On Friday 19 October 2012 15:01:57 Pacho Ramos wrote:
At least in spanish, it's mandatory to end phrases with a dot ., would
you agree with trying to enforce this trivial change with a repoman
warning?
actually the opposite here ... DESCRIPTION should be a sentence fragment, and
should avoid
On Tuesday 02 October 2012 15:53:41 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote:
with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big
issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known
to build fail, but they've had
On Monday 15 October 2012 13:45:22 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile
structure to include a description so that people know the intention
On Thursday 27 September 2012 12:02:58 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
build is specifically for catalyst and/or for building the stages,
right? If so, this one makes sense to me to add.
this is used in a few packages, but we should encourage trimming it rather
than expanding. i see that the kernel
On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
out upstream.
*shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while
though, as we
On 10/29/2012 03:32 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote:
On Ponedeljek 29. of October 2012 15.52.20 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote:
It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
of licensing concerns.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
out upstream.
*shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
On 30/10/2012 08:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
That might warrant a news item. Sure, they're ~arch, but they're not
going to know about this unless somebody tells them.
Is it just my impression or did you just volunteer? ;)
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu —
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 09:50 +, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello
I would like to know about mobile team status and also show that this
team has important bugs assigned to them for a long time, some of them
with patches
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:44:20 -0700 as excerpted:
On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of
shaking out upstream.
*shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
people
On 30/10/2012 10:46, Duncan wrote:
... I've been running gnutls-3.x for some time (at one point it was
needed for the live-git pan I run), tho I had to remask gnutls-3.1.3 as I
experienced some problem (IDR what) with it. But I'm running 3.1.2
without issue.
I've been using gnutls-3 on
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
correctly with it, I'm questioning the usefulness of having it slotted.
Among other things, with
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested
by many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
Uhm...
Please, stop doing this!
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken
with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with
each release?
How are you going to solve the problem that the packages that are not
fixed to work with a new
On 30/10/12 21:17, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested by
many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
Uhm...
Please, stop doing this!
On 30/10/12 21:24, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the users,
eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on ... can we just
go back to just install it and that's about it?
How are you going to solve the
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from
On 30/10/12 21:17, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested by
many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
Uhm...
Please, stop doing this!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
case ${EAPI:-0} in
0|1|2|3|4) ;;
*) die ${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet
established. esac
sounds like a useless and annoying check for just exporting one function
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò
On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
case ${EAPI:-0} in
0|1|2|3|4) ;;
*) die ${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet
established. esac
sounds like a useless and
On 30-10-2012 16:56:21 -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
# @FUNCTION: _udev_get_udevdir
# @INTERNAL
# @DESCRIPTION:
# Get unprefixed udevdir.
_udev_get_udevdir() {
if $($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --exists udev); then
echo -n $($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --variable=udevdir
udev) else
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:57:11 +0200
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
case ${EAPI:-0} in
0|1|2|3|4) ;;
*) die
On 30/10/12 22:02, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:32:57 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken
with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with
each release?
How
On 30/10/12 22:06, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:56 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC) Samuli Suominen
(ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
case ${EAPI:-0} in 0|1|2|3|4) ;; *) die
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:02:59 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:08:07 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:57:11 +0200
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)
On 30/10/12 22:18, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:08:07 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:57:11 +0200
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
Samuli
On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote:
I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean,
I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled
copy, but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when upstream makes
breaking changes in the API.
Because
On 30/10/2012 13:04, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
#1 - the MAX_BOOST_VERSION thing isn't needed anymore (and i get the
impression that it actually is, but putting that aside since i don't
maintain any packages that depend on boost), and
It'll just behave like _every other library_ we have in the
On 30/10/2012 13:10, Michał Górny wrote:
By inheriting boost-utils and using the correct function to use older
boost slot?
Which will not work.
Can you build boost-1.49 with glibc-2.16? NO! At least not without
patching it by changing its API.
