Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] NeoVim and vim-syntax

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:34:19 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:14:31PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:38:01 -0400 > > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > > > As mentioned elsewhere, what happens when two or three

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] NeoVim and vim-syntax

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:14:31PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:38:01 -0400 > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > As mentioned elsewhere, what happens when two or three other > > people do their own forks? Plugin 1 works with vim A and B but > > not C or D.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

Martin Vaeth wrote: Let me be more precise to avoid misunderstandings: > For the "standard" 2SAT case, one first determines the strongly > connected components in the implication graph (linear time). > Then for each such component one either _enables_ or _disables_ > all

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> For 2SAT, there are linear time algorithms. > > "foo? ( bar )" does not encode as "( !foo \/ bar )" It does (see below). More precisely, at first it encodes as an arrow foo -> bar in the implication graph. > Good luck figuring out how to

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] meson.eclass: add myself to maintainers

--- eclass/meson.eclass | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/eclass/meson.eclass b/eclass/meson.eclass index bb60a16aad50..25e19dff48e3 100644 --- a/eclass/meson.eclass +++ b/eclass/meson.eclass @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ # @ECLASS: meson.eclass # @MAINTAINER: # William Hubbs

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] meson.eclass: pass --wrap-mode nodownload to meson

Downloading sources in src_configure is a bad idea. Ref: http://mesonbuild.com/FAQ.html#does-wrap-download-sources-behind-my-back --- eclass/meson.eclass | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/meson.eclass b/eclass/meson.eclass index

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:51:25 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > ...so if a Gentoo package is split into 40 packages in Debian, are you > going to list all of them? If it would be useful to do so, maybe. But its a text file, people are capable of making judgements about adding 3.2k

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:56:42 + (UTC) Martin Vaeth wrote: > Most examples mentioned earlier were actually 2SAT, i.e., > they are only of the form foo? ( bar ) (possibly with negations) > or can be easily reduced to that. E.g. > ^^ ( foo bar ) > foo? ( !bar graulty bazola ) >

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

Michał Górny wrote: > b? ( a ) c? ( b ) d? ( c ) e? ( d ) ... As written in another posting: This is 2SAT. 2SAT is solvable in linear time. To get a hard example you have to use several 3SAT clauses, i.e. || ( ... ) with 3 (or more) entries (and all of these entries must

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

Alexis Ballier wrote: > > I think we should really try to find a sub-exponential solution Most examples mentioned earlier were actually 2SAT, i.e., they are only of the form foo? ( bar ) (possibly with negations) or can be easily reduced to that. E.g. ^^ ( foo bar ) foo? (

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On sob, 2017-06-03 at 02:38 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:07:44 +0700 > "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote: > > > Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow? > > Not sure it should. Even though one package may be the logical equivalent >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:07:44 +0700 "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote: > Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow? Not sure it should. Even though one package may be the logical equivalent of a handful of debian packages, doesn't mean there's going to be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On pią, 2017-06-02 at 14:16 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 23:31:25 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > My current code is on github [1]. It's ugly, slow and incomplete. It's > > merely a proof-of-concept and testing toy but still could give some > > clues. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On pią, 2017-06-02 at 13:27 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 23:31:25 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > [...] > > > There are probably dozens of ways to make that non deterministic. > > > Here's one: USE='-*'. Apply '|| ( cli cgi fpm apache2 embed phpdbg > > > )'

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On pią, 2017-06-02 at 13:18 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 08:37:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On czw, 2017-06-01 at 23:31 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On czw, 2017-06-01 at 10:55 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > On Wed, 31 May 2017

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 23:31:25 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > My current code is on github [1]. It's ugly, slow and incomplete. It's > merely a proof-of-concept and testing toy but still could give some > clues. > > [1]:https://github.com/mgorny/required-use Nice work by the way.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 23:31:25 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: [...] > > There are probably dozens of ways to make that non deterministic. > > Here's one: USE='-*'. Apply '|| ( cli cgi fpm apache2 embed phpdbg > > )' last; this enables 'cli'. Since it's the last one, REQUIRED_USE > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 08:37:30 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On czw, 2017-06-01 at 23:31 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > On czw, 2017-06-01 at 10:55 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:02:24 +0200 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > >

[gentoo-dev] Lastrites: x11-misc/rednotebook

# Pacho Ramos (02 Jun 2017) # Relies on obsolete and vulnerable webkit-gtk version and bundles some libs # (#597532). Removal in a month. x11-misc/rednotebook

[gentoo-dev] Lastrites: x11-misc/outwiker and www-client/xombrero

# Pacho Ramos (02 Jun 2017) # This package needs a maintainer to take care of updating this to a working # version not requiring obsolete wxwidgets and webkit versions (#584170). # Removal in a month. x11-misc/outwiker # Pacho Ramos (02 Jun 2017) # Still

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] NeoVim and vim-syntax

> strongly against eselect modules (and any user code) that > writes into /usr (except for /usr/local) Well, NeoVim, at least, have support for site-dir in /usr/local out of the box. I guess, Vim8 will need a bit of patching for that. Although, I'm, in opposite, dislike (very little, tho)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

> libfoo-debug Shouldn't we mention "debug" USE-flag in this context somehow?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:36:24 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > +1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be > movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD? > Slackware? Where do we draw the line? I'd say "as need be". Here we have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

On czw, 2017-06-01 at 23:31 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On czw, 2017-06-01 at 10:55 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:02:24 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On śro, 2017-05-31 at 19:39 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > > Again, you *need* to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

>> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be >> written in the field >> > Why space separated? > Its already legal to specify the field multiple times, and it should > work better that way for consistency with things that can already parse > XML. > > That way there's