On 13 March 2012 19:41, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote
>
>> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
>> use GLEP 55.
>
> A filename should not be (ab)used as a database. The main argument for
> GLEP 55 is that it
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote
> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to
> use GLEP 55.
A filename should not be (ab)used as a database. The main argument for
GLEP 55 is that it would make ebuild-processing generic. I.e. making
eb
Alec Warner posted on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:53:58 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Kent Fredric
> wrote:
>> On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
going to the council again (decisions are not
On 03/12/12 11:57, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring wrote:
>> Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
>> xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
>> since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call
>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:14:23PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 17:31, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Worse, it actually makes parsing _worse_ than it already is. ??What G55
> > had going for it was ease of filtering out unsupported eapi's.
> > Literally just filter the readdir results.
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Alec Warner wrote:
> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.)
> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is
> not allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that
On 3/12/12 8:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:14:23PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Yeah, I think it's an easy fix either in openrc or in an initscript
somewhere. I changed nothing except my kernel (was missing devtmpfs -- it's
not under Filesystems!), uninstalled module-
On 13 March 2012 17:31, Brian Harring wrote:
> Worse, it actually makes parsing _worse_ than it already is. What G55
> had going for it was ease of filtering out unsupported eapi's.
> Literally just filter the readdir results. This behemoth Zac is
> proposing basically requires throwing regex at
On 3/11/12 10:33 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:28:41PM -0800, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 3/10/12 6:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
neither the genkernel nor dracut docs have specific instructions about
I guess we could pour more effort in getting dracut more easy to use
and/or tr
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> > If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a varia
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:14:23PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Yeah, I think it's an easy fix either in openrc or in an initscript
> somewhere. I changed nothing except my kernel (was missing devtmpfs -- it's
> not under Filesystems!), uninstalled module-init-tools, and installed kmod +
> udev-1
On 2012-03-12, at 9:22 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
> And yes, I've already tested out udev-181 on a VM with a
> separate /usr. With devtmpfs, the system fully boots just fine, no
> initramfs needed. Guess what the only piece of software to mess up is?
> Udev. I largely think it's a timing iss
On 03/12/2012 21:37, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 14:22, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> I thought this up on a whim, it hasn't been tested nor vetted. It's largely
>> meant as a joke, but also to provoke discussion on the current filesystem
>> design and the direction we're getting pulled in
Marco Paolone posted on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:58:37 + as excerpted:
> Hello gentoo-dev team,
> scarabeus recently posted on his blog [1] about submission of
> stabilization requests from users. Since using bugzilla could be a mess
> of duplicated entries, I was thinking about a "Stabilization Pa
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:08:47 +
"Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> The quickest initramfs, assuming that ALL kernel modules you need to
> boot are already compiled into your kernel:
> genkernel --install --no-ramdisk-modules initramfs
>
> Plus optionally, If you know you don't need any of these, inc
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:34:37 +
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:49:11AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > We should really have some documentation on how to create a minimal
> > initramfs
> > that mounts /usr (if we don't already, I haven't looked). I've never needed
> > one unt
On 13 March 2012 14:22, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> I thought this up on a whim, it hasn't been tested nor vetted. It's largely
> meant as a joke, but also to provoke discussion on the current filesystem
> design and the direction we're getting pulled in with Fedora's declaration
> that separate /usr
On 03/11/2012 13:33, William Hubbs wrote:
> I highly discourage moving more things to /. If you google for things
> like, "case for usr merge", "understanding bin split", etc, you will
> find much information that is very enlightening about the /usr merge and
> the reasons for the /bin, /lib, /s
On 03/13/12 02:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[snip lots of political rhetoric]
>
> GLEP 55 is simple,
No.
> it solves all the problems we have
No, it just tries to shove them under the carpet
> (including the
> version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring),
Say what?
> it doesn't require
On 03/13/12 01:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>> still not needed.
>
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
> definitely works, whereas other solu
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Can somebody present a real ( or even theoretical ) problem that could
> arise from having the EAPI in the filename that isn't some abstract
> hand-waving?
>
> Not trying to be a troll here, but really, I still haven't seen any.
This isn't a real-wo
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
>>> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.)
>>> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the counc
On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
>> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.)
>> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not
>> allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but tha
On 2012-03-12 10:20 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> One of the greatest things that bugs me about ssmtp is that if the
> mailserver is not available, it hangs for a while, and then it loses the
> email.
To be fair, a queue-less design does keep it simple.
