Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:48:57 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > That's something done by sets as provided by the package mangler, > > not something done by repository-specified sets. > > So we should provide separate copies of the same sets for each package > mangler? You should avoid providing sets

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Sunday 26 of June 2011 09:02:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: > > As far as sets are concerned, how about PROPERTIES=set? > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 > > It's been p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:42:51 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 26-06-2011 14:31:12 +, Duncan wrote: > > > Hmmm, except that portage-2.2 isn't stable yet... indeed it isn't > > > even out of alpha yet. Not going to unleash that on my > > > production systems. > > > > Besides portage-2.2 still

[gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling

Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:42:51 +0200 as excerpted: > Yup, but when the library is already gone, you sometimes cannot run the > necessary tools any more. Funny one is bash, for instance. That's one of the tool-chain exceptions I specifically made. But fortunately, the really

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2011-06-26 23h59 UTC

The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2011-06-26 23h59 UTC. Removals: media-libs/sdl-gui 2011-06-21 07:05:21 hwoarang net-p2p/ghostwhitecrab 2011-06-21 07:06:08 hwoarang net-misc/guide

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

Hi, yes, it's no fun to update oldish gentoo Systems - especially ones that should only receive security updates. > My bugbear at the moment, is often a package is broken for more than one > reason in my situation, and I find myself having to manhandle the > package lists generated by the above t

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: split up media-sound/ category

On 06/24/2011 12:52 AM, Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote: > 2011/6/24 Zac Medico : >> On 06/22/2011 11:15 PM, Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote: >>> Symlinks are clean, and portage has >>> always been file-oriented so I see no problem with using them for >>> this. All we need is to deference the symli

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

On 27 June 2011 03:20, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: >> I personally prefer tabs, but I also like using EAPI="", >> sorting everything alphabetically and even use the following depend blocks: > >> *DEPEND=" >>       !>       !Y >>       >>       >>       ... >>       >>       a? ( ) >>       b? ( )

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On 27 June 2011 03:12, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > I see major disadvantage with this approach. It's painful to maintain. > Imagine hundreds of different tags, with each package having at least two > tags. You certainly don't expect anyone to be able to maintain that. > Also those files cannot be

[gentoo-dev] Re: a virtual advantage ?

On 06/26/2011 09:25 PM, Philip Webb wrote: 110626 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 06/26/2011 06:54 PM, Philip Webb wrote: Yesterday, I upgraded 'xorg-drivers' to the latest stable 1.10 & then found upon rebooting that X failed to recognise the keyboard. Yes, it's happened before& I was not surp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: a virtual advantage ?

110626 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 06/26/2011 06:54 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >> Yesterday, I upgraded 'xorg-drivers' to the latest stable 1.10 >> & then found upon rebooting that X failed to recognise the keyboard. >> Yes, it's happened before& I was not surprised: >> I had to switch the machine

Re: [gentoo-dev] a virtual advantage ?

El dom, 26-06-2011 a las 12:45 -0500, Dale escribió: > Alex Alexander wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2011 6:56 PM, "Philip Webb" wrote: > > > > > > Yesterday, I upgraded 'xorg-drivers' to the latest stable 1.10 > > > & then found upon rebooting that X failed to recognise the > > keyboard. > > > Yes, it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 13:51, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sat, Jun 25, 201

Re: [gentoo-dev] a virtual advantage ?

Alex Alexander wrote: On Jun 26, 2011 6:56 PM, "Philip Webb" > wrote: > > Yesterday, I upgraded 'xorg-drivers' to the latest stable 1.10 > & then found upon rebooting that X failed to recognise the keyboard. > Yes, it's happened before & I was not surprised: > I had

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 13:51, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, justin wrote: > Another qu

Re: [gentoo-dev] a virtual advantage ?

On Jun 26, 2011 6:56 PM, "Philip Webb" wrote: > > Yesterday, I upgraded 'xorg-drivers' to the latest stable 1.10 > & then found upon rebooting that X failed to recognise the keyboard. > Yes, it's happened before & I was not surprised: > I had to switch the machine off, reboot, login as root > -- e

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 13:51, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, justin wrote: Another question, do we have a rule, how the metadata.xml has to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Saturday 25 of June 2011 22:32:43 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> *DEPEND=" >>       !>       !Y >>       >>       >>       ... >>       >>       a? ( ) >>       b? ( ) >>       c? ( >>               >>               >>    

[gentoo-dev] Re: a virtual advantage ?

On 06/26/2011 06:54 PM, Philip Webb wrote: Yesterday, I upgraded 'xorg-drivers' to the latest stable 1.10 & then found upon rebooting that X failed to recognise the keyboard. Yes, it's happened before& I was not surprised: I had to switch the machine off, reboot, login as root -- experience lon

[gentoo-dev] a virtual advantage ?

Yesterday, I upgraded 'xorg-drivers' to the latest stable 1.10 & then found upon rebooting that X failed to recognise the keyboard. Yes, it's happened before & I was not surprised: I had to switch the machine off, reboot, login as root -- experience long ago made me avoid booting directly into a GU

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

110626 Stuart Longland wrote re his concept: > Tool will be written in separate modules to handle: > - ELF soname change breakage > - Python module updates > - Perl module updates > - other checks that can cause broken packages... > Each check is run in order, > generating a list of packages that s

Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml

On Saturday 25 of June 2011 22:32:43 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > On 25-06-2011 14:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, justin wrote: > >> Another question, do we have a rule, how the metadata.xml has to be > >> indented? Tabs or n spaces? > > > > There's no rul

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

Hello, On Sunday 26 of June 2011 09:02:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: As far as sets are concerned, how about PROPERTIES=set? https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 It's been proposed years ago. Is there a need to reinvent sets format every

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling

On 26-06-2011 14:31:12 +, Duncan wrote: > > Hmmm, except that portage-2.2 isn't stable yet... indeed it isn't even > > out of alpha yet. Not going to unleash that on my production systems. > > Besides portage-2.2 still being unstable, preserved-libs "solves" the > problem by keeping outdated

[gentoo-dev] Re: Are tags just sets?

Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:02:57 +0100 as excerpted: > [M]ake a bunch of sets named kde-tag, editors-tag, xml-tag, > monkeys-tag etc. ++ -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your m

[gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling

Stuart Longland posted on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:27:40 +1000 as excerpted: > On 06/26/11 15:44, Benedikt Böhm wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Stuart Longland >> wrote: >>> - revdep-rebuild (handles packages broken by soname changes, etc) >> >> solved by preserved-libs in portage-2.2 > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] validity of manifest signing key

* Dane Smith schrieb am 25.03.11 um 12:35 Uhr: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/25/2011 05:47 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote: > > Hi, > > > > it says here http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gnupg-user.xml#doc_chap2 that > > the validity should be <6 month. What is the protocol when

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

Kent Fredric posted on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:43:27 +1200 as excerpted: > On 26 June 2011 15:49, Wyatt Epp wrote: >> As for the latter part, the size of a git repo becoming umanageable >> over time had not occurred to me, I'm afraid-- would it work to use >> shallow clones?  Otherwise, the herd-wise

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 26-06-2011 12:23, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 26 June 2011 23:40, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I think we should avoid changing the fundamental design of portage, >> such as removing categories or allowing tags to be used as >> dependencies/etc. At le

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:00:43 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:54:44 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds > > > of repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be > > > code... > > > > Simple thing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

On 06/26/11 14:27, Stuart Longland wrote: > On 06/26/11 15:44, Benedikt Böhm wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Stuart Longland >> wrote: >>> - revdep-rebuild (handles packages broken by soname changes, etc) >> >> solved by preserved-libs in portage-2.2 > > Hmmm, except that portage-2.2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

On 06/26/11 21:48, Thomas Sachau wrote: > I am thinking about a solution for those similar to current ruby idea and > already implemented for > cross-compilation in my multilib-portage branch of portage. The very short > version: > > Set the needed details in the ebuilds, where needed, in case o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

On 06/26/11 15:44, Benedikt Böhm wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Stuart Longland wrote: >> - revdep-rebuild (handles packages broken by soname changes, etc) > > solved by preserved-libs in portage-2.2 Hmmm, except that portage-2.2 isn't stable yet... indeed it isn't even out of alpha y

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:13:24 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > With this "new" system however, pkgmoves will be a thing of the past, > even if we keep the legacy category system around. Nope. Package names can still change, and I really dislike the idea of keeping some magical hashes or deprecated nam

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

On 26 June 2011 23:40, Rich Freeman wrote: > > I think we should avoid changing the fundamental design of portage, > such as removing categories or allowing tags to be used as > dependencies/etc.  At least, not right now.  If we set up namespaces > for tags that might allow for such a thing in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On 26 June 2011 19:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: > > First, standardise sets. We probably want to go with a format along the > lines of: > >    eapi = 4 >    description = Monkeys > >    dev-monkey/howler >    dev-monkey/spider >    >=dev-monkey/span

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > Hi all, > > I've been busy for the past month or two, busy updating some of my > systems. In particular, the Yeeloong I have, hasn't seen attention in a > very long time. Soon as I update one part however, I find some swath of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > So again, what are you trying to fix, and what makes you think it was > broken to start with? Well, I think there are things worth improving. However, I'm not sure that we should consider implementation of tagging a reason to re-design the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 03:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: > You know, that's not a bad way of going about it. Truth be told, I had sort of forgotten sets exists because they're a bit cumbersome at the moment. But it's cheap and dead simple and gets

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

On 26 June 2011 21:53, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > I disagree. If I put postgresql in x11-libs that's just wrong, and then > you fix it with a package move. Doesn't mean the category system is > broken, just means that it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. > >> >> As far as app-xemacs is conce

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

On 06/25/11 21:42, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Saturday 25 of June 2011 19:29:58 Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: >>> Assuming package names are unique identifiers, tags are not >>> necessary to be available for ebuild.sh so metadata.xml is the best >>> pl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:54:44 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds > > of repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be > > code... > > Simple things like getting a list of packages which own a particular > file (for rebui

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:43:41 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:41:24 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of > > package sets (much like portage handles currently). > > I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:41:24 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of > package sets (much like portage handles currently). I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds of repository-provided sets. We especially don't wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:02:57 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > First, standardise sets. We probably want to go with a format along > the lines of: > > eapi = 4 > description = Monkeys A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of package sets (much like portage handle

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

2011/6/26 Jesús J. Guerrero Botella : > I am really amazed that someone didn't want to use links (a solution > with next to zero work involved) because they are not available in > fat32 (as if fat32 was relevant at all for us) but then people is > suggesting that we should put everything into a fla

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

I am really amazed that someone didn't want to use links (a solution with next to zero work involved) because they are not available in fat32 (as if fat32 was relevant at all for us) but then people is suggesting that we should put everything into a flat folder and use tags. Well, good look getting

[gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

Here's a completely different way of doing tags: First, standardise sets. We probably want to go with a format along the lines of: eapi = 4 description = Monkeys dev-monkey/howler dev-monkey/spider >=dev-monkey/spanky-2.0 dev-monkey/squirrel where eapi has to be on the f