Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Maciej Barć
app -> what if it's library alternatives? Maybe split to "app-" and "lib-" then? Also, what about "-alt"? So "app-alt" and "lib-alt". On 11/24/22 03:05, Ionen Wolkens wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:32:04AM +, Alexey Sokolov wrote: However, I tend to agree that the category should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Ionen Wolkens
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:05:47PM -0500, Ionen Wolkens wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:32:04AM +, Alexey Sokolov wrote: > > > However, I tend to agree that the category should be named app-meta > > > rather than sys-meta, because chances are that non-system packages will > > > also make

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Ionen Wolkens
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:32:04AM +, Alexey Sokolov wrote: > > However, I tend to agree that the category should be named app-meta > > rather than sys-meta, because chances are that non-system packages will > > also make use of it. > > > > Ulrich > > Since these packages manage symlinks,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Alexey Sokolov
23.11.2022 16:45, Ulrich Mueller пишет: On Wed, 23 Nov 2022, Michael Orlitzky wrote: The main reason the new category is distasteful to me is because it's *so close* to being a virtual. For one, having these packages be virtuals would make them somewhat self-explanatory to end users. If we're

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-mail/metamail

2022-11-23 Thread Sam James
# Pascal Jäger (2022-11-24) # No maintainer, last release in 1994. Fails to build # with clang-16. Runtime crash in certain conditions. # Removal on 2022-12-23. # Bugs #549922 #713492 #731256 #875464 #882263 # Removal Bug: #882631 net-mail/metamail signature.asc Description: Message signed with

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Yuan Liao (Leo)
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 7:49 AM Ionen Wolkens wrote: > Not sure for a better name though, alternatives/tar? Haven't really > thought about it, but technically no need for a prefix- like virtual. What about 'sys-symlinks' or something similar which indicates that packages in the category just

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-libs/ocl-icd

2022-11-23 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2022-11-23) # Unpredictable build failures reported.  No revdeps left. # dev-libs/opencl-icd-loader is a good replacement. # Removal on 2022-12-23.  Bug #733018. dev-libs/ocl-icd -- Best regards, Michał Górny

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-lang/open-cobol

2022-11-23 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2022-11-23) # Unattended by maintainer since 2013.  Pending major version bump. # Build and test failures reported. # Removal on 2022-12-23.  Bug #870670. dev-lang/open-cobol -- Best regards, Michał Górny

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: more maintainer-needed packages

2022-11-23 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2022-11-23) # Packages with no maintainer and major issues reported. # # app-cdr/xbiso: bug #882089, last release in 2005 # app-emulation/dlx: bug #874933, last release in 2001 # app-office/sc: bug #877051, last release in 2002 # app-text/uudeview: bug #882505, last release in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 08:38 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > What are the advantages of proposed solution over eselect? > == I think it's also worth mentioning the advantages over the usual virtual approach, where we have a virtual pull in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Ionen Wolkens
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:49:20AM -0500, Ionen Wolkens wrote: > Not sure for a better name though, alternatives/tar? Haven't really > thought about it, but technically no need for a prefix- like virtual. For something shorter, select/tar maybe. Or select-meta if want to keep a more common -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > The main reason the new category is distasteful to me is because it's > *so close* to being a virtual. For one, having these packages be > virtuals would make them somewhat self-explanatory to end users. If > we're collectively willing to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Ionen Wolkens
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:58:14PM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > I am very much in favour to have a package that controls those symlinks. > What is not immediately clear to me is what would that mean for eselect > in long run. Is it so that you'd like to keep eselect around and alive >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Ionen Wolkens
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:37:57PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > * The name also suggests to me that it will control sys-*  > > implementations, but the victims so far are all app-*. Obviously, > > we don't want twenty *-meta categories though. > > > > * The -meta prefix is already

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 15:37 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > PMS doesn't say anything about (new-style) virtuals. It's a Gentoo > policy entirely. This is listed as a retroactive change, Note: A ‘new-style virtual’ is a normal package that installs no  files and uses its dependency

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 08:47 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 08:38 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to add sys-meta/{cpio,sh,tar} to install and control > > (via USE flags) /bin/{cpio,sh,tar} symlinks. > > > > Draft PR:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 14:58 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > Hi, > > On 23/11/2022 08.38, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to add sys-meta/{cpio,sh,tar} to install and control > > (via USE flags) /bin/{cpio,sh,tar} symlinks. > > I am very much in favour to have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Piotr Karbowski
Hi, On 23/11/2022 08.38, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, everyone. TL;DR: I'd like to add sys-meta/{cpio,sh,tar} to install and control (via USE flags) /bin/{cpio,sh,tar} symlinks. I am very much in favour to have a package that controls those symlinks. What is not immediately clear to me is

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)

2022-11-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 08:38 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > TL;DR: I'd like to add sys-meta/{cpio,sh,tar} to install and control > (via USE flags) /bin/{cpio,sh,tar} symlinks. > > Draft PR: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/28390 > I generally favor using the package

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-libs/boost-mpl-cartesian_product

2022-11-23 Thread David Seifert
# David Seifert (2022-11-23) # EAPI 6, no revdeps in tree, never made it into upstream boost, library # only, last release 6 years ago. Removal on 2022-12-23. dev-libs/boost-mpl-cartesian_product signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part