Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata.xsd: upstream maintainer must have exactly one element

On Thu, 5 May 2016 19:16:56 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek wrote: > Signed-off-by: Göktürk Yüksek > --- > metadata.xsd | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/metadata.xsd b/metadata.xsd > index 8bc6a4e..fe2c5d2 100644 >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of GPG-verified trees

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 01:14:22AM +0200, M.B. wrote: > Good evening folks, > > in the past I witnessed bits and pieces of attempts to increase the > infrastructure userside, but, unless I'm mistaken, there's still room > for improvement. > > Since a couple of years we have the webrsync-gpg

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] xml-test/invalid-attributes: test for invalid and disallowed attributes

Signed-off-by: Göktürk Yüksek --- .../invalid-attributes-0.1.ebuild | 11 +++ xml-test/invalid-attributes/metadata.xml | 38 ++ 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+) create mode 100644

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] xml-test/missing-elements: test for missing mandatory elements

Signed-off-by: Göktürk Yüksek --- xml-test/missing-elements/metadata.xml| 17 + xml-test/missing-elements/missing-elements-0.1.ebuild | 11 +++ 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+) create mode 100644

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata.xsd: upstream maintainer must have exactly one element

Signed-off-by: Göktürk Yüksek --- metadata.xsd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/metadata.xsd b/metadata.xsd index 8bc6a4e..fe2c5d2 100644 --- a/metadata.xsd +++ b/metadata.xsd @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@

[gentoo-dev] Status of GPG-verified trees

Good evening folks, in the past I witnessed bits and pieces of attempts to increase the infrastructure userside, but, unless I'm mistaken, there's still room for improvement. Since a couple of years we have the webrsync-gpg FEATURE, which enables automatic verification of the portage tree, when

Re: [gentoo-dev] New gen-b0rk repository specifically for Q/A tools testing

On 02/05/2016 12:57 am, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 02/05/16 00:53, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> In order to further improve the chances of Q/A tools catching >> errors. I have created a new repo (overlay) which will contain minimal >> test case ebuilds. The idea is to have test case ebuilds to run >>

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] ebuild: Extend helper-in-global-scope ban to all EAPIs

Make helper calls in global scope fatal in all supported EAPIs since this is the behavior required by PMS and all major offenders are fixed already. --- bin/eapi.sh | 4 bin/ebuild.sh | 30 ++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) diff --git

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-misc/asterisk-spandsp_codec_g726

# Michael Palimaka (05 May 2016) # Doesn't compile against latest media-libs/spandsp. # Not needed anymore for Asterisk 1.6. # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #575778. net-misc/asterisk-spandsp_codec_g726

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 21:40:00 schrieb Patrick Lauer: > > So how many custom init scripts have you deployed that you can't fix > > with a > > single Rex command? > > I like the naive assumption that I only have one central deployment :) > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 08:59 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer: > > On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > >> On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD > >>> people

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer: > On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD > >> people could feel

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] make.globals: fix FETCHCOMMAND_SSH and FETCHCOMMAND_SFTP to respect ssh_config port (bug 499198)

X-Gentoo-bug: 499198 X-Gentoo-bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499198 --- cnf/make.globals | 4 ++-- pym/portage/tests/util/test_getconfig.py | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/cnf/make.globals b/cnf/make.globals index

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re : Cannot see my eclass modifications

I've made some progress! In my command line, I was still using the -k argument: ROOT=/sysroot emerge -avk sys-power/nut It seems like the eclass is inside the binary package and thus ignoring the system eclass. (which make sense to me) Now I can test my modifications and propose something ;)

[gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 09:32:01 +0200 as excerpted: > So you're saying that a Gentoo-specific change in Gentoo happens because > the Gentoo maintainer doesn't care about Gentoo? ;) I'm saying that big-picture, there's more than one distro, and once a particular package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/04/2016 04:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:53, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users > that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken. > To quote an old proverb .. "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" .. if you wish me to explain, I'll do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD >> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core >> 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad. >> >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: > To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD > people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core > 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad. > > > Y'all have too much free time ... ;) > I'm inclined

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 09:17 AM, Duncan wrote: > Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > >> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, >> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: >> >> What problem is being solved here? > For one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:17, Duncan wrote: > Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > >> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, >> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: >> >> What problem is being solved here? > For one

[gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, > or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: > > What problem is being solved here? For one thing, the namespace issue of runscript being