So how do you propose to solve package A that
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd
rather, say, hunt an RWX section problem (a security problem) with a
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested
by many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.euwrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
But there are shared libraries, and they are not small
On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared
library,
so there
On 30-10-2012 15:47:51 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as
requested by many
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:17:25 +0100
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested
by many people, without ML review due to unproductive
On 30/10/12 23:16, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 15:47:51 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc
On 30/10/12 23:24, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:17:25 +0100
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested by
many people, without
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:47:51 -0500
Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org wrote:
Stop the bike shedding. Provide real constructive improvements. I'm
not copying and pasting the same hunk of code in a bunch of ebuilds.
The point of getting approval for eclasses is not to force you to copy
and paste
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:56:11 -0700 as excerpted:
On 30/10/2012 10:46, Duncan wrote:
... tho I had to remask gnutls-3.1.3 as I experienced some problem
(IDR what) with it. But I'm running 3.1.2 without issue.
What gnutls-3.1.x are you planning to unmask? Do I need
DEP == Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu writes:
DEP Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of
DEP slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all 1.50
DEP are broken.
One datapoint:
Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
On 30/10/2012 16:34, James Cloos wrote:
Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
depends, I found that 1.48 and 1.49 build with gcc 4.7.2; but none
of the earlier versions did.
And only 1.50+ will work with glibc-2.16.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:28:47 +0200
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Only every second person is using the ChangeLog in eclass/ as pointed
out and discussed in this ML for so many times it's ridicilous.
So step up and set a good example. Since when do we defer to the LCD (Laziest
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:45:38 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Besides, honestly it's not that bad. I think that half the headache that
we're having is due to the slotting more than from boost itself. And the
other half is due to people actually not going to fix their crap
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:41:40 -0700 as excerpted:
On 30/10/2012 16:34, James Cloos wrote:
Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
depends, I found that 1.48 and 1.49 build with gcc 4.7.2; but none of
the earlier versions did.
And only 1.50+
On 30/10/2012 17:42, Duncan wrote:
icu-49.1.2 seems to build just fine against glibc-2.16.0, here. I just
rebuilt to be sure. (With gcc-4.7.2.)
I said 1.50+, I'm referring to Boost.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:34:02 -0400
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
DEP == Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu writes:
DEP Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of
DEP slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all 1.50
DEP are broken.
On 30/10/2012 17:49, Ryan Hill wrote:
And I had to argue to get 1.48 fixed. I'm not sure why we have to keep so
many unbuildable versions in the tree.
Because as mgorny explained earlier he's expecting some fairy to make it
possible to _always_ install an older boost just because it's slotted.
2012-10-30 19:30:16 Diego Elio Pettenò napisał(a):
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
correctly with it, I'm questioning the
On 30/10/2012 19:50, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
I think that slotting is needed, but pkg_postinst() could create
(without using `eselect boost`) symlinks like /usr/include/boost
etc. It is possible that a package works with e.g. Boost 1.50, but
not 1.51, so it could use
2012-10-29 23:07:15 Diego Elio Pettenò napisał(a):
c) try to get betas and rcs in asap _but masked_;
=sys-devel/gcc-4.7.0, whose usage is required to trigger some problems, is
already package.masked.
d) call for a tinderbox run (I can do that with a quick email);
One of major problems with
2012-10-31 04:18:14 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis napisał(a):
Besides founding problems in about 10% of packages
s/founding/finding/
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 30/10/2012 20:18, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
One of major problems with this tinderbox is that it cannot be used
to test packages against newer versions of packages present in
overlays [1]
Which is not a problem since we're _not_ talking about packages in
overlays but of a
Okay let's see a moment what's going on with the slotted boost.
www-plugins/gnash has a blocker on the old unslotted boost because it
doesn't really support multiple boost that well, like most other packages.
sci-biology/cufflinks and sci-biology/express are next to completely
screwed because
Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 11:30 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
correctly with it, I'm
On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote:
I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the
tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a
rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at
that time when boost slotting was
62 matches
Mail list logo
