Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:37:11 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > "Fat-Finger" does happen once in while. Removing the risk of it > happening in the first place is a lot more robust/bulletproof. There is nothing in place to stop you from removing gcc, or other system packages.

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

On 07/09/2017 06:53 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:42:46 -0700 > Daniel Campbell wrote: > >>> - Sets used in profiles cannot have use expansion, versions or >>> anything beyond cat/pkg. >> This would break some set behavior, at least in Portage.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 09:49:08AM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:24:19 -0400 > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > Yes, for gcc. > > Which if someone ignores warnings, and breaks their system, it is on > them. At that point your best to remove said

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2017-07-09 23:59 UTC

polynomial-c b980daeece8 dev-libs/volume_key 20170706-08:27 polynomial-c a1f1e3e691b dev-ml/ocsigen-i18n 20170709-15:11 aballier 29d65473417 dev-php/pecl-dbase20170707-15:25 grknight b276310aa80 dev-php/pecl-zmq

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] doman: QA-complain on compressed files

On nie, 2017-07-02 at 11:57 -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 19:57:57 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Passing compressed files to doman is not permitted by the PMS. > > However, Portage permitting it results in many developers repeatedly > > violating this

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Leader election

On wto, 2017-07-04 at 13:02 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 07/02/2017 12:02 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 11:28:09 -0700 > > Brian Dolbec wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:20:16 -0700 > > > Brian Dolbec wrote: > > > > On Sun, 18 Jun

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

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:03:58 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> Weigh the similarity of category and package names independently, >> in order to avoid matching lots of irrelevant packages in the same >>

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] profiles/uclibc/packages: prefix app-misc/pax-utils with '*'

It's the only entry of all profiles without '*'. portage/gentoo/profiles $ grep '^[^*-\#]' $(find -name packages) ./uclibc/packages:app-misc/pax-utils It's an ancient entry from 2005: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo-gitmig-20150809-draft/commit/7bed3578ef4990787cd6881c8fc8d5085b617494

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

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:03:58 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > 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. > >

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

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > > Yeah, but it's not going to happen without an EAPI/PMS extension. > There needs to be a standard way for the package manager to check if > there has been an upstream change for a given package since the last > time it was

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

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:42:46 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > > - Sets used in profiles cannot have use expansion, versions or > > anything beyond cat/pkg. > This would break some set behavior, at least in Portage. Specifying a > single version (or better, a slot) in a set is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:24:19 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:32:09PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 20:27:38 -0400 > > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > > > > > Though I will have to see what happens

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

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 13:36:16 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On nie, 2017-07-09 at 11:29 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > You don't seem to get how normalizing and constant > > propagation/elimination works. > > > > Basically, reordering would be: > > And(list) -> And(

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

On nie, 2017-07-09 at 11:29 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > You don't seem to get how normalizing and constant > propagation/elimination works. > > Basically, reordering would be: > And(list) -> And( forced(list) + free(list) + masked(list) ) > Or(list) -> Or( ... . ) > etc. > > While

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:29:42PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > It is slightly more cruft than a set, but honestly not a great deal so. The only problem is that you have to maintain ebuilds in an overlay and run "repoman manifest" every time you create or edit a meta package. Here's an

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:56:07 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > 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: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:32:09PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > 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. > > >

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

On nie, 2017-07-09 at 10:29 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 09 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > > On nie, 2017-07-09 at 09:22 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > Second, and more important, introduction of an automatic solver > > > would inevitably lead to proliferation of

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

> On Sun, 09 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > On nie, 2017-07-09 at 09:22 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Second, and more important, introduction of an automatic solver >> would inevitably lead to proliferation of REQUIRED_USE in the tree. >> However, nothing would guarantee that the package

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

On sob, 2017-07-08 at 15:47 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: > 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

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

On nie, 2017-07-09 at 09:22 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 08 Jul 2017, 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

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

On 07/08/2017 06:23 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > 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

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

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2017, 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

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-ruby/modernizr

# Hans de Graaff (09 Jul 2017) # Upstream has removed the code and the published gem. # Removal in 30 days. dev-ruby/modernizr signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part