[gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-terms/st: st-0.4.ebuild ChangeLog st-0.3.ebuild

2013-04-03 Thread Michael Weber
@ago: Why did you remove the 0.3 version of the ebuild? The bug requested keywording, so, just add ~x86 to the latest version. Was there an problem with version 0.3? Non-maintainer commits should have good explanations, and the resons for removing version 0.3 is not documented in your

[gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
Hello all, Wrt bug #463692 [1] we'd like to add a default src_prepare() in EAPI 6, with PATCHES array and user patches support. For that reason, I've requested in bug #463768 [2], that the function used to apply the patches would be public -- so that users and eclasses could use it consequently.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: use MULTILIB_ABI for eclass-specific ABI value

2013-04-03 Thread Thomas Sachau
Michał Górny schrieb: Hello, Currently, the multilib-build eclass uses abi_* constants only for USE flags and only ${ABI} is exported to the function. This is bad since it basically requires a reverse mapping of ABI-abi_* values, often inlined as ${ABI} checks. The patches which I will

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: use MULTILIB_ABI for eclass-specific ABI value

2013-04-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:40:31 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: You know, that multilib-portage does use MULTILIB_ABI as USE-expanded variable? Using exactly the same in the eclass will call for collision issues. I doubt very many people know that, since there's still no spec for the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: use MULTILIB_ABI for eclass-specific ABI value

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:40:31 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Michał Górny schrieb: Hello, Currently, the multilib-build eclass uses abi_* constants only for USE flags and only ${ABI} is exported to the function. This is bad since it basically requires a reverse mapping of

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
There was a slight mis-understanding between me and ulm. On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: a) patch files can be specified directly or through a directory in which *all* files will be applied in lexical order, Correction: files which match '*.patch'

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already uses that name with epatch. And I can't say I am thrilled about the idea that we duplicate functionality again. It's already confusing enough the way it is (I can tell, because I

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:56:09AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: There was a slight mis-understanding between me and ulm. On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: a) patch files can be specified directly or through a directory in which *all* files will be

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already uses that name with epatch. base.eclass should have died a horrible death a long time ago. A new EAPI is

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Therefore, I ask you: how should we name the new (and simpler) patch applying function which will be provided in EAPI 6? My propositions: - apply_patches ... - apply_user_patches Where I think we used the latter name

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already uses that name with epatch.

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already uses that name with epatch. base.eclass should have

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:56:29 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote: Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: You also have to rename

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: That is not possible without the agreement of the eclass maintainers. So you cannot just ban an eclass. QA certainly can, and should.