On 19-09-2011 19:19:12 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Really, MacOS's filesystem layout is not something anyone in their right
mind should deign to mimic/copy.
I didn't get that from either of the links you posted. Seems to me the
systemd developers are looking at the split as a
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:53:15PM +, Duncan wrote:
Alex Alexander posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:38 +0300 as excerpted:
At the moment, all systems have a SYNC line similar to this:
SYNC=rsync://rsync.europe.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage
My idea is simple. When incompatible
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's going
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Hans de Graaff gra...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 15:41 +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
Hi,
some news about euscan (still available at http://euscan.iksaif.net)
- New design (yay !)
- Atom feeds available for each herd/category/maintainer/package
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:11:28 +0200
Michal Hrusecky mi...@gentoo.org wrote:
please take a look at attached eclasses. Purpose is to make
installation of obs services (plugins for osc) easier.
Comments and improvements are welcome.
I don't get the concept of having two eclasses for this. The
2011/9/20 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:11:28 +0200
Michal Hrusecky mi...@gentoo.org wrote:
please take a look at attached eclasses. Purpose is to make
installation of obs services (plugins for osc) easier.
Comments and improvements are welcome.
I don't get the
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's going
On 09/20/11 09:12, Alex Alexander wrote:
The only real gotcha is if portage is so old that it can't handle the
binary packages. However, to get around that we really just need a
set of step-wise binary updates for portage itself so that you can
sequence it up to something that can install the
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly
viable for upgrading from a EAPI2 manager for paludis. I'll leave
it to Ciaran to
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:28, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Intent is to restore it to EAPI0- frankly it really depends on what
the python teams intentions are for EAPI0, currently that support is
marked to be removed on 06/2011.
We'd have to take a look at the complexity
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly
viable for
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:07:44 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
You didn't answer the static question btw...
Because the answer's complicated!
The short version is, it could be made to work, if there's a need for
it, and so long as you've got gcc 4.5 for static libstdc++ support, but
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 01:14 +0300, Alex Alexander escribió:
EAPI in profiles and the -live version suffix are some of the improvements
many people would like to see in the tree. Unfortunately, the risk of breaking
systems with old versions of portage has been too high, holding evolution
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in
their / and, later, try to update?
Possibly at least few file collisions, if portage would
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 15:09 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 01:14 +0300, Alex Alexander escribió:
EAPI in profiles and the -live version suffix are some of the improvements
many people would like to see in the tree. Unfortunately, the risk of
breaking
systems
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 15:16 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in
their / and, later, try
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
The eselect dependency is hard, and can't easily be made optional,
so ideally eselect should stick with older EAPIs.
Eselect's maintainer is well aware of this. I intend to keep 1.2.15
Pacho Ramos posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 as excerpted:
I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
later, try to update?
I believe it was Mike that pointed me at the error in
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 13:57 +, Duncan escribió:
Pacho Ramos posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 as excerpted:
I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
later, try to update?
On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the
tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new
features we want to provide.
Then, freeze the tree and clone it into a revbumped rsync module,
On 09/20/2011 08:19 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the
tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new
features we want to provide.
Then, freeze the tree and
On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What do you guys think?
I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
later, try to update?
Usually things turn ugly - used to be that portage saw that
On 09/20/11 17:19, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the
tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new
features we want to provide.
Then, freeze the tree and clone it
On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd need a
helper script to figure out your current state (using portage version and
tree snapshot maybe), then prepare the environment to upgrade
(and how do you handle
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd need a
helper script to figure out your current state (using portage version and
tree
On 10:00 Tue 20 Sep , Corentin Chary wrote:
Could someone write ebuilds for euscan and euscanwww ? It should not
take a lot of time, but my ebuilds skills are probably not good
enought to do that.
Sounds like good practice for when you become a Gentoo dev. =)
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:48:37 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd
need a helper
Hello all,
I've prepared a bunch of patches to git-2.eclass.
1-2 -- replacing scary unreadable parts of code with nicer ones.
3-4 -- basically just coding style changes.
5-7 -- little logic simplification.
8 -- eclassdoc fixes.
9 -- prevents environment injection of internal var.
10 --
0001 - i had reason to put local definitions on the top, it is way
more readable to see right away what local vars function has, so
please stick to it.
0004 - Did you ever hear that executing another code in condition is
damn annoying to trace? :)
0007 - I placed it into the conditionals to be
On 09/20/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello all,
I've prepared a bunch of patches to git-2.eclass.
Just a suggestion (and maybe a bit off-topic), but I think if you sent
each patch separately, as replies to the original thread (git send-email
can do that), it would make the review of each
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:36 +0300
Stratos Psomadakis pso...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/20/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello all,
I've prepared a bunch of patches to git-2.eclass.
Just a suggestion (and maybe a bit off-topic), but I think if you sent
each patch separately, as replies
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:46:10 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
0007 - I placed it into the conditionals to be clear what is
happening, what if there will be added another if without the push...
Well, that part is not important, I can rollback it. It was mostly for
the
Hi guys,
as I am now messing around libreo I am meeting a lot packages that
none bothered to stablereq since 2009 or so, the versions in ~ are
cleaner, more up to date, and possibly contain less bugs.
The issue here is that if some part of the tree looses lots of its
maintainers we as devs
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 getgo and you're missing is that pushing
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 23:18 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Well it would be something like priority based queue with maximum 60
points value.
Each update after the month in main tree would get 0 points for
stabilisation, any-developer / maintainer would be able to add up to
40 points to any
2011/9/20 Tony Chainsaw Vroon chain...@gentoo.org:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 23:18 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Well it would be something like priority based queue with maximum 60
points value.
Each update after the month in main tree would get 0 points for
stabilisation, any-developer /
On 09/20/11 23:18, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
[snipped to bits]
So, the issue is obvious, we have packages in testing that are in
better shape than stable ones.
I'm aware that some of my packages could use a stablereq, but since I
don't run any stable machines at the moment it just never bothers me.
Patrick Lauer posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:00:38 +0200 as excerpted:
On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What do you guys think?
I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their
/ and, later, try
38 matches
Mail list logo
