Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] OT: Screen bragging. Was: [PROPOSAL] Don't split user visible messages across multiple lines

On 03/17/2017 03:51 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 06:58:23 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: Brian Dolbec posted on Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:08:30 -0700 as excerpted: We could also increase the max. line length to something like 120 or 130. I think more people should

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] gentoolkit.git repository reorganized

On 10/21/2015 11:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 22 Oct 2015 00:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On 21 Oct 2015 16:35, Paul Varner wrote: >>> On 10/20/2015 03:34 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >>>> On 15/10/15 19:42, Paul Varner wrote: >>>>> Over the l

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] gentoolkit.git repository reorganized

On 10/20/2015 03:34 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 15/10/15 19:42, Paul Varner wrote: > > Over the last couple of days, I have done the following: > > > 1. Migrated the gentoolkit-dev branch to its own gentoolkit-dev.git > > repository > > 2. Moved the gent

[gentoo-portage-dev] gentoolkit.git repository reorganized

All: Due to historical reasons the gentoolkit git repository was organized with two branches, gentoolkit and gentoolkit-dev with master effectively being an empty branch. This was confusing to contributers and with git did not make a lot of sense. Over the last couple of days, I have done the fo

[gentoo-portage-dev] Tools-Portage Lead

All: I inherited the tools-portage lead position on 12/1/2008 when genone retired from Gentoo, and have been the lead since that time. Reading GLEP-39, it is not clear to me if a sub-project needs to have their leads elected or not. Anyhow, I'm asking the following: 1. Do we want to elect a too

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Package description index file format for faster emerge search actions

On 10/14/14 02:40, Zac Medico wrote: > Hi, > > As we all know, emerge --search/--searchdesc actions are embarrassingly > slow (from most users' perspectives, anyway), especially in comparison > to external tools like eix and esearch. > > Wouldn't it be nice if the performance of emerge's search fun

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask

On 11/21/13 03:21, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > After talking to zmedico privately, and raising the issue and > discussing it with people in bug #481578[0], I implemented the > behaviour described in a comment[1] on said bug. > > I sent this to zmedico almost two months ago, but it doesn't look like

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask

On 11/21/13 10:46, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > I don't understand your predicament. --autounmask per today just > prints out necessary keyword changes. If you run without --autounmask > it doesn't print them. I attached an example. You answered my question with the example. Thank you. Regards, P

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] tools-portage packages

Based upon all of the responses, this is the list of completely unmaintained packages managed by tools-portage. If no one objects, I will send this list to gentoo-dev in a few days asking for maintainers or they will be last rited. app-portage/deltup app-portage/epm app-portage/maintainer-helper

[gentoo-portage-dev] tools-portage packages

t know anything about this package. * app-portage/eclass-manpages [gentoo] vap...@gentoo.org -- Actively maintained by Mike. * app-portage/elogv [gentoo] fuzzy...@gentoo.org (Paul Varner) sp...@gentoo.org (Sebastian Pipping) -- Being maintained more by Sebastian than myself. * app-portage/el

[gentoo-portage-dev] tools-portage packages

f("%s/%s\n", $4, $5)}') * app-portage/deltup [gentoo] None specified -- I don't know anything about this package. * app-portage/eclass-manpages [gentoo] vap...@gentoo.org -- Actively maintained by Mike. * app-portage/elogv [gentoo] fuzzy...@gentoo.org (Paul Varner) sp...@gentoo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] equery displays warnings about masked deps, even when those deps are deeper than --depth specification

On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 15:40 +0200, Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: > is this a bug? As the gentoolkit maintainer, I would say that it is a bug. Which version of gentoolkit do you have installed? Regards, Paul

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 20:04 +0200, Arthur D. wrote: > > I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild > > since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added > > as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that > > again. > > Paul, there

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:01 -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:54:35PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote: > > I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild > > since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added > > as

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options

ding options explicitly? Hey, that's Gentoo, > just make > a wrapper script and be happy ;-) > > I wrote a letter Paul Varner, reporting him about that bug. And what did > he answer? > That's a feature, not a bug. "We purposely do not honor > EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPT

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Fwd: Re: equery refactorization]

I'm just picking a message to reply to. Overall, I like where this is headed with just a few comments. 1. I would like to see /usr/lib/gentoolkit/pym go away and the python modules moved into the python site-packages directory. 2. I do not want to see any of the long and short option names change

[gentoo-portage-dev] FEATURE=preserved-libs issues

Since installing portage-2.2, I have had preserved-libs kick in twice on all of my machines. Each time that it has kicked in the emerge @preserved-libs command has failed miserably and I have had to revert back to using revdep-rebuild to fix the problems. I'm not positive that this is neccessaril

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Does portage store checksums for every installed file in a package?

On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 10:54 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: > > Hello all, > > I was wondering whether portage calculates and stores a checksum for > > every installed file (every file appearing in the output of "equery f > > "). If so, how can I access it? I've found a Man

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: New preserve-libs feature

On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 20:56 +, Duncan wrote: > Question: With the old library still around, will revdep-rebuild even try > to rebuild anything linked against it? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it > would only rebuild when the library was actually missing. (There's also a > hint of that in an

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] RFC: new virtual metadata variable to list combined deps

On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 18:50 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > So now I was wondering a) if I'm the only one who finds this > feature useful and b) if adding it at the dbapi level (in dbapi.aux_get) > would be considered a good idea, so it could be used by other tools? Not sure if it would fit better in

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Naming Conventions

On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 04:43 +0900, Chris White wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all you goons and minions, > > While this may seem relatively simple, it's one of those "Don't judge > a book by the cover". While documenting, it was brough up the idea of > naming con

