maillog: 19/08/2005-02:59:46(+): Luke-Jr types
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 17:01, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > vanilla - Do not add extra patches which change default behaviour
>
> For features, I would expect individual USE flags-- what if I want one patch,
> but not another?
I agree. Fine-g
Greetings all,
So, as nobody came up with any suggestion/comment about my
last email, im gonna proceed to update the smalltalkx/ package
to the latest available binary version within the next 48 hours.
You can still ping me here on list or IRC within this period
if you got any better idea to han
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 05:30:42AM +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 17:44, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 10:17 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > 2) ebuild maintenance will be a nightmare- every new version will
> > >require again walking the sourc
On Thursday 18 August 2005 17:01, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> vanilla - Do not add extra patches which change default behaviour
For features, I would expect individual USE flags-- what if I want one patch,
but not another?
For changing mere defaults, a "gentoo" USE flag seems like it would make
sen
On Thursday 18 August 2005 17:44, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 10:17 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > 2) ebuild maintenance will be a nightmare- every new version will
> >require again walking the source to see if the lines you've drawn for
> >dividing the source are still
On Thursday 18 August 2005 19:01, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 18/08/2005-16:28:40(+0200): Christian Parpart types
>
> > Using the "minimal" useflag for this - IMHO - is a misuse of the idea of
> > "minimal" semantically - as I do understand minimal in a way like "don't
> > overbloat me with p
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:06:35AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:13:56 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | You're a bit vague in the 'die in pkg_setup' bit; if you're
> | referencing doing the changes now, and sticking a die in, I already
> | explicitly
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:22:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
| > I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved'
| > the ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to
| > work'. REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' the
> ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to work'.
> REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho.
>
I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflec
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:13:56 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| You're a bit vague in the 'die in pkg_setup' bit; if you're
| referencing doing the changes now, and sticking a die in, I already
| explicitly stated the responsible party would need a wedgie if it was
| done; the "le
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:05:43PM +0200, Grobian wrote:
>
>
> Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the
> >>bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead.
> >
> >
It's dead upstream and the ebuild need to be rewritten from scratch.
Unless there is some volenterous it will be sadly removed 2005-08-29
See bugs 77539,93725
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the
bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead.
Whoah! Isn't REVIEWED the perfect keyword?
or APPROVED?
--
Fabian Groffe
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Bah! No I'm not, because Sven pointed out that it collides with the
> bugzilla resolution. So I'm going with CHECKED instead.
Whoah! Isn't REVIEWED the perfect keyword?
--
Maurice van der Pot
Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROT
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:24:53 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:14:36 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | > Can anyone suggest
| | > a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)...
| | >
| |
| | I like
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:14:36 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Can anyone suggest
| > a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)...
| >
|
| I like the idea.
|
| SYNTAX_CHECKED(nick) maybe?
Seemant suggested VERIFIED(nick). I'm going with
MADE_IT_THROUGH_HELL(nick) possibly?
On 8/18/05, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Can anyone suggest
> > a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)...
> >
>
> I like the idea.
>
> SYNTAX_CHECKED(nick) maybe?
>
> lu
>
> --
>
> Luca Barba
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Can anyone suggest
> a name? Best I can come up with is STYLE_CHECKED(nickname)...
>
I like the idea.
SYNTAX_CHECKED(nick) maybe?
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.
Currently, things assigned to maintainer-wanted get the following
keywords (bugzilla, not ebuild):
* EBUILD if an ebuild is attached
* REQUEST if an ebuild is requested
I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing lists of
things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be c
On Thursday 18 August 2005 21:33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> then why not think bigger ... call it 'bsdeutils' or something rather than
> limiting yourself to bsd make
Because for a mk-based project (and fbsd/dfly/nbsd source packages) we can
just inherit bsdmk and src_compile and src_unpack are alre
On Thursday 18 August 2005 01:28 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 19:19, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > ok, but then you still have the fact that you're writting an eclass for a
> > single function ... isnt that the point of eutils ?
>
> A part eutils being polluted, whe
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 06:24:03PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:56:06 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Best solution in my opinon? Two use flags address this, client, and
> | server. Regardless of the setting of the two, you get the library;
> | from
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:18:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Yes, very. Saves us from hacky local USE flag handling by naming them
> > > no* or adding them to profiles.
> >
> > Which then raises the question of whether or not -* in a users USE
> > should disable it.
> > I say no, since -*
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:16:05PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> As long as there is a way provided disable the 'default use flags' in
> this case referring to the IUSE="+foo" stuff, with a big warning that
> says crap generally isn't expected to work great with that setting on,
> then thats fine.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:19:38 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 August 2005 12:09 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| > On Thursday 18 August 2005 17:55, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > > considering the number of packages that use pmake, why do you
| > > want an eclass f
On Thursday 18 August 2005 19:19, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ok, but then you still have the fact that you're writting an eclass for a
> single function ... isnt that the point of eutils ?
