On 31 May 2015 11:58, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
we've got a new QA check that warns whenever a package is built using a
32bit
filesystem interface. in practice, this applies to arm/mips/ppc/sh/x86
systems
(not including multilib -- for
Since commit 1032cbf4c218741df1c57767fead2d00cc6321d9, with Python 2,
movefile imports portage.util.xattr instead of xattr. Fix it by
enabling absolute_import.
Fixes: 1032cbf4c218 (quickpkg: support FEATURES=xattr (bug 550006))
X-Gentoo-Bug: 550886
X-Gentoo-Bug-url:
Since commit 1032cbf4c218741df1c57767fead2d00cc6321d9,
PreloadPortageSubmodulesTestCase fails because
_LazyImportFrom._get_target does not try to import submodules.
Fix it to do so.
Fixes: 1032cbf4c218 (quickpkg: support FEATURES=xattr (bug 550006))
X-Gentoo-Bug: 550906
X-Gentoo-Bug-url:
On 31 May 2015 16:33, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:17:02 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 31 May 2015 15:52, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:50:49 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
nice, but can't we add the lfs
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
we've got a new QA check that warns whenever a package is built using a 32bit
filesystem interface. in practice, this applies to arm/mips/ppc/sh/x86
systems
(not including multilib -- for now).
this topic has come up
On 05/29/15 15:50, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
here is the second version of this news item; there are more changes I
think I should mention, so they are in this draft.
William
sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-28 is not on the tree yet. i'd like to test
this with both eudev and with the embedded
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2015-05-31 23:59 UTC.
Removals:
app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-java 2015-05-26 18:32:25 mgorny
app-misc/booh 2015-05-26 18:32:49 mgorny
On 31 May 2015 11:43, Zac Medico wrote:
In LinkageMapELF.py, there's a fallback mapping for
multilib categories, which is used by the LinkMapElf class when
NEEDED.ELF.2 does not contain multilib categories due to being
generated by older portage. This mapping should be consistent with
the
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 31 May 2015 11:58, Mike Gilbert wrote:
It might still be nice to adjust such packages for consistency, but it
might be harder to justify patches to upstream developers.
pkg-config already merged it and it's already
On Sat, 30 May 2015 14:54:42 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
an example warning message:
* QA Notice: The following files were not built with LFS support:
* Please file a bug at http://bugs.gentoo.org/ and mark it as a
blocker of 471102.
* See that tracker bug
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:31 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
First, there is now a udev-trigger init script which you will need to
add to the sysinit runlevel. You do this by issuing the following
command:
# rc-update add udev-trigger sysinit
Unrelated to the news
On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:39:28 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:20:58PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 06:49:36PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 11:43:22 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default toolchain flags or
even better patch glibc headers to always redefine these functions to
the 64bits variants?
No, because that can easily break ABI of programs that actually
150531 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Mike, thanks for doing this, it has been a pain in my shoe since 2008
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/11/who-wants-to-support-largefile.
Do users with 64-bit systems have to pay attention to this ?
--
On 31 May 2015 at 14:33, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
Do users with 64-bit systems have to pay attention to this ?
Only as far as multilib is concerned. The 64-bit ABIs are (AFAIR) all LFS
with no opt-out. x86-64 is definitely LFS.
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
On 31 May 2015 12:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
I don't understand why one should add append-lfs-flags to almost every
single package out there.
no one is suggesting that route. append-lfs-flags is a kludge (albeit an
effective one) in the face of no upstream support. if you look at the
On Sun, 31 May 2015 09:46:30 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 31 May 2015 12:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
I don't understand why one should add append-lfs-flags to almost
every single package out there.
no one is suggesting that route. append-lfs-flags is a kludge
(albeit
On 31 May 2015 15:52, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:50:49 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default toolchain flags
or even better patch glibc headers to always redefine these
On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:17:02 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 31 May 2015 15:52, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:50:49 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default
19 matches
Mail list logo
