[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:52:40 -0400 as excerpted: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> >> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >> >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) >> carries

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > The question is whether devs would start

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Thank you for working on this. Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > Can this proposal make a difference and make gentoo better and > easier to work with? > > Does it try to attack the right thing? > > Does it completely miss the point? I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: various gnustep-* packages

# Bernard Cafarelli (25 Jul 2017) # Dropped from upstream tarball for years, removal in a month (#626106) gnustep-apps/clipbook # Bernard Cafarelli (25 Jul 2017) # Dead upstream, last release 13 years ago, removal in a month (#626106)

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: opam.eclass

On 2017-07-24 17:20, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Hey, > > Here is an eclass that would allow me to factor quite a bit of > redundant code. > > … > if [ -d "${ED}/usr/share/doc/${PF}/${PN}" ] ; then It’s always been recommended to me that we should use the [[ … ]] form. Otherwise, looks good

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

El lun, 24-07-2017 a las 22:22 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich escribió: > 4. Q: How to push more packages into STABLE? > >    A: File automatic STABLEREQ bugs more aggressively if no known bugs >   exist for a package version. The rough workflow is the following: > >   - Grab a list of

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

TL;DR;TL;DR: This email seeks for one step towards less toil tied to gentoo's keywording/stabilization process. I've CCed a few groups who might be interested in making this area better: - gentoo-dev@ as it affects most devs (and non-devs!) - wg-stable@ as it overlaps quite a bit

Re: [gentoo-dev] vim-syntax USE flag

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 16:27:39 -0400 > Mike Gilbert wrote: >> Packages currently handle installation of vim syntax support files >> inconsistently. Some builds install the files if the

Re: [gentoo-dev] vim-syntax USE flag

> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> The flag also pulls in additional dependencies for some ebuilds. >> So I wonder how it could be made unconditional? For example, >> app-admin/eselect[vim-syntax] depends on app-vim/eselect-syntax >> which in turn will pull in vim or gvim.

[gentoo-dev] New eclass: opam.eclass

Hey, Here is an eclass that would allow me to factor quite a bit of redundant code. Potential users: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/genrdeps/dindex/dev-ml/opam Examples of conversion: diff --git a/dev-ml/ocaml-cstruct/ocaml-cstruct-3.1.1.ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] vim-syntax USE flag

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> Packages currently handle installation of vim syntax support files >> inconsistently. Some builds install the files if the "vim-syntax" >> USE flag is enabled, while others

Re: [gentoo-dev] vim-syntax USE flag

> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Mike Gilbert wrote: > Packages currently handle installation of vim syntax support files > inconsistently. Some builds install the files if the "vim-syntax" > USE flag is enabled, while others install them unconditionally. > Do these files fall into the "small text