On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:59:06PM +0100, Miklos Vajna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> How does this allow one to define package-dependent dependencies?
> Typically foo-python will have to depend on python, but foo won't.
Aah, sorry for the spam. I overlooked the contents of the
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 12:35:41PM +1000, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pkgname=('abs-core' 'abs-readme')
> pkgver=2.3
> pkgrel=1
> arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
> url="http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=abs.git";
> license=('GPL')
> source=(ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/other/abs/abs-${pkgver}.tar
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:08:53AM -0600, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LZMA is now LGPL, so linking against it is OK wrt libarchive's BSD
> license. So it isn't implemented at all in libarchive, only linked to
> and treated just like gzip and bz2 currently are.
Exactly.
> If you compile
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 08:43:17PM +1000, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but the compressing of info pages is only on the master branch. There
> is no automatic removing of the dir file but that would require hard-coding
> a file name into makepkg which I am not too sure about...
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 02:29:10PM -0500, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At some point in the near future, I'm going to remove libdownload and
> maintain it as a patchset against libfetch.
> I am unclear as to where to pull libfetch from, because dragonflybsd
> seems to be more active,
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 12:12:29PM +1000, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CC: pacman-dev - We should also automatically compress the info files like
> we do the man pages.
That should not be hard, we have this trivial commit since a while:
http://git.frugalware.org/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:40PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Instead of using our "binaries" in our calls to pactest and vercmptest, use
> the
> libtool linked ones. We need to ensure they are created by calling the scripts
> once, and from there we can use them directly. This
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 12:20:20AM +0200, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +*ILoveCandy*::
> > > + Enables pacman game inspired progressbar.
> >
> > I thought this was undocumented intentionally.
>
> Yes, this is a funny, but musthave option. If this was a cheat code,
> please adultera
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +*ILoveCandy*::
> + Enables pacman game inspired progressbar.
I thought this was undocumented intentionally.
pgpLLweO9vCNV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
pacman-d
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 07:51:38AM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was thinking of adding some kind of "self.knownoutcome" flag to
> pactest, and have that basically suppress the return code incrementing
> if it was set to "fail" or something. (or just
> self.knownfailure=true.) Doe
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 07:29:45AM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahh, and I forgot to mention that the core .lastupdate was not
> deleted. This was a key part of the equation if I remember right
> because of interactions with packages also in testing.
Thanks, that was the part I mi
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 07:05:43AM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Miklos Vajna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:01:59PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> # get
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:01:59PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # get setup correct
> sudo rm
> /var/lib/pacman/sync/{community,extra,pacman-git,testing,unstable}/.lastupdate
Ouch, this is ugly. Why not using -Syy?
pgpCkz90IT4QB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:10:11PM +0200, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah indeed, so how is that handled?
Most build systems supporting cross-compile works like:
./configure --target=powerpc-distro-linux --build=i686-distro-linux
or so.
And then powerpc-distro-linux-gcc (etc.) will be
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 07:36:13PM +0200, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And it really only needs to be used in that place?
Given that cc/ld is called only inside build(), that's not a task of
makepkg. ;-)
pgpfri0ziquxA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:03:57PM +0200, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ int pacman_sync(alpm_list_t *targets)
>
> /* Display only errors with -Sp and -Sw operations */
> if(config->flags & (PM_TRANS_FLAG_DOWNLOADONLY |
> PM_TRANS_FLAG_PRINTURIS)) {
> -
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 02:42:15PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/2891
> >>
> >> Aaron closed this as "Wont't implement" two years ago.
>
> My name isn't Aaron, now is it?
OK, it was just a FYI. :-)
pgp0NSIhOOZDJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 01:11:11PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been contemplating something like this for a while as well. What
> do others on the list think, is this getting to be too much, or does
> this make sense? I think I would be fine with it. We will need
> documentat
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:29:23PM -0400, Loui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > to sum up: we encourage users to run makepkg as root, because this way
> > it can drop privileges as a separate user where makepkg can't do
> > anything problematic.
