On Sunday 27 November 2005 01:48, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 05:12:45PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > As I said earlier, we'd like to get rid of the nasty auto-use feature,
> > including the support for the USE_ORDER variable. Right now we intend
> > this for 2.0.54 (mig
On 25/11/2005 11:46:54, Marius Mauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
When you say 'to-die' do you mean completely removed, or do you
mean replaced with {man,info,doc} (i.e. removing inverted logic)?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 26/11/2005 13:55:25, Ned Ludd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 19:30 +0100, Bruno wrote:
>
> > What's the advantage of splitting out the debug info to some extra
> > location instead of leaving it in the original binary (maybe smaller
> > foot-print in memory while the debug
Luca Barbato posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Sun, 27 Nov 2005 01:55:14 +0100:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
> [snip]
>
> avifile will be removed tomorrow since mlt and mlt++ (required by jahshaka
> as avifile replacement) will be released tomorrow.
>
> If you are maintaining or using on
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:53 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On 26/11/2005 13:55:25, Ned Ludd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 19:30 +0100, Bruno wrote:
> >
> > > What's the advantage of splitting out the debug info to some extra
> > > location instead of leaving it in the origi
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:20 -0600, R Hill wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Good afternoon,
> >
> > probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> > info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> > stripping executables while gaining the ability to proper
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 23:42 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Good afternoon,
> >
> > Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF
> > executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we
> > want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined.
On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> It's great!
> Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
+1, and it would be better if the FEATURES, instead of removing the generated
files, would disable the building of them completely, mainly because "work"
systems with limited CP
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> > | we can make it a sort of rule).
> > | H
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:24 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:20 -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > Good afternoon,
> > >
> > > probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> > > info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages o
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be an
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:24 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:20 -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > > Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > > Good afternoon,
> > > >
> > > > probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> > >
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:24 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:20 -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > > Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > > Good afternoon,
> > > >
> > > > probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> > >
On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> >
> > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without m
On 11/27/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > It's great!
> > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> +1, and it would be better if the FEATURES, instead of removing the generated
> files, would disable the
27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
>> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
>> >
>> > They are ver
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> > >
>
On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Err, maybe I am incorrect, but isn't it more "work" to ungenerate them
> (using strip) then to just not install them?
Their creation in-line of a binary is probably a simpler work (for the disk)
than having to split them out, but I might be wr
On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution
> could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
Is my mail enough as a speak-up
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 09:39 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 11/27/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > It's great!
> > > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> > +1, and it would be better if the FEATURE
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found.
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:43, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> >> > > Except that no{man,info
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:50:30PM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I'm in favor of it enabled per default but I'd like to know what you
> think and why. (advantages of on/off by default etc..)
>
This should definitely be enabled by default, we dont need to enable
debugging information for this to be use
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:40 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> > And one more thing. For proper debugging, don't I need the source to be
> > present ?
>
> -g3 -ggdb embeds the source code in the debug info so I don't see the
> point.
It doesn't; at
Random thought May be completely off base.
Could this debug info be NFS shared? assuming like computers, or would
it be different on each computer.
On 11/27/05, Tavis Ormandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:50:30PM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > I'm in favor of it enabled
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 09:39 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 11/27/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > It's great!
> > > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> > +1, and it would be better if the FEATURE
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found.
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:22 +, Edward Catmur wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:40 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> > > And one more thing. For proper debugging, don't I need the source to be
> > > present ?
> >
> > -g3 -ggdb embeds the source
On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
>
> In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind.
> Similarly, it wou
--ignore-other-arches Instructs repoman to ignore arches that are not
relevent to the committing arch. REPORT/FIX issues you work around.
Are there any valid uses for this switch or can it be deprecated? From a
QA point of view this seems like a very bad option.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> >
> > In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> > moved into the tree down t
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> > >
> > > In light of the above requirements a
Hi,
It has been a while since the [EMAIL PROTECTED] project has moved to a
BOINC-based
client. Thanks to Marcus Hanwell (cryos), we have working ebuilds for BOINC
and the new [EMAIL PROTECTED] client (4.x) in the tree.
The "classic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.x service has now been discontinued (and
On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:12, Ned Ludd wrote:
> USE=(man|info|doc) wont quite work.
> While they could have an advantage that you can use them to control
> depend strings the doc use flag has already been heavily used for other
> things which everybody surely wont want.
As vapier said, doc usef
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 16:28 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" o
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:08:53PM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> --ignore-other-arches Instructs repoman to ignore arches that are not
> relevent to the committing arch. REPORT/FIX issues you work around.
>
> Are there any valid uses for this switch or can it be deprecated? From a
> QA point of v
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:44 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:22 +, Edward Catmur wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:40 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> > > > And one more thing. For proper debugging, don't I need the source
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 18:08 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> --ignore-other-arches Instructs repoman to ignore arches that are not
> relevent to the committing arch. REPORT/FIX issues you work around.
>
> Are there any valid uses for this switch or can it be deprecated? From a
> QA point of view this
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:39:48 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came
| up, the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
| solution could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
A proper s
On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> A proper solution requires Portage changes. Unfortunately, for some
> packages waiting a year or more to fix something isn't an option.
Maybe not, if we just make man and info two useflags enabled by default in all
profiles and change one-
On Thursday 24 November 2005 12:31, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> What I'm waiting for now are comments if someone has ideas where to put
> guides that does not belong directly to an existant project. And if someone
> wants to join the effort of documenting maintenance process for his
> packag
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I really can't give an accurate example. Halcyon who has been testing it
> merged world and he was yeilded with 18M of debug info (I have no idea
> how many packages he has).
Just for the sake of reference, this was with 95 packages and CFLAGS="-O2
-march=pent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| Possible solutions I thought of:
|
| 1) have every herd controlled by a project
This should be the goal already, and all herds should be looking to
either join or create a project, in conjunction with other herds.
On Sun, 2005-27-11 at 13:03 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I really can't give an accurate example. Halcyon who has been testing it
> > merged world and he was yeilded with 18M of debug info (I have no idea
> > how many packages he has).
>
> Just for the sake of
On Sunday 27 November 2005 20:27, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This should be the goal already, and all herds should be looking to
> either join or create a project, in conjunction with other herds.
Okay that probably goes fine for most of the cases, there are still non-herded
ebuilds but that's a sid
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 11:55 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:44 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:22 +, Edward Catmur wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:40 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> > > > > And o
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:01 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 11:55 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:44 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:22 +, Edward Catmur wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:40 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > > > On Su
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 12:50 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
> executables in
maillog: 27/11/2005-13:54:33(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > It's great!
> > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> +1, and it would be better if the FEATURES, instead of removing the generated
> files, would disable
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:18 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 27/11/2005-13:54:33(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > It's great!
> > > Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles.
> > +1, and it would be better if the
50 matches
Mail list logo
