Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eclass/dune.eclass: introduce edune and dune-compile (v2)

2023-01-02 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 03/01/2023 00.19, Maciej Barć wrote: edune is a thin wrapper for dune, which will help to run special, uncommon dune commands; dune-compile is a function to selectively pick which packages will be compiled "for-release" (as dune call it); dune-compile without any arguments replaces the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eclass/dune.eclass: introduce edune and dune-compile (v2)

2023-01-02 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 2023-01-03 at 00:19 +0100, Maciej Barć wrote: > edune is a thin wrapper for dune, which will help to run special, > uncommon dune commands; > dune-compile is a function to selectively pick which packages will be > compiled "for-release" (as dune call it); > dune-compile without any

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] cmake.eclass: add base-system as @MAINTAINER too (align with dev-util/cmake)

2023-01-02 Thread Sam James
Signed-off-by: Sam James --- eclass/cmake.eclass | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/eclass/cmake.eclass b/eclass/cmake.eclass index 6787735d5416d..2c5620adede58 100644 --- a/eclass/cmake.eclass +++ b/eclass/cmake.eclass @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ # @ECLASS: cmake.eclass # @MAINTAINER: #

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] cmake.eclass: mark CMAKE_VERBOSE as @USER_VARIABLE

2023-01-02 Thread Sam James
It's a policy requirement that ebuilds produce verbose logs, so ebuilds themselves must not set CMAKE_VERBOSE. But users can. Signed-off-by: Sam James --- eclass/cmake.eclass | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/cmake.eclass b/eclass/cmake.eclass index

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] unpacker.eclass: pass -S to file to disable seccomp

2023-01-02 Thread Sam James
Files being installed by Portage are generally trusted but also the syscalls allowed by file are quite broad anyway. With e.g. new libc or sandbox version (or any number of things...), the syscalls used by file can change which leads to its seccomp filter killing the process. This is an

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] mono.eclass: pass -S to file to disable seccomp

2023-01-02 Thread Sam James
Files being installed by Portage are generally trusted but also the syscalls allowed by file are quite broad anyway. With e.g. new libc or sandbox version (or any number of things...), the syscalls used by file can change which leads to its seccomp filter killing the process. This is an

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] dotnet.eclass: pass -S to file to disable seccomp

2023-01-02 Thread Sam James
Files being installed by Portage are generally trusted but also the syscalls allowed by file are quite broad anyway. With e.g. new libc or sandbox version (or any number of things...), the syscalls used by file can change which leads to its seccomp filter killing the process. This is an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread Alec Warner
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 4:55 PM m1027 wrote: > > Many thanks for your detailed thoughs for sharing the rich > experiences on this! See below: > > antarus: > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 4:48 AM m1027 wrote: > > > > > > Hi and happy new year. > > > > > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] toolchain-funcs.eclass: Promote tc-env_build to a non-internal function

2023-01-02 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 5:34 PM James Le Cuirot wrote: > > It's generally useful and already directly used by three packages. I > need to use it to fix cross-compiling of LLVM. Sounds good to me.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread m1027
Many thanks for your detailed thoughs for sharing the rich experiences on this! See below: antarus: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 4:48 AM m1027 wrote: > > > > Hi and happy new year. > > > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for > > older Gentoo systems in production where

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread m1027
sam: > > On 2 Jan 2023, at 12:48, m1027 wrote: > > > > Hi and happy new year. > > > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for > > older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world > > updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc. [...] >

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eclass/dune.eclass: introduce edune and dune-compile (v2)

2023-01-02 Thread Maciej Barć
edune is a thin wrapper for dune, which will help to run special, uncommon dune commands; dune-compile is a function to selectively pick which packages will be compiled "for-release" (as dune call it); dune-compile without any arguments replaces the current dune_src_compile Signed-off-by: Maciej

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eclass/dune.eclass: introduce edune and dune-compile

2023-01-02 Thread Anna
On 2023-01-02 22:37, Maciej Barć wrote: > edune is a thin wrapper for dune, which will help to run special, > uncommon dune commands; > dune-compile is a function to selectively pick which packages will be > compiled "for-release" (as dune call it); > dune-compile without any arguments replaces

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] toolchain-funcs.eclass: Promote tc-env_build to a non-internal function

2023-01-02 Thread James Le Cuirot
It's generally useful and already directly used by three packages. I need to use it to fix cross-compiling of LLVM. Signed-off-by: James Le Cuirot --- eclass/toolchain-funcs.eclass | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/toolchain-funcs.eclass b/eclass/toolchain-funcs.eclass

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-cpp/pngpp

2023-01-02 Thread David Seifert
# David Seifert (2023-01-02) # EAPI 6, pretty much no upstream activity, outdated, last upstream # release over 3 years ago, no revdeps. Removal on 2023-02-01. dev-cpp/pngpp signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eclass/dune.eclass: introduce edune and dune-compile

2023-01-02 Thread Maciej Barć
edune is a thin wrapper for dune, which will help to run special, uncommon dune commands; dune-compile is a function to selectively pick which packages will be compiled "for-release" (as dune call it); dune-compile without any arguments replaces the current dune_src_compile Signed-off-by: Maciej

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread Alec Warner
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 4:48 AM m1027 wrote: > > Hi and happy new year. > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for > older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world > updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc. I wrote a very long reply,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread Peter Stuge
Peter Stuge wrote: > Essentially you will be maintaining a private fork of gentoo.git, If this seems too heavy handed then you can just as well do the reverse: Maintain an overlay repo with the packages you care to control in the state you care to have them, set that in the catalyst stage4.spec

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread Peter Stuge
Hi, m1027 wrote: > So, what we've thought of so far is: > > (1) Keeping outdated developer boxes around and compile there. We > would freeze portage against accidental emerge sync by creating a > git branch in /var/db/repos/gentoo. This feels hacky and requires a > increating number of develper

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread Sam James
> On 2 Jan 2023, at 12:48, m1027 wrote: > > Hi and happy new year. > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for > older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world > updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc. > > So, what we've thought

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Mon, 2023-01-02 at 12:48 +, m1027 wrote: > Hi and happy new year. > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for > older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world > updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc. > Just update them.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 7:48 AM m1027 wrote: > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for > older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world > updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc. So, unless you're proposing some improvement this

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

2023-01-02 Thread m1027
Hi and happy new year. When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc. So, what we've thought of so far is: (1) Keeping outdated developer boxes around

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/5] out-of-source-utils.eclass: New utility eclass

2023-01-02 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 2023-01-02 at 10:25 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Jan 2023, Michał Górny wrote: > > > +case ${EAPI} in > > + 6|7|8) ;; > > + *) die "${ECLASS}: EAPI ${EAPI} unsupported." > > Are you sure that this will work without the final ;; terminator? > (Bash documentation

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/5] out-of-source-utils.eclass: New utility eclass

2023-01-02 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2023, Michał Górny wrote: > +case ${EAPI} in > + 6|7|8) ;; > + *) die "${ECLASS}: EAPI ${EAPI} unsupported." Are you sure that this will work without the final ;; terminator? (Bash documentation says that a terminator is mandatory.) Apart from that, I'd suggest to