[gentoo-dev] Re: GNOME needs a new maintainer in Gentoo

2023-09-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:31 AM Matt Turner wrote: > IMO, the state of the project is really good. We've been adding > alpha/beta/rc versions in order to catch and report problems to > upstream and to give us time to sort out important issues beforehand. > Most of GNOME 45 is already in ::gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Oskari Pirhonen
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 22:40:05 +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote: > = "Formal" format = > > Each entry is composed of 2 parts: "#"-prefixed explanation block and > list of "${CATEGORY}/${PN}" packages. Entries are separated when a new > explanation block starts (meaning first "#"-prefixed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Oskari Pirhonen
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 23:22:27 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote: > > > = "Formal" format = > > > Each entry is composed of 2 parts: "#"-prefixed explanation block and > > list of "${CATEGORY}/${PN}" packages. Entries are separated when a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Sam James
Tim Harder writes: > On 2023-09-21 Thu 15:22, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote: >>> Should it be a GLEP, I don't think so? But I'm unsure about it. We do >>> need to document it (for example header of that exact file). >> >>It shouldn't be too difficult

Re: [gentoo-dev] Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Tim Harder
On 2023-09-21 Thu 15:22, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote: Should it be a GLEP, I don't think so? But I'm unsure about it. We do need to document it (for example header of that exact file). It shouldn't be too difficult to wrap this up as a GLEP. To me

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Sam James
Ulrich Mueller writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Florian Schmaus wrote: > >>> The first line of the "#"-prefixed explanation block must be of the >>> format "${AUTHOR_NAME} <${EMAIL}> (${SINGLE_DATE})" when the date is of >>> format -MM-DD, in UTC

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Florian Schmaus wrote: >> The first line of the "#"-prefixed explanation block must be of the >> format "${AUTHOR_NAME} <${EMAIL}> (${SINGLE_DATE})" when the date is of >> format -MM-DD, in UTC timezone. > > Can we drop this?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote: > = "Formal" format = > Each entry is composed of 2 parts: "#"-prefixed explanation block and > list of "${CATEGORY}/${PN}" packages. Entries are separated when a new > explanation block starts (meaning first "#"-prefixed line after

[gentoo-dev] Re: Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 21/09/2023 21.40, Arthur Zamarin wrote: Hi all I want to suggest a standard format for profiles/package.mask, for multiple reasons: Sounds sensible. +1 The first line of the "#"-prefixed explanation block must be of the format "${AUTHOR_NAME} <${EMAIL}> (${SINGLE_DATE})" when the date is

[gentoo-dev] Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

2023-09-21 Thread Arthur Zamarin
Hi all I want to suggest a standard format for profiles/package.mask, for multiple reasons: 1. Easier to write simple to understand mask or last-rites entries. When all entries are in similar format, the reader knows where to expect important information and such. Also easier for writer to

[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: x11-plugins/enigmail

2023-09-21 Thread Joonas Niilola
Enigmail's functionality has been built into Thunderbird-68, carrying over all the way to 115. Enigmail hasn't been supported in TB since 91. It's currently only supported on SeaMonkey, but upstream provides a pre-packed extension to download for SM directly. Therefore there's not much reason to

[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: net-misc/dahdi (and related pkgs)

2023-09-21 Thread Joonas Niilola
DAHDI is not suited for a rolling-release distribution. Upstream releases new versions sporadically and it may take multiple years between them. Old versions are constantly broken with newer kernels, requiring heavy patching downstream. Has no active maintainer in Gentoo. If you use DAHDI and have