On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26:57PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Zac Medico wrote:
So in your opinion, it would be fine to bump profiles/eapi to
EAPI=4 now?
Yes, it's feasible. As a consequence, we may get some complaints
from users who haven't upgraded during the last six months.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be
*extremely* beneficial, and cause much less chaos.
Speaking with my GNOME hat, it will
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
1) USE-flag based support to cross-compile packages (mostly implemented in
multilib-portage)
let me extend this a bit, first the reasoning behind it:
For amd64 users, there is sometimes the issue, that they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-09-2011 09:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan
nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:33:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:47:14 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
For example, people might think they can start masking
cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does
it mean something else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's
not a policy saying no use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
For example, people might think they can start masking
cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does
it mean something else? I have a
On Sep 18, 2011 12:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree,
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing
tree?
What's wrong with versioned masking of use-flags? The fact
On 09/18/2011 07:20 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
What other meanings could it have? What would be the problem with
moving the package use flag masks from package.use.mask to package.mask?
As Ciaran said, these two kinds of masks give two very different
behaviors that are not
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wait until
at least 6 months after supporting package
On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wait
On 09/15/2011 05:20 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2011-09-16 01:54:44 Brian Harring napisał(a):
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis wrote:
2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:53:50 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
I second the allowing dots in USE flag names. Definitely would be
helpful for declaring version related USE flags.
You
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
in useflags? My quick check shows that all PMs handle them well, quse
and euse as well.
Hrm, it's rather disappointing that they're accepted everywhere.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:55:08 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
in useflags? My quick check shows that all PMs handle them
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:35:21AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:53:50 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
I second the allowing dots in USE flag names.
2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
in useflags? My quick check shows that all PMs handle them well, quse
and euse as well.
Hrm, it's
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
in useflags?
2011-09-16 01:54:44 Brian Harring napisał(a):
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Could you point me to at least
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
1) USE-flag based support to cross-compile packages (mostly implemented in
multilib-portage)
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python, ruby or
php)
3) (internal) USE-flag based support to re-install packages
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
1) USE-flag based support to cross-compile packages (mostly implemented in
multilib-portage)
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python,
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:03:56 +0200, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python,
ruby or php)
The second one is already done in some eclasses, afaik php and ruby, but
2011-09-08 19:03:56 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python, ruby
or php)
The second one is already done in some eclasses, afaik php and ruby, but it
might be a good idea
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:10:23 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
2011-09-08 19:03:56 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g.
python, ruby or
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:35:48 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
PM needs to provide us with a nice ability to handle all that.
I've yet to see a complete, detailed, accurate description of what all
that really is. It's a bit hard to come up with an EAPI solution when
we don't know what
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:33:03 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:35:48 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
PM needs to provide us with a nice ability to handle all that.
I've yet to see a complete, detailed, accurate description of what
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 14:10:23 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
2011-09-08 19:03:56 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python,
ruby or php)
The
Resending as i sent it from gmail instead of google acc so it didn't
hit the list.
-- Přeposlaná zpráva --
Od: Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com
Datum: 5. září 2011 18:08
Předmět: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13
council meeting
Komu:
Ack.. both makes definitely sense.
-- Přeposlaná zpráva --
Od: Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com
Datum: 5. září 2011 18:08
Předmět: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13
council meeting
Komu: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Start collecting ideas
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
I suggest that EAPI 5 should include the two features that have been
omitted from EAPI 4 [1,2].
Apart from this, I think we should be more careful for the next EAPI,
in order to avoid such long delays as we had with
2011/9/7 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
I suggest that EAPI 5 should include the two features that have been
omitted from EAPI 4 [1,2].
Apart from this, I think we should be more careful for the next EAPI,
in
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:27:01 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well the patches code is in base eclass.
Then you should first consider moving epatch to PMS. I'd honestly
prefer going the other way.
For Recommended it works like this:
blabla.spec
Recommended: xf86-video-ati
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:07:21 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
I'd highlight the following bugs:
311795 - [Future EAPI] Allow dots in USE flag names
373377 - [Future EAPI] Remove IMAGE (deprecated already)
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:07:21 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/msg_dfef93f8d6bc6684d4dc9793563b4fdf.xml
was my list. There are also various bits of lousy wording in PMS that
I'd like to get cleared up over an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/07/2011 11:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:07:21 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal
scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
I'd highlight the following bugs:
311795 - [Future EAPI] Allow dots in USE flag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
I second the allowing dots in USE flag names. Definitely would be
helpful for declaring version related USE flags.
You know you won't be able to mention such flags in
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:53:50PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
I second the allowing dots in USE flag names. Definitely would be
helpful for declaring version
40 matches
Mail list logo
