Re: [gentoo-dev] xf86-input-evdev patch problem

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 06:56:27AM +0200, Cor Legemaat wrote: > Hi: > > I created a ebuild with a patch for xf86-input-evdev to try and > debounce my mouse button. The ebuild is at >

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repoman: Set max DESCRIPTION length to 80, #562808

Correct the max DESCRIPTION length in qa_data, and remove the comment confusingly suggesting that the variable name is taken into the count. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=562808 --- pym/repoman/qa_data.py | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:56:28 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:17 AM, wraeth wrote: > > I am one of the users who spoke to idella4 about this, but I wanted > > to repeat this publicly in order to highlight the point of view of > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

On 10/10/15 14:25, hasufell wrote: > On 10/10/2015 02:24 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 10-10-2015 14:19:44 +0200, hasufell wrote: +RDEPEND=" + !libressl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0 ) + libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl ) + sys-libs/zlib + net-libs/http-parser >>> Please

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/10/15 15:56, Matt Turner wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:44 PM, wraeth > wrote: >> This education process was implemented in a way that >> indiscriminately pointed the finger at contributors, developer >> and user

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/portage/

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are entirely > separate from pushes and are very (as in, extremely!) cheap, while > pushes, particularly if properly repoman-checked, are obviously much more > expensive.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-lisp/sbcl/

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: I am a bit confused how this is a bump to "1.2.16". Is just the commit message wrong or what happened here? There was a bump in c473e4fcbe3a17d7bc98d3fa1c19624687774165 afais. And why was BV_X64_MACOS changed? Sorry for the confusion. When I did it, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 06:44 AM, wraeth wrote: > > I am aware of this and that it has been the way for quite > some time. However, while it may be the norm in the wider FOSS > community, it has not been the norm on the gentoo-dev list - certainly > people will post things specifically for review, or may

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 06:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > > So work with the reviewers to ensure the communication is tactful and > graceful. > That would be appreciated. So far, we mostly got people complaining (and some setting up sieve filters to throw all our mails to trash), but not people offering

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: multilib and fhs 3

Dnia 2015-10-10, o godz. 17:48:15 William Hubbs napisał(a): > fhs 3.0 was approved in June this year [1] [2]. > > The piece of it that I want to bring up is the lib and libxx > directories, both in / and /usr. The way I read the fhs, /lib and > /usr/lib should hold the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:19:34 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:23 AM, hasufell wrote: > > > > I'm not a native speaker and people have more than once told you > > that your language is difficult to understand. > > > > So, can you

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:16:01 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 06:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > > > > So work with the reviewers to ensure the communication is tactful > > and graceful. > > > > That would be appreciated. So far, we mostly got people complaining > (and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:29:26 +0800 Ian Delaney wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:16:01 +0200 > hasufell wrote: > > > On 10/12/2015 06:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > > > > > > So work with the reviewers to ensure the communication is tactful > > > and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 04:12 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:47:19 +0200 > hasufell wrote: > >> On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: >>> >>> Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client >>> to communicate and negotiate a workable solution.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:42 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 03:41 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > They might have failed to notify it, > > I did that 2 hours ago already on this thread. What does that tell > us ;) yes, I noticed from there :p what I meant was

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repoman: Finally deprecate base.eclass

Dnia 2015-10-11, o godz. 13:24:43 Zac Medico napisał(a): > On 10/11/2015 12:23 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 10/11/2015 09:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > >> On 11/10/15 18:45, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> Nope, don't have any. Though AFAICS there's all-over-the-place > >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > That's why I > suggested a top-5 list or something like that, which would have weeded > out false positives and focus more on resolutions and trends than > individual incidents. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Reviewers/Common_issues

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:58 PM, wraeth wrote: > I don't expect everything to have been within the N^th degree of > perfection from day one; and I honestly hope the Reviewers project > finds its feet and benefits the community; I just believe that it's > first day could have been handled better. > We've

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:47:19 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: > > > > Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client > > to communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this > > reads as the user needs to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:41 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > They might have failed to notify it, I did that 2 hours ago already on this thread. What does that tell us ;) but I think they've taken into > account most, if not all, of the problems that had been pointed out: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/10/15 22:15, hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 06:44 AM, wraeth wrote: >> >> I am aware of this and that it has been the way for quite some >> time. However, while it may be the norm in the wider FOSS >> community, it has not been the norm on

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: > > Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client to > communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this reads > as the user needs to adapt to the service that the client is offering > and appease the provider. What's

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Ian Delaney wrote: > > Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client to > communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this reads > as the user needs to adapt to the service that the client is offering > and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:23 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 04:12 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:47:19 +0200 >> hasufell wrote: >> >>> On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: Not sure how to read this. The whole idea

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:13:15 +0800 Ian Delaney wrote: > The main target learners here are keen users. You can take told a > mistake with the background and status of a dev. They don't. They are > often intimidated and fearful if gentoo devs. We wonder why. So how about

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-python/subunit/

Taking a random commit to explain a recent-yet-common mistake. > dev-python/subunit: Add python3.5 support > > [...] > > dev-python/subunit/subunit-1.1.0-r1.ebuild | 90 > ++ > 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+) Let's make this clear once and for all: there is no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/portage/

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are entirely > > separate from pushes and are very (as in, extremely!) cheap, while > >

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow SLOT documentation in metadata.xml

The following patch tries to address the lack of slot documentation, since getting the slots of a dependency right seems like a common problem. Things that I was particularly not sure about: the 'subslots' element. Having a sub-element for 'slot' seemed even more messy, so I tried to make this as

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 Julian Ospald wrote: > There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs > and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied > and documentation is either non-existent or is inside the ebuild via >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 > > Julian Ospald wrote: > > > >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package > >> SLOTs and

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied and documentation is either non-existent or is inside the ebuild via comments. Because of that it should be part of metadata.xml. An example use case for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/portage/

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> > >> > It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 > Julian Ospald wrote: > >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs >> and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied >> and documentation

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2015, 19:19:33 schrieb Julian Ospald: > An example use case for media-libs/libpng would be: > > For building against. This is the only slot > that provides headers and command line tools. > For binary compatibility, provides > libpng12.so.0. For binary

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

Just a comment before this discussion gets entirely side tracked. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015, at 11:45 CDT, Ian Delaney wrote: > [...] > Users are neither seasoned nor prepared for the type of review put > upon them by him and mgorny. My impression is that the reception of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 > > Julian Ospald wrote: > > > >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package > >> SLOTs and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:49:11 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs > and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied > and documentation