>
> This is how aurbuild works, and I think someone pa
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:40:30AM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do realize this is the *exact* same thing as running as root,
> which is what this option was meant to notify you about and scare you
> away from?
actually running makepkg as root would be something reasonable in
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:20:59PM +1000, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just another thought. Why do we even need the subpkg array. Why not:
> "pkgname=foo" for single packages and "pkgname=('foo' 'foo-bar'
> 'foo-doc')" for split packages? I would have to check that you can do
>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:07:37PM +0200, Jan Mette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another example: Our kdebase-workspace package is split into 3 pkgs:
> kdebase-workspace (binaries), kdebase-workspace-docs and
> kdebase-workspace-icons... When we rebuild this package, we just bump
> the kdebase-wo
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 04:31:11PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and this is where you make it impossible to name a subpkg 'kopete',
> > right?
> >
> > how would that handle the case when for example openoffice.org-i18n-de
> > is split from openoffice.org?
> >
> > (given that the
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32:35PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> pkgdesc = "qweqwe"
^ this won't work in sh
> pkgdesc_dev="asdasd"
> pkgdesc_doc="zxczxc"
> ...
> groups=()
> groups_dev=()
> groups_doc=()
> ...
and this is where you make it impossible to name a subpkg 'kopet
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:34:34AM +0200, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > here is what upstream usually does:
> >
> > 1.0pre1< 1.0rc1< 1.0< 1.0a
> >
>
> what about beta or b?
usually a project uses the alpha/beta _or_ the rc/pre schema, not both.
but yes, this is just one more example ab
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either way, I'm not convinced there is a right answer to what is
> greater and lesser, but it does warrent looking into as the behavior
> changed. I did see some comments in the new code alluding to some
> upstream cha
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 09:06:23PM +0200, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So first, isn't the correct term "splitted"?
> It seems that you use both "split" and "splittet" which would then be
> incorrect.
i'm not native, but: split, split, split. splitted is not an English
term at all.
pgpuG
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:36AM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what are you saying, did anyone actually look at the patch? I
> didn't change the existing --source option one bit, that *still* only
> includes local source files.
yes, i read that patch :)
> All I did was add a
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 04:32:15PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes there is use for this- to help people using makepkg comply with
> the GPL and providing source and the necessary tools to build it when
> they provide binary packages. I didn't remove the --source option on
> purpo
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:07:45PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This supplements the --source option and does nearly the same thing, except
> downloaded source files are included in the archive as well.
>
> This is mainly an RFC patch and interested parties are encouraged to
> com
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:54:14PM +0200, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So maybe instead of :
>cd "$srcdir/$pkgname-$pkgver"
> we could use :
>cd ${srcdir}/$pkgname-$pkgver
> ?
that would be totally illogical. the point of using ${foo} instead of
$foo is that in some cases you really
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:09:00PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, so you do still read the list? I was just checking. :)
heh, barely.
> But before you go howling at the copyright police (which is completely
> different than a GPL violation, so I apologize for that mixup in the
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 08:28:59PM -0500, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
> /*
> * be_files.c
> *
> - * Copyright (c) 2006 by Christian Hamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - * Copyright (c) 2006 by Miklos Vajna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> + *
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:40:46PM +0200, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> old" sometimes. The problem is, that many users use custom
> kernel (like me), that's why we cannot add 'kernel26>=...' dependency
> to glibc for example.
s/the problem/your own personal problem/. why pacman would ha
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 03:19:11AM +0800, Sebastian Nowicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I didn't really know what PM_TRANS_EVT_SCRIPTLET_INFO is for, so I
the lib can send 3 types of scriptlet events:
2 of them is for "doing something... done."
(PM_TRANS_EVT_SCRIPTLET_START, PM_TRANS_EVT_SCRI
35 matches
Mail list logo
