Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:39 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:30:10 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. >> wrote: >> > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 >> > Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:30:10 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 > > Zac Medico wrote: > > > >> For live-rebuild, it would be > >> much nicer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 20:27:38 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > Though I will have to see what happens if a package is listed in > > more than one set. I think there is a hierarchy there. > > I tried "emerge -pv --unmerge @palemoon_build", and it was ready to > delete all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> For live-rebuild, it would be >> much nicer to have a framework that automatically triggers rebuilds >> when upstream changes are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Let's say I try to do this as a meta package. So in my overlay I > create a category "meta-set" and a file "meta-set/pmbuild-0.ebuild" > > EAPI=5 > SLOT="0" > KEYWORDS="amd64 x86" > DEPEND=" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 01:10:11 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Sat, 8

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 01:07:57PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:57:17 -0400 > Brian Evans wrote: > > > Beware of sets.. if you put toolchain packages in a set and later > > do 'emerge --unmerge @custom-set' , emerge will happily destroy > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > The two ways are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > The two ways are not the same, and there is a reason sets exist in > > the first place. People seem to be over

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > The two ways are not the same, and there is a reason sets exist in the > first place. People seem to be over looking that fact. I did not add > sets. They are not new. I am simply trying to expand their use.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > Sets are also used for package rebuilds, like x11-module-rebuild, > > live-rebuild, and others. > > Usually there are better ways

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:24:46 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > I don't see why a package manager couldn't offer the same > functionality for a meta package. As was pointed out the set behavior > for unmerging isn't always desirable. Your missing that sets maybe made by the user,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Sets are also used for package rebuilds, like x11-module-rebuild, > live-rebuild, and others. Usually there are better ways to trigger rebuilds. For example, slot operator dependencies for rebuilds due to subslot

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:34:55 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other >> direction and just have packages instead of sets? > > The blog

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:34:55 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other > direction and just have packages instead of sets? The blog entry I provided a link to I think made the best case example of usage of sets and their

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On 07/08/2017 03:29 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On sob, 2017-07-08 at 15:21 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 07/08/2017 02:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hi, everyone. >>> >>> I think the affairs have settled enough and I've finished filling >>> in the pre-GLEP for REQUIRED_USE auto-enforcing.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Bug #272488[0] proposed a PROPERTIES="set" feature to combine the power > of sets with the flexibility of ebuilds. > > 1: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 > What do sets get us that packages do not?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 15:21 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 07/08/2017 02:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I think the affairs have settled enough and I've finished filling > > in the pre-GLEP for REQUIRED_USE auto-enforcing. It's got all > > the algorithms, rationale and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On 07/08/2017 02:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I think the affairs have settled enough and I've finished filling > in the pre-GLEP for REQUIRED_USE auto-enforcing. It's got all > the algorithms, rationale and separated reference implementation. > > If there are no major concerns

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

For anyone interested in such, I opened a feature request bug for allowing use of sets in profile packages. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 P.S. Miss posted on wrong thread... thus duplicate, sorry! -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpkQZ6BpgeJj.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 23:56 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On sob, 2017-07-08 at 22:34 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Unless I'm missing something, rationale seems more about cases rejected > > by the restricted syntax. Numbers I'm talking about is the # of rejected > > constraints vs accepted

Re: [gentoo-dev] Need GitHub snapshot hash verification failure samples

For anyone interested in such, I opened a feature request bug for allowing use of sets in profile packages. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgp04RTMoMwAV.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On 07/08/2017 11:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Nobody said anything about the next EAPI. The GLEP doesn't say a word > about introducing it in a future EAPI. > > We're adding this as an optional (default off) FEATURE into Portage > and we'll see how it works. As far as I'm concerned, we can enable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 22:34 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 20:44:24 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On sob, 2017-07-08 at 16:12 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 11:43:39 +0200 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 20:58 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 08 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > > On sob, 2017-07-08 at 12:26 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > Section "Processing algorithm": > > > > > > > 2. Check whether the REQUIRED_USE constraint matches restrictions > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 20:44:24 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On sob, 2017-07-08 at 16:12 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 11:43:39 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > > > I think the affairs have settled enough

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] fuzzy search: weigh category similarity independently (bug 623648)

Weigh the similarity of category and package names independently, in order to avoid matching lots of irrelevant packages in the same category when the package name is much shorter than the category name. X-Gentoo-bug: 623648 X-Gentoo-bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=623648 ---

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] gnome2*.eclass: Move the preinst conditional out of gnome2_schemas_update

Move the GNOME2_ECLASS_GLIB_SCHEMAS conditional from gnome2_schemas_update straight into the implementation of gnome2.eclass postinst/postrm. This variable is set in preinst to indicate whether any files were installed. However, the updater itself does not use the list in any way and updates all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 21:05:57 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:39:29 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> Indeed, makes sense. Would it also make sense to have some more > >>

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] *.eclass: Include GNOME2_ECLASS_ICONS condition in postrm as well

The original GNOME2_ECLASS_ICONS patch has moved the condition from gnome2_icon_cache_update to postinst phases of functions using the preinst/postinst logic but accidentally omitted postrm. Include it there as well to restore the old behavior. --- eclass/gnome2.eclass| 4 +++-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:39:29 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: >> Indeed, makes sense. Would it also make sense to have some more >> logical meaning in a future EAPI ? I mean, in every context I've ever >> seen, applying a rule

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > On sob, 2017-07-08 at 12:26 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Section "Processing algorithm": >> >> > 2. Check whether the REQUIRED_USE constraint matches restrictions >> > set in #Restrictions on REQUIRED_USE format. If it does not, report >> > a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 16:12 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 11:43:39 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I think the affairs have settled enough and I've finished filling > > in the pre-GLEP for REQUIRED_USE auto-enforcing. It's got all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 12:26 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 08 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > > The pre-GLEP for review is here: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:ReqUse > > On first glance: > > Section "Processing algorithm": > > > 2. Check whether the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 18:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:39:29 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > As much as I hate the weird || ( use ? ( ) ) and empty block rules, > > > it would be worse to have them apply in some situations but not > > > others.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:39:29 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > As much as I hate the weird || ( use ? ( ) ) and empty block rules, > > it would be worse to have them apply in some situations but not > > others. > > Indeed, makes sense. Would it also make sense to have some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:23:39 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:14:09 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:01:39 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:14:09 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:01:39 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:49:56 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 12:26:59

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:01:39 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:49:56 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 12:26:59 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > | * An any-of group (||) evaluates

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 11:43:39 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I think the affairs have settled enough and I've finished filling > in the pre-GLEP for REQUIRED_USE auto-enforcing. It's got all > the algorithms, rationale and separated reference implementation. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:49:56 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 12:26:59 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > | * An any-of group (||) evaluates to true if at least one of the > > | items in it evaluates to true. > > | * An exactly-one-of group

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 12:26:59 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > | * An any-of group (||) evaluates to true if at least one of the > | items in it evaluates to true. > | * An exactly-one-of group (^^) evaluates to true if exactly one of > | the items in it evaluates to true, and all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > The pre-GLEP for review is here: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:ReqUse On first glance: Section "Processing algorithm": | 2. Check whether the REQUIRED_USE constraint matches restrictions | set in #Restrictions on REQUIRED_USE

[gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints

Hi, everyone. I think the affairs have settled enough and I've finished filling in the pre-GLEP for REQUIRED_USE auto-enforcing. It's got all the algorithms, rationale and separated reference implementation. If there are no major concerns raised, I will soon start working on writing an optimized