The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2015-03-15 23:59 UTC.
Removals:
media-libs/sdl-flic 2015-03-09 16:56:27 mr_bones_
app-crypt/pinentry-qt 2015-03-10 20:27:34 k_f
dev-qt/qtdocumenta
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 15 March 2015 at 06:34, Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
> > imho,
> >
> >> Questions:
> >> 0. What names for the tree/repository.
> >
> > "gentoo"
> > (it's also the repo_name)
>
> Our repo is already named "gentoo", so this makes the most se
On 03/15/15 09:20, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello, everyone.
If possible, please give the no-emul-linux-x86 sub-profiles some more
testing. Please note that you will likely want to ensure that you are
using the newest Portage version available before the upgrade, and you
may need to unmerge the emul
Ben de Groot posted on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:25:08 +0800 as excerpted:
> I would also say that 'true'
> is incorrect, as the emul packages were also truly multilib, just
> implemented in a different way. Maybe 'eclass-based' is more specific
> and less opinionated?
"Gentoo style build-from-sources"
On 03/15/2015 02:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> The name simply must be 'gentoo'.
Agreed: it should match repo_name.
>
> As for the namespace, proj/ makes most sense of the current namespaces.
I agree with this too, but I don't care if we namespace it or make it
top-level.
On 15 March 2015 at 22:43, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Hello, everyone. Here's the first draft of news item for
>> gx86-multilib. I tried to cover all the important aspects. Please
>> review and let me know what you think.
>
>> Title: True multilib su
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Starting with 2015-03-29, we are enabling the true multilib support
>> on amd64 and masking the old emul-linux-x86 package sets for removal.
>> This change provides
>
> I'm not a native spe
On 15-03-2015 11:20:45 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> If we want a separate repo/ namespace, we would probably need to
> >> consider moving other repositories there -- at least the official
> >> ones. Of course, it would be a nice resul
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone. Here's the first draft of news item for
> gx86-multilib. I tried to cover all the important aspects. Please
> review and let me know what you think.
> Title: True multilib support on amd64
> Author: Michał Górny
> Content-Type: te
On 15/03/15 10:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> In case of issues, blockers especially, the users users are recommended
looks OK otherwise.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hello, everyone.
Here's the first draft of news item for gx86-multilib. I tried to cover
all the important aspects. Please review and let me know what you think.
Title: True multilib support on amd64
Author: Michał Górny
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2015-01-28
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Instead of trying to emphasize it's the main repository, we ought to
> drop the notion of 'main repository'. That was the goal of all changes
> in Portage, so stop trying to regress for the sake of good ol' times.
>
But, if the goal is to d
Hello, everyone.
I would like to gladly announce that the gx86-multilib project has
finally reached the level of maturity allowing us to aim for stable
amd64. The few blockers left can be fixed with a single commit
at the time of the switch, so we'd like to set up the final date
as 2015-03-29, tha
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:42:35 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Thanks, that's very definitive. Still curious how it fits with the
> > findutils ebuild though.
>
> > program_prefix=$(usex userland_GNU '' g) econf \
> > --program-prefix=${program_prefix}
>
> Not sure if this answers you
Am Samstag, 14. März 2015, 22:25:56 schrieb Robin H. Johnson:
> This is a mostly inconsequential issue, but the Git migration provides
> us a chance to make a clean break...
>
> The repository of our ebuilds and the name of the CVS module have been
> called gentoo-x86 since the start of Gentoo, be
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> Outside the context of "Portage", "repo" can mean any git repository of any
> kind, not merely a portage-usable repository.
Yeah, or an RPM repo, or a Mercurial repo... repo as a term is way
overloaded, so use it with care (and qualification
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> Thanks, that's very definitive. Still curious how it fits with the
> findutils ebuild though.
> program_prefix=$(usex userland_GNU '' g) econf \
> --program-prefix=${program_prefix}
Not sure if this answers your question, but find is de
On 15 March 2015 at 21:54, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> . In that vain, "gentoo-base"
> could also work?
>
I like this idea. I was initially toying with "gentoo-overlay" because it
was more specific than "repo" but it didn't float well because the model
was wrong.
"gentoo-base" however kinda works
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> If we want a separate repo/ namespace, we would probably need to
>> consider moving other repositories there -- at least the official
>> ones. Of course, it would be a nice result, having everything hosted
>> on git.g.o as git.g.o/repo/${r
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:25:38 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Mar 2015, James Le Cuirot wrote:
>
> > I've long considered the -delete argument to find to be widely
> > supported enough that using it in ebuilds should not be a problem.
> > Indeed, a grep of the tree shows that it is
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
> As for the namespace, proj/ makes most sense of the current
> namespaces.
So on gitweb.gentoo.org our main tree would be listed amongst some
200 other proj repositories, between proj/gentoo-wiki-tyrian.git and
proj/proj/gentoolkit.git.
I think it
On 14 March 2015 at 23:30, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> iirc most deb and rpm based distributions use "main" for their central
> repository, so +1 for gentoo-main.
Add me for gentoo-main too.
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> I've long considered the -delete argument to find to be widely
> supported enough that using it in ebuilds should not be a problem.
> Indeed, a grep of the tree shows that it is frequently used, even in
> eclasses.
> I've just noticed that the m
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015, Andreas K Huettel wrote:
>> Questions: 0. What names for the tree/repository.
> "gentoo" (it's also the repo_name)
> "portage" doesn't make sense, everything else is too long or
> potentially confusing...
Definitely, it should be "gentoo". Without "portage", "x86", or
# Ben de Groot (15 Mar 2015)
# These projects have been abandoned upstream. Most mplayer2 devs have moved
# on to media-video/mpv, and users are suggested to do the same. We have
# media-video/baka-mplayer and media-video/smplayer available as Qt-based GUIs.
# See bugs 452484, 485994, 512082, 5192
"gentoo" makes a lot of sense to me. "gentoo-main" works, as well.
Anything with "ebuilds" doesn't make as much as sense to me, since it
also contains profiles, eclasses, etc. In that vain, "gentoo-base"
could also work?
I don't really get the need for this whole namespacing thing, so I'd
prefer
26 matches
Mail list logo
