On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:42 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> TLDR: Let's remove FEATURES="stricter" from developer profile, I bet
> most people have it disabled anyway and it doesn't seem useful.
>
Really, I disabled it.
+1
Regards,
--
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://r
On 04:22 Sun 18 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:59:08PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that pushing EAPI
> > > implementation into the tree and ignoring EAPI, or hav
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-09-18 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-libs/libicq2000 2011-09-13 11:39:24 pacho
app-portage/meatoo 2011-09-13 11:43:33 pacho
app-editors/conglome
On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > '$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it may be
> > better to just drop the flag if no other package relies on it and no
> > user has ever requested the st
On 3/21/11 1:24 AM, Corentin Chary wrote:
> I recently started working on a small gentoo utility named "euscan"
> (for Ebuild Upstream Scan)
> For those who don't know debian's uscan, it allows to scan upstream
> for new versions. It's used by packages.qa.debian.org (example:
> http://packages.qa.d
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
[snip]
> '$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it may be
> better to just drop the flag if no other package relies on it and no
> user has ever requested the static build of that package.
>
I don't see any harm with includ
---
eclass/autotools-utils.eclass | 24
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass b/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass
index 76ad6fc..489efd9 100644
--- a/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass
+++ b/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass
@@
Hello all,
Considering that the 'magical IUSE check' in autotools-utils (and a few
other eclasses) is considered broken, and taking Diego's word [1],
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your uses of IUSE=static-libs.
To be honest, I'd like to remove that magic soon which means that all
ebuilds need
On 09/18/2011 07:27 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> You mean that no Linux users, in particular anyone not running or not
> wanting to run GNOME and Fedora, shouldn't be worried about the way
> some people in the GNOME and Fedora community seem intent to impose
> their ways to everyone else
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted:
> > I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.
>
> Interesting question. I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread,
> either, and
Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 06:40:03 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> (The other reason I think systemd and udev might merge at some point,
>> or at least
On 09/18/2011 07:20 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> What other meanings could it have? What would be the problem with
> moving the package use flag masks from package.use.mask to package.mask?
As Ciaran said, these two kinds of masks give two very different
behaviors that are not interchan
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
> On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> I'm astonished by the large amount of misinformation that is being
>> spread around about systemd. If this originated on the gentoo-user
>> mailing list, I'm disappointed that Gento
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
> As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
> to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing
> tree?
What's wrong with versioned masking of use-flags? The fact that they
have to b
On Sep 18, 2011 12:05 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh"
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote:
> > As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
> > to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing
> > tree?
>
> Every tim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote:
> > For example, people might think they can start masking
> > cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does
> > it mean something else? I have a sneaking suspi
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:47:14 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > For example, people might think they can start masking
> > cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does
> > it mean something else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's
> > not a policy saying "no use deps in pr
On Saturday, September 17, 2011 06:40:03 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> (The other reason I think systemd and udev might merge at some point, or
> at least have good IPC between them, because there is a potential for
> speed gains the
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:27:02 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny
> > wrote:
> >> No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:33:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
> > profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be
> > *extremely* beneficial, and cause muc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
>> No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd folks
>> are doing is nicely asking devs to include systemd unit files
>> whenever nece
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-09-2011 09:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan
> wrote:
>> I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
>> profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be
>> *extrem
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd folks are
> doing is nicely asking devs to include systemd unit files whenever
> necessary or use the eclass whenever upstream supplies those files.
>
> In other words, some devs just
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 08:38:31 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Is there something in particular that is causing alarm with systemd?
> All I've seen is a package in the tree and some discussion. I'm sure
> there will be requests for various packages to install some files
> needed for integrations/etc.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I think putting more pressure so systemd isn't given as granted would be
> more healthy for both those who are not using it (because, again, is an
> aberration for any kind of daemon not written for it) and those that want to
> use it (since
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:59:08PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that pushing EAPI
> > implementation into the tree and ignoring EAPI, or having this notion
> > that every repository must automat
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
> Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
>> Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
>
> 1) USE-flag based support to cross-compile packages (mostly implemented in
> multilib-portage)
let me extend this a bit, first the reasoning behind it:
For amd64 users, there is sometimes the issue, that t
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
> profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be
> *extremely* beneficial, and cause much less chaos.
>
> Speaking with my GNOME hat, it will be *extremely*
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
>>> Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
>>> matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
>>> vers
29 matches
Mail list logo