> Where I need a simple mail relay, I've g
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, James Broadhead
wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 21:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
>>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or pe
On 12 March 2012 21:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version
>> basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all.
>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
>>>
I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
ag
Hello gentoo-dev team,
scarabeus recently posted on his blog [1] about submission of stabilization
requests from users. Since using bugzilla could be a mess of duplicated
entries, I was thinking about a "Stabilization Party" once a month for example,
in order to have a coherent list of stabilizatio
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
>>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-v
On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version
>> basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all.
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version
> basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all.
You can find a recent discussion in bug 402167, comm
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> An initramfs which does this is created by >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25 or
> >=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
Minor tweak:
>=sys-kernel/genkernel-3
On 12 March 2012 20:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:49:22 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > That's already not the way things work, since different version
>> > strings can be equal versions (and it's illegal to do this),
>> > so it's not relevant to the discussion.
>>
>> Thi
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:07:48PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ssmtp has been quiet project for quite a while, where as msmtp is
> maintained one.
>
> sure, ssmtp might be just mature, but msmtp is equally small and has
> more features.
>
> any thoughts?
+1 to getting rid of ssmtp. But I'm
ssmtp has been quiet project for quite a while, where as msmtp is
maintained one.
sure, ssmtp might be just mature, but msmtp is equally small and has
more features.
any thoughts?
- Samuli
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:49:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > That's already not the way things work, since different version
> > strings can be equal versions (and it's illegal to do this),
> > so it's not relevant to the discussion.
>
> This is a design flaw in our versioning system, and it can
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:58:01 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> If the answer to this is no, that there should always be only one
>> ebuild per package version
Right.
> That's already not the way things work, since different version
> strings
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:38:21 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> The performance argument is in GLEP 55 itself:
>
> | Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild
> |
> | Properties:
> |Can be used right away: no
> |Hurts performance: yes
Sure. And it's a benefit, if your package mangler is careful
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:09:39PM +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> > The quickest initramfs, assuming that ALL kernel modules you need to
> > boot are already compiled into your kernel:
> > genkernel --install --no-ramdisk-modules initramfs
> But this will not mount /usr. At least it did not for m
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> The "header comment" solution solves all these issues too, without
>> embedding unrelated information in the filename [1].
>> It can be implemented immediately, too.
> No it can't, since existing package managers don't
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:01:21PM +0100, Matthias Hanft wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > I think that makes the most sense. That news item can include links
> > to the documentation that gets written over the next few months.
>
> In the German (not Gentoo-specific) newsgroup de.comp.os.unix.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> If we want to handle every possible screwup, including stray EAPI
> assignments inside inherited eclasses, we still need to compare the
> probed value to the value that's obtained from bash.
Well, I wasn't intending to suggest that the repoman
I thought we had this discussion already. USE=static-libs is for
controlling the build of static libraries, not the install alone.
Changed it the way it was.
On 03/12/2012 07:57 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
scarabeus12/03/12 17:57:41
Modified: jbigkit-2.0-r1.ebuild
On 03/12/2012 07:59 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
El 12/03/12 17:29, Samuli Suominen escribió:
# Samuli Suominen (12 Mar 2012)
# media-sound/lilypond required for this is masked in ../package.mask
# for removal
app-text/asciidoc test
asciidoc only depends with the test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:58:01 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> If the answer to this is no, that there should always be only one
> ebuild per package version
That's already not the way things work, since different version
strings can be equal versions
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:50:36 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including the
> > version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it doesn't
> > require us to guess what's going to happ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/03/12 02:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including
>> the version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it
>> doesn't require u
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including the
> version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it doesn't
> require us to guess what's going to happen next and it can be
> implemented immediately. That's a rather b
On 2012-03-12 Mon 10:54, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote:
> > > # Samuli Suominen (12 Mar 2012)
> > > # Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
> > > # #372839, #380155, #380627, #381055, #383515, #383553, #384687,
> > > # and #403399. Search bugzilla with keyword lilypond. Nothing
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:49:11AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> We should really have some documentation on how to create a minimal initramfs
> that mounts /usr (if we don't already, I haven't looked). I've never needed
> one until now and don't have the foggiest idea how it's done. I can't be the
>
On 13 March 2012 07:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Note the smiley in my posting. And yes, it _is_ ugly.
>
It may be ugly, but I'll take ugly over "doesn't work" and "serious
technical limitations" any day ;)
Binary executables are "ugly", you don't see many people complaining ;)
--
Kent
perl
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:17:31 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > The person who wrote it is one of Satan's little minions. Also,
> > change is bad.
