Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:52:20PM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote > (A-C) gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-4.9.4 are slotted separately. What is going to > be the default is entirely up to you. Good to hear. Like I said, on a fresh install I'd go with the current version (5.4). But for now, I'll wait for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017, at 17:17 CDT, "Walter Dnes" wrote: > ...fun !NOT. If you're doing a fresh install, ***WITH A GCC5-BUILT > INSTALL CD AND STAGE 3***, then yes, go for it. But changing horses in > mid-stream can be painfull. Would it hurt to stay with 4.9.4 for the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

Ühel kenal päeval, N, 20.04.2017 kell 18:17, kirjutas Walter Dnes: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:36:03AM +0200, Tomas Mozes wrote > > > > The default is new: > > https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2015-10-22-gcc-5-new-c++1 > > 1-abi.html > >   And the news item says... > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:36:03AM +0200, Tomas Mozes wrote > > The default is new: > https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2015-10-22-gcc-5-new-c++11-abi.html And the news item says... > Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-5 ...which means that people like me, who currently have 4.9.4,

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 3/3] depgraph._in_blocker_conflict: call _validate_blockers if needed (bug 615982)

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Sometimes _complete_graph calls _slot_operator_update_probe, which > sometimes calls _in_blocker_conflict. This case occurs infrequently, > so call _validate_blockers only if needed. > > Fixes: a83bb83909c5 ("depgraph:

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v3] dosym: protect Prefix hack from double EPREFIX

Add an additional conditional to the dosym Prefix hack to ensure that the symlink is not using double Prefix when the ebuild uses ${EPREFIX} explicitly. This ensures that Portage on Prefix systems is both compatible with the ebuilds relying on the hack, and using dosym in the PMS-defined manner.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:49:04 -0700 Christopher Head wrote: > > >If your writing new python code against say 3.4 and not 3.6. Not sure > >about that... Seems like it would keep things bound to older versions > >and never let things move forward. > > Not true. I will certainly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions

On April 10, 2017 11:12:10 AM PDT, "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: >Are you running stable? There are other versions in tree. 3.4, 3.5, >3.6. If you were running unstable, you would have 4 pythons, including >2.7. That you only have 2 seems like you are running stable. Yep.

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: changed default bedup configuration file in >=app-backup/burp-2.0.0

On 2017-04-19 17:39, Gokturk Yuksek wrote: >> Display-If-Installed: app-backup/burp > Wouldn't you wanna limit this to <2.0.54 ? Otherwise this will pop > up for the consumers of 2.0.54 as well. Might as well, although at present there is no 2.0.54. >> /etc/burp/burp.conf . > You have an extra

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-python] Updates from Python team: python.eclass gone, gpyutils updates, incoming PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET change

On czw, 2017-04-20 at 13:28 +0700, gro...@gentoo.org wrote: > Many thanks to the python team for good work. > > In some cases a package installs some script(s) which run python > interpreter. I mean IDE-like packages, e.g., spyder, bpython, ptpython, > etc. A user may want to run either python2

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-python] Updates from Python team: python.eclass gone, gpyutils updates, incoming PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET change

Many thanks to the python team for good work. In some cases a package installs some script(s) which run python interpreter. I mean IDE-like packages, e.g., spyder, bpython, ptpython, etc. A user may want to run either python2 or python3 using such IDE. The "standard" behaviour is to install a