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] glsa-check wrong

On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:34 +0200, Radoslaw Stachowiak wrote: > glsa-check returns errorlevels >255 which results in shell being > unable to parse it (anything greater >255 is 0). I've opened Bug #139804 to track this. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] making permission/ownership retention consistent

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 02:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > personally i think that we should be retaining the permissions of the file as > is instead of resetting it, but i wont fight too hard in either direction ... > we just need the behavior to be consistent I agree with retaining permissions

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.1 and gentoolkit-0.2.2

s has been highly improved. > > On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 14:49 -0500, Paul Varner wrote: > > If portage-2.1 is requested to be marked stable before then, we need to > > also make the same request for gentoolkit, so that we don't break it. I don't think that we need to

[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.1 and gentoolkit-0.2.2

Just a reminder that due to the changes in portage-2.1, that it breaks gentoolkit-0.2.1 which is the current stable version. I have placed gentoolkit-0.2.2 in the tree which works with portage-2.1 and opened bug #135068 I have not added the arch teams to the bug si

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-2.1_pre5

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 18:35 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > After you've updated to the new ebuild (with patch), run `sed -i > 's/>>> Emerging/>>> emerge/g' /var/log/emerge.log` and genlop should > work correctly again. > Did all of the above and everything is looking good. Thanks for the quick respo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-2.1_pre5

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 20:07 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > Your testing is appreciated. I'll file a bug for this one, once I investigate further. 'genlop -t' doesn't get along with it very well. # genlop -t screen * app-misc/screen Thu Dec 15 23:10:28 2005 >>> app-misc/screen-4.0.2-r4

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-2.1_pre5

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 20:07 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > Your testing is appreciated. The only thing that I have noted so far is that every emerge command is printing "**" before it does anything else. For example: # emerge -pv portage ** These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Ca

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-webrsync patch

On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 17:38 +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: > Good point. Is this patch better? Or should it rather be _exactly_ as it > is in revdep-rebuild? I personally would do it the same way as revdep-rebuild since that causes the entire script and anything it calls to be run at the value

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-webrsync patch

On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 13:04 +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: > I put a "nice -n 19" in front of the tar, rsync and emerge metadata > commands because normally calling emerge-webrsync renders my box > unusable for 15 to 20 minutes. You still notice a difference when using > "nice" but everything

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 02:10 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > Either way, test, feeding stats back, etc, would be appreciated ;) > Thanks, Here are my results on a 233Mhz Pentium MMX system. Regards, Paul cpuinfo === processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] ECONF_EXTRA handling: bug 38618

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 16:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > It allows for users to override ebuild defined configure options, > potentially shooting themselves in the foot, but in the same token > they can already shoot themselves in the foot via EXTRA_ECONF... Since EXTRA_ECONF is all about letti

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: gentoolkit: Make portage.config object a global object

On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 19:00 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 06:55:44PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 18:34 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > > > > Updated patch to add a semaphore to control access to the global > > > > por

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: gentoolkit: Make portage.config object a global object

On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 08:46 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > Updated patch to add a semaphore to control access to the global > > portage.config object. Unless anyone sees any other issues with this > > patch, I will be placing it into gentoolkit. > > Is the settingslock created in __init__.py acces

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: gentoolkit: Make portage.config object a global object

On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 18:34 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > > Updated patch to add a semaphore to control access to the global > > portage.config object. Unless anyone sees any other issues with this > > patch, I will be placing it into gentoolkit. > Reason for a semaphore over threading.Lock ? No r

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: gentoolkit: Make portage.config object a global object

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 11:59 -0500, Paul Varner wrote: > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90680 > > Author: Paul Varner > > The current implementation of gentoolkit creates a portage.config object > for every package object that it creates. While this is the correct >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: gentoolkit: Make portage.config object a global object

On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 08:09 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > I tried doing this once before locally, but found some issue with it. > Unfortunately, I can't remember what that issue was. If you are calling > setcpv() for every call to the package object that utilizes the config > object and no utiliz

[gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: gentoolkit: Make portage.config object a global object

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90680 Author: Paul Varner The current implementation of gentoolkit creates a portage.config object for every package object that it creates. While this is the correct thing to do from an object-oriented programming point of view, this implementation

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] /etc/make.conf

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 00:28 +0300, Marius Mauch wrote: > Paul Varner wrote: > > My personal opinion is modify the tools to let portage handle it > > utilizing portageq or equivalent. Here is a snippet of my code from > > revdep-rebuild. If that is not possible, then I

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] /etc/make.conf

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 12:01 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > In regards to a few bugs reports I want to inquire on the exact format > of make.conf. It seems some utilities ( euse ) are sourcing > /etc/make.conf. This is fine for most configurations

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Posting of patches

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > From now on, I'll be posting everything that I am thinking of pushing > into stable (portage-2.0) and would like it if people could look over > the patches and respond with a yay or nay. I really like this idea. As far as the patches go,

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] dispatch-conf

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 08:29 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Thursday 02 June 2005 04:47, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Wed Jun 01 2005, 02:38:51PM CDT] > > > > > Dear all, > > > Is dispatch-conf still "barely-maintained", meaning that nobody is > > > really all that familiar wi

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] dispatch-conf

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 14:47 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Brian tells me that the symlink bug is fixed in ~arch, and that he > doesn't object to breaking it out of portage. Any other thoughts? I would like to see it split out and I'm even willing to help maintain it since I use it on a regular

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Regarding packages.provided

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 08:49 +0530, Chakkaradeep C C wrote: > i have installed xine myself and not using emerge, and i did add in > the /etc/portage/profile/package.provided , but am not getting it > displayed when i type, > equery list xine > > how could i tell portage that this tool is been > ins