>
> And you think that this is better?
Those *are* the arguments against GLEP 55 that we've had so far. You're
adding in "someone already said no" (and
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>> > If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that
>> > uses a constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
> > If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that
> > uses a constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string
> > just after the version component of the name. For exa
On 13 March 2012 06:53, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> There are very good reasons not to embed this information in the
> filename. That it makes the filename harder to parse for the human eye
> and more difficult to type is one of them.
>
> Besides, we already have a council decision about that GLEP.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
> > xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
> > since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
> If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that uses a
> constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string just after the
> version component of the name. For example:
>foo-1.0-r1-eapi5.ebuild
This is so ugly... I guess I
El 12/03/12 17:29, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> # Samuli Suominen (12 Mar 2012)
> # media-sound/lilypond required for this is masked in ../package.mask
> # for removal
> app-text/asciidoc test
>
asciidoc only depends with the test use flag set so why don't just
remove the test USE and the test func
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:22:57 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 10:12 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
> >> still not needed.
> >
> > ...but we might as well go
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:29:47PM -0500, Matthew Summers wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
> > # Samuli Suominen (12 Mar 2012)
> > # Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
> > # #372839, #380155, #380627, #381055, #383515, #383553, #384687
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>> still not needed.
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
> definitely works, whereas oth
On 03/12/2012 10:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> It would be very fragile without the sanity check / feedback mechanism
>> that's already been suggested.
>
> Another obvious check is to have repoman run a grep with the regexp
> and give an error
On 03/12/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
>> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>>> still not needed.
>>
>> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anywa
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> It would be very fragile without the sanity check / feedback mechanism
> that's already been suggested.
Another obvious check is to have repoman run a grep with the regexp
and give an error if there is not exactly one match.
Rich
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen (12 Mar 2012)
> # Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
> # #372839, #380155, #380627, #381055, #383515, #383553, #384687,
> # and #403399. Search bugzilla with keyword lilypond. Nothing
> # left i
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:17:15 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not
> > to use GLEP 55.
> >
>
> Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical
> arguments against it?
The person who wrote it is one of Satan's
On 03/12/2012 10:12 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>> still not needed.
>
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
> definitely works, whereas other
On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
>> still not needed.
>
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
> definitely works, whereas other solu
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
> still not needed.
...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we
don't do something unex
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but
> making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out
> rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work
> with bash. Then if we ever switched to some
On 03/12/2012 02:16 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> I just find a top-down regexp solution dangerously naive, as its
> infering that the first line that matches the regexp *is* the EAPI
> requirement field, when depending on the actual format used, that may
> not be the case.
>
> If for example, a forma
Rich Freeman wrote:
I think that makes the most sense. That news item can include links
to the documentation that gets written over the next few months.
In the German (not Gentoo-specific) newsgroup de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc,
someone mentioned that he upgraded to udev-180 and lost the device
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:
> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ?
Certainly it would make sense to change the file extension when an
EAPI will require something different than bash. For example, some
editors (Emacs and XEmacs at least) recognise the .e
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
> Kent Fredric wrote:
>> I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as
>> to how best to implement EAPI declarations.
>>
>> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be
# Samuli Suominen (12 Mar 2012)
# Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
# #372839, #380155, #380627, #381055, #383515, #383553, #384687,
# and #403399. Search bugzilla with keyword lilypond. Nothing
# left in tree that builds. Removal in 30 days.
(12 Mar 2012)
# media-soun
On 03/12/2012 09:12 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:05:26 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> It's just a symptom of people not abiding by the KISS principle.
>
> "Abiding by the KISS principle" is what got us into this mess in the
> first place. EAPI as a metadata variable is too si
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:05:26 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> It's just a symptom of people not abiding by the KISS principle.
"Abiding by the KISS principle" is what got us into this mess in the
first place. EAPI as a metadata variable is too simple to allow us to
do what we want to do.
--
Ciaran McC
On 03/12/2012 01:36 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> 1) User downloads an overlay that doesn't provide cache. We want the
>> package manager to give a pretty "EAPI unsupported" message, rather than
>> spit out some bash syntax errors.
>
> Th
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as
> to how best to implement EAPI declarations.
>
> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ?
What version of bash are we talking about here? It's not
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring wrote:
> Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
> xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
> since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call
> it an 'ebuild' is dumb, confusing, and coun
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:36:12 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Also note that with the sole exception of g55
...
