Re: [gentoo-dev] Two updates for elisp*.eclass

2013-03-08 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Michał Górny wrote: >> In EAPIs where it is supported, nonfatal will give you the old >> behaviour. > That would mean no EAPIs :). nonfatal applies to built-in helpers > only, and not the explicit 'die'. Is it so? Then I've misunderstood PMS. Anyway, I don't think that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Two updates for elisp*.eclass

2013-03-08 Thread Michał Górny
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:56:13 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Please find in the next messages two patches for elisp.eclass and > elisp-common.eclass. > > The first patch makes functions elisp-compile(), elisp-install(), etc. > die if there is an error. For EAPI 4, the functions died anyway, > becau

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] elisp.eclass: Cooperate with readme.gentoo.eclass.

2013-03-08 Thread Ulrich Mueller
* elisp.eclass (elisp_src_install, elisp_pkg_postinst): Call readme.gentoo_create_doc and readme.gentoo_print_elog from readme.gentoo.eclass if these functions exist. --- a/eclass/elisp.eclass +++ b/eclass/elisp.eclass @@ -177,6 +177,9 @@ elisp_src_install() { if [[ -n ${DOCS} ]]; then

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] elisp-common.eclass: Some functions now die on failure.

2013-03-08 Thread Ulrich Mueller
* elisp-common.eclass (elisp-compile, elisp-make-autoload-file) (elisp-install, elisp-site-file-install): Die on failure. * elisp.eclass (elisp_src_compile, elisp_src_install): Remove die commands that are no longer necessary because the called functions die themselves. --- a/eclass/elisp-common.e

[gentoo-dev] Two updates for elisp*.eclass

2013-03-08 Thread Ulrich Mueller
Hi, Please find in the next messages two patches for elisp.eclass and elisp-common.eclass. The first patch makes functions elisp-compile(), elisp-install(), etc. die if there is an error. For EAPI 4, the functions died anyway, because the underlying package manager functions did so. In EAPIs wher

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs

2013-03-08 Thread Steven J. Long
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:21:36PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:02:40 +0100 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> you are called with ABI=sth argv[0] = your name > > > > I'm afraid that's the first potential point of failure. Relying > > on argv[0] is a p

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] patch linux-mod.eclass to add support for module signing

2013-03-08 Thread Steven J. Long
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 06:25:38PM -0100, Carlos Silva wrote: > + if ! use module-signing; then > + return 1 > + fi use module-signing || return 1 > + > + # Check that the configuration is correct > + KERNEL_MODSECKEY="${KERNEL_MODSECKEY:-${KV_DIR}/signing_key.priv}" No shell field-splits (aka w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs

2013-03-08 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:25:23 +0100 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 21:49:48 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > I'm afraid that's the first potential point of failure. Relying > > on argv[0] is a poor idea and means that any application calling > > exec() with changed argv[0] on a wrapp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs

2013-03-08 Thread Thomas Sachau
Alexis Ballier schrieb: > On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:59:35 +0100 > Thomas Sachau wrote: >> >> I dont have a list of binaries, i either noticed myself some >> abi-specific behaviour or got user reports for abi-specific behaviour. >> As an example i remember, dev-libs/libIDL has a config binary not >> m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs

2013-03-08 Thread Thomas Sachau
Davide Pesavento schrieb: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: >>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:17:50 +0100 >>> Thomas Sachau wrote: dev-db/mysql abiwrapper dev-lang/perl abiwrapper dev-lang/python abiwrapper dev-lang/ruby abiwrapper >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs

2013-03-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 05:47:23 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:59:35 +0100 > Thomas Sachau wrote: > > > I am not sure about the target of your qmake question, so as a > > general answer: > > > > qmake is something like configure for qmake based build systems. If > > you want to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs

2013-03-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:59:35 +0100 Thomas Sachau wrote: > > I dont have a list of binaries, i either noticed myself some > abi-specific behaviour or got user reports for abi-specific behaviour. > As an example i remember, dev-libs/libIDL has a config binary not > matching the usual *-config schem