A part eutils being polluted, when pmake is used directly with bsd-style MK
definitions, bsdmk take care of most
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:56:06 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Best solution in my opinon? Two use flags address this, client, and
| server. Regardless of the setting of the two, you get the library;
| from there, you just set client and server as defaulting to on, and
| packages
On Thursday 18 August 2005 12:09 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 17:55, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > considering the number of packages that use pmake, why do you want an
> > eclass for it ? i'd say just put the logic in the ebuilds themselves
>
> Add all the ones we
On Thursday 18 August 2005 12:31 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:08:51AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Brian Harring wrote:
> > | Kind of curious about people's opinion on the IUSE default use flag
> > | thing, initial syntax was (using the above example)
> > | IUSE="+clie
Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:08:51AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
| Kind of curious about people's opinion on the IUSE default use flag
| thing, initial syntax was (using the above example)
| IUSE="+client server"
| with client defaulting to on unless
maillog: 18/08/2005-16:28:40(+0200): Christian Parpart types
>
> Using the "minimal" useflag for this - IMHO - is a misuse of the idea of
> "minimal" semantically - as I do understand minimal in a way like "don't
> overbloat me with patches and other feature additions"-alike.
minimal - Install a
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:08:51AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> | Kind of curious about people's opinion on the IUSE default use flag
> | thing, initial syntax was (using the above example)
> | IUSE="+client server"
> | with client defaulting to on unless the user's config
On Thursday 18 August 2005 17:55, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> considering the number of packages that use pmake, why do you want an
> eclass for it ? i'd say just put the logic in the ebuilds themselves
Add all the ones we use on G/FBSD overlay, and the count increase :)
The eclass is currently in pla
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
| Kind of curious about people's opinion on the IUSE default use flag
| thing, initial syntax was (using the above example)
| IUSE="+client server"
| with client defaulting to on unless the user's config disables it-
| note, stric
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:37:05AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Other distributions are also binary-only, so there's no real comparison
> here. While I think having "client" and "server" type USE-flags is
> really a bad idea, I don't see a problem with providing a library.
>
> I 100% disagree
On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:19 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I'm thinking about adding bsdmk to main tree and make ash/csh use it to
> find pmake
considering the number of packages that use pmake, why do you want an eclass
for it ? i'd say just put the logic in the ebuilds themselves
Lance Albertson wrote:
>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>
>>On Thursday 18 August 2005 10:28 am, Christian Parpart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do we have a general accepted gentoo policy for this?
>>>
>>>
>>general policy is to not split packages (and i agree with this ...)
>>
>>
>
>bind and bind-t
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 10:17 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> 2) ebuild maintenance will be a nightmare- every new version will
>require again walking the source to see if the lines you've drawn for
>dividing the source are still proper.
This is another good point. I have two split packages
Luca Barbato wrote:
>Christian Parpart wrote:
>
>
>
>>Using the "minimal" useflag for this - IMHO - is a misuse of the idea of
>>"minimal" semantically - as I do understand minimal in a way like "don't
>>overbloat me with patches and other feature additions"-alike.
>>
>>
>
>minimal is abou
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 10:13 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 August 2005 10:28 am, Christian Parpart wrote:
> >
> >>Do we have a general accepted gentoo policy for this?
> >
> >
> > general policy is to not split packages (and i agree with this ...)
>
> b
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:13:33 -0500 Lance Albertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| bind and bind-tools is split ;) Why is it so bad to split packages?
| (I'm just curious) Seems a bit odd that we can't have a library only,
| client only, etc package like the other distros. Of course, I
| understand th
Ok another problem with various makes on Gentoo/FreeBSD ...
Let's recap:
make command is aliased to 'gmake' to let use of GNU make on most situations
(while most of the autotools projects are fine with bsd make, a few uses
unportable syntax).
emake command calls gmake, as above
to run bsd make
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 04:28:40PM +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> for the general mysql ebuild, I'd propose the following splitup:
> * dev-db/mysql-server (or myssqld)
> * net-libs/libmysqlclient
> * dev-db/mysql (a meta package that simply depends on both, for backward
> compat)
> Using the
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 10:28 am, Christian Parpart wrote:
>
>>Do we have a general accepted gentoo policy for this?
>
>
> general policy is to not split packages (and i agree with this ...)
bind and bind-tools is split ;) Why is it so bad to split packages? (I'm
just
On Thursday 18 August 2005 10:28 am, Christian Parpart wrote:
> Do we have a general accepted gentoo policy for this?
general policy is to not split packages (and i agree with this ...)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Use INSTALL_MASK to keep /usr/bin/mysqld or whatever from getting installed. We
aren't generally in the habit of splitting packages into a bunch of different
ebuilds. There are exceptions, but
--Iggy
Christian Parpart wrote:
Hi all,
well, regarding the request on bug 88490 [1] (and my ow
Christian Parpart wrote:
> Using the "minimal" useflag for this - IMHO - is a misuse of the idea of
> "minimal" semantically - as I do understand minimal in a way like "don't
> overbloat me with patches and other feature additions"-alike.
minimal is about keeping the package at the minimum, tha
Hi all,
well, regarding the request on bug 88490 [1] (and my own needs) I'm in a deep
problem ;)
There *are* packages out there, that depend on (networking) client libraries
(and their headers of course);
for the general mysql ebuild, I'd propose the following splitup:
* dev-db/mysql-server (
On Thursday 18 August 2005 09:13, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> | I don't quite get you here. GLEP 31 has been approved, no? That would
>
> make
>
> | it seem to me that the above suggestion is just making the QA tool help
> | enforce existing policy. If there's a flaw in that line
On Thursday 18 August 2005 05:29, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> I am certain that I have watched DVDs that had DTS audio with 7
> channels.
Yeah but I'm not sure if libdts is capable to decode them..
Anyway I changed the description to
dts - Enables libdts (DTS Coherent Acoustics decoder) support
to
Jason Wever wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:59:42 +0200
>Francesco R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If you have some particular reason for keeping any of them drop me
>>a note on/off list.
>>
>>
>
>I'm sure you've done your due diligence, but please double check that
>you are not removing
51 matches
Mail list logo
