Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:04:06 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as > build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where > we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability) >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as > build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where > we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability) > outweighs that.

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-crypt/cryptkeeper

# Matthias Maier (31 Jan 2017) # Dead upstream (no development since 2010) [1,2], outstanding security # issue with newer encfs versions [3], oustanding Gentoo bugs [4,5]. # Mask for removal in 30 days. # [1] https://github.com/tomm/cryptkeeper/commits/master # [2]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:04 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I > see. > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > meson build system [3]. > > As I said on the bug, the

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] sync.py: add warning when sync-type is not set

--- pym/portage/emaint/modules/sync/sync.py | 12 +--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/pym/portage/emaint/modules/sync/sync.py b/pym/portage/emaint/modules/sync/sync.py index 076297a..b4d65e7 100644 --- a/pym/portage/emaint/modules/sync/sync.py +++

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 01/30/2017 15:04, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I > see. > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > meson build system [3]. > > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft

On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 17:34 +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 01/31/2017 03:50 PM, Georg Rudoy wrote: > > I'll make a new release of leechcraft itself and bump the version > > to > > that new one, so they'll naturally be dropped to unstable, 0.6.70 > > and > > earlier (if any) indeed could

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft

On 01/31/2017 03:50 PM, Georg Rudoy wrote: > I'll make a new release of leechcraft itself and bump the version to > that new one, so they'll naturally be dropped to unstable, 0.6.70 and > earlier (if any) indeed could be removed. Most of the bugs, as I saw > them, are due to the current last

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/mwlib

# Mike Gilbert (31 Jan 2017) # Depends on old version of dev-python/pyparsing. # Removal in 30 days. dev-python/mwlib dev-python/mwlib-rl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-01-31 3:22 GMT-05:00 David Seifert : >> Proxy-maint has always been there, so no real excuse for all those bugs >> rotting away. > > I didn't bother with finding another maint who'd proxy it for me,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft

2017-01-31 3:22 GMT-05:00 David Seifert : > Proxy-maint has always been there, so no real excuse for all those bugs > rotting away. I didn't bother with finding another maint who'd proxy it for me, yeah, that's my bad. > Here's the deal: If you fix all those bugs within the 30

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 17:43 -0500, Georg Rudoy wrote: > 2017-01-30 13:35 GMT-05:00 David Seifert : > > Please do not resurrect leechcraft unless you're willing to fix the > > bugs with GCC 5 (and GCC 6) and newer dependencies. Personally, I > > feel > > leechcraft should probably