> and does so at the same robustness as everything sans g55
...
> G55 is the sole exception.
Interesting pattern, huh?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> There's the obvious case of compiled-binaries where that might not be
> possible, but thats definately strawman stuff and I wouldn't support
> that sort of nonsense anyway. Compiled binaries for ebuilds can gtfo.
>
Why do I feel like a simi
On Sunday 11 March 2012 21:08:47 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:49:11AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:27:06 -0600
> >
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > An initramfs which does this is created by >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25
> > > or
> > >
> > > >=sys-kern
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> I was thinking of another news item once we are ready to go stable.
>
> What do you think?
>
I think that makes the most sense. That news item can include links
to the documentation that gets written over the next few months.
Rich
12 Mar 2012; Samuli Suominen package.mask:
Lastrite dev-ada/qtada as per request from yngwin.
# Samuli Suominen (12 Mar 2012)
# Severely broken wrt bugs #227171, #286550 and #287483
# Removal in 30 days
dev-ada/qtada
On 12-03-2012 11:35:43 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/12/12 11:27 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > My rsync0 now spits out this message:
> >
> > Virtual package in package.provided: virtual/shadow-0
> > See portage(5) for correct package.provided usage.
> >
> > I did not forsee this ha
On 3/12/12 11:27 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> My rsync0 now spits out this message:
>
> Virtual package in package.provided: virtual/shadow-0
> See portage(5) for correct package.provided usage.
>
> I did not forsee this happening, but each and every Prefix user now gets
> this complaint on ea
On 12-03-2012 10:16:12 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/8/12 2:23 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > And then convert profiles to the new virtual (the relevant files; below
> > are all occurrences of sys-apps/shadow):
>
> Because of no comments, I went ahead and checked in
> sys-apps/harde
On 12 March 2012 22:48, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:
> There's little danger if we require the EAPI specification to be in
> the first line of the ebuild. Of course the regexp should be general
> enough to account for a non-bash comment syntax.
>
There's t
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:
> I just find a top-down regexp solution dangerously naive, as its
> infering that the first line that matches the regexp *is* the EAPI
> requirement field, when depending on the actual format used, that
> may not be the case.
There's little danger i
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:36:00 +0800
Ben wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 02:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
> > Leho Kraav wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows
On 3/8/12 2:23 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> And then convert profiles to the new virtual (the relevant files; below
> are all occurrences of sys-apps/shadow):
Because of no comments, I went ahead and checked in
sys-apps/hardened-shadow and virtual/shadow, and now made changes in
profiles/
Ple
On 12 March 2012 22:09, Michał Górny wrote:
>> or as .
>
> No, definitely not. That's not the XML style.
Sure, but these examples are just examples after all. And XML is only
being used for an example use case, but there are many more
structured formats than XML.
Some of us are mostly just wor
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:39:52 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 21:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > And we could just use a good regex for that instead.
> >
> > Something like: [eE][aA][pP][iI] [a-z0-9-+]+
> >
> > and just require users for this to be the first thing declared in
> > an ebu
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:30:19 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:27:11 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > 15-xml
> >
> > and
> >
> > - eapi: 15-yaml
>
> You're carefully concocting your examples to make it look like it
> should work.
Or I am just printing the first thing that
Robin H. Johnson posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:14:46 + as excerpted:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:03:50PM +, Duncan wrote:
>> Meanwhile, also note that there's PARTLABEL, PARTUUID and ID, that the
>> mount manpage promises to honor. I've not used these myself, but there
>> was a thread on
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:52:20PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 11 March 2012 22:09, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >
> > eg:
> >
> > ?? ??Channel #gentoo-guis on the freenode network
> > or
> > ?? ??#gentoo-guis on the freenode IRC network,
> > irc://irc.gentoo.org/gentoo-guis
> >
>
> Though a freefo
On 12 March 2012 21:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> And we could just use a good regex for that instead.
>
> Something like: [eE][aA][pP][iI] [a-z0-9-+]+
>
> and just require users for this to be the first thing declared in
> an ebuild. Of course, this could make problems with stuff like:
>
> # EAPI 4
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 06:55 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:06:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Yeah. Another way of putting it is that the requirement to spawn a bash
> >> process and source the ebuild adds a ridiculou
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:27:11 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> 15-xml
>
> and
>
> - eapi: 15-yaml
You're carefully concocting your examples to make it look like it
should work. If you go the XML route, though, the EAPI would either be
in a DTD or as .
Part of the point of all of this is that we shou
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
