What kind of dependency do we need, anyway? William, are you saying that
>> if I upgrade dev-lang/go, then th
Hi all,
I was attending SCALE, but now I'm back to answer this.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:46:22PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> What kind of dependency do we need, anyway? William, are you saying that
> if I upgrade dev-lang/go, then things will break, but if I delete
> dev-lang/go, everythin
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:36:16 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 04:53 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >>
> >> Back on topic:
> >>
> >> What kind of dependency do we need, anyway? William, are you saying
> >> that if I upgrade dev-lang/go, then things will break, but if I
> >> delete dev-lan
On 03/02/2017 04:53 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>
>> Back on topic:
>>
>> What kind of dependency do we need, anyway? William, are you saying
>> that if I upgrade dev-lang/go, then things will break, but if I delete
>> dev-lang/go, everything is fine?
>
> It's likely like ocaml: you link your progr
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:46:22 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 04:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> > The point is to specify dependencies declaratively. A dependency
> > expresses a dependency, not an action. If you can't express the
> > kind of dependency you need, then we need ei
On 03/02/2017 04:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> The point is to specify dependencies declaratively. A dependency
> expresses a dependency, not an action. If you can't express the kind of
> dependency you need, then we need either labels or another *DEPEND
> variable to take care of it, not a bo
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:06:45 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 11:24 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 03/02/2017 02:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is why we can't have nice things.
> >>
> >> For those that are interested, I'm planning to to make --with-bdeps
> >> automatical
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:25:54 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 04:06 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with this ^ but I don't think portage should rebuild for
> >> DEPEND at all. It creates one more dangerous "it works in
> >> portage!" situation that will plague users of other p
On 03/02/2017 04:06 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> I agree with this ^ but I don't think portage should rebuild for DEPEND
>> at all. It creates one more dangerous "it works in portage!" situation
>> that will plague users of other package managers.
>>
>> (I'm not saying it couldn't be useful, but it
On 03/02/2017 11:24 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 02:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>
>>> This is why we can't have nice things.
>>
>> For those that are interested, I'm planning to to make --with-bdeps
>> automatically enabled when possible:
>>
>
>
> I agree with this ^ but I don't thi
On 03/02/2017 02:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> This is why we can't have nice things.
>
> For those that are interested, I'm planning to to make --with-bdeps
> automatically enabled when possible:
>
I agree with this ^ but I don't think portage should rebuild for DEPEND
at all. It creates one
On 03/02/2017 06:47 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 09:24 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>
>>> In other words, the ":=" only does something special in RDEPEND. That
>>> makes sense when you think of it as meaning "the thing will break"
>>> rather than "I want to do a rebuild." The only reaso
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:56:37 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:47:35 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 03/02/2017 09:24 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In other words, the ":=" only does something special in RDEPEND.
> > >> That makes sense when you think of it as
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:47:35 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 09:24 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>
> >> In other words, the ":=" only does something special in RDEPEND.
> >> That makes sense when you think of it as meaning "the thing will
> >> break" rather than "I want to do a rebuild."
On 03/02/2017 09:24 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> In other words, the ":=" only does something special in RDEPEND. That
>> makes sense when you think of it as meaning "the thing will break"
>> rather than "I want to do a rebuild." The only reason it's not an error
>> to put them in DEPEND is becaus
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 04:58 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>
>> Is it really abusing ?
>> := deps in DEPEND only would also make sense for e.g. code generators
>>
>
> Slot operator dependencies are ignored in DEPEND:
>
> Indicates that any slot value
On 03/02/2017 04:58 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> Is it really abusing ?
> := deps in DEPEND only would also make sense for e.g. code generators
>
Slot operator dependencies are ignored in DEPEND:
Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime
dependencies, indicates
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:18:01 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> To avoid abusing slot dependencies for dev-lang/go since it is not
> needed at runtime I need to do the following.
Is it really abusing ?
:= deps in DEPEND only would also make sense for e.g. code generators
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:18 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> the dependencies for dev-lang/go need to force a rebuild every time the
> compiler is downgraded or upgraded.
This already happens for me. It is working as expected.
> To avoid abusing slot dependencies for dev-lang/go since it is n
33 matches
Mail list logo
