Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 21:13:23 -0600 "A. Wilcox" wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 04/12/16 20:58, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:31 PM, A. Wilcox > > wrote: > >> Roadmap - --- > >> > >> Since the shell environment is flexible, this change c

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016, A Wilcox wrote: > Roadmap > - --- > Since the shell environment is flexible, this change can be > implemented almost immediately; the defaults specified in the Gentoo > base profile ensure that at worst nothing will immediately change. > As forks, derivatives, and ot

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 04/12/16 21:21, Daniel Campbell wrote: > How would we ensure (or encourage) that other distros based on > Gentoo would follow this practice? Adding things to PMS isn't a > panacea, sure, but from what I can tell it seems the goal here is > to allo

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

On 12/04/2016 10:13 PM, A. Wilcox wrote: > > If there are no other objections to this proposal, would a PR that > implements this against the Gentoo tree be the best way forward? If > so, I can start work on that now while giving more people the chance > to read over it. (Would it be more desira

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

On 12/04/2016 07:20 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:13:23PM -0600, A. Wilcox wrote: >> to read over it. (Would it be more desirable to have all changes in a >> single large commit, or one commit per package?) > > I'd think this is one of those cases best suited to a branch and m

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

On 12/04/2016 06:58 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:31 PM, A. Wilcox wrote: >> Roadmap >> - --- >> >> Since the shell environment is flexible, this change can be >> implemented almost immediately; the defaults specified in the Gentoo >> base profile ensure that at worst noth

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:13:23PM -0600, A. Wilcox wrote: > to read over it. (Would it be more desirable to have all changes in a > single large commit, or one commit per package?) I'd think this is one of those cases best suited to a branch and merge commit - best of both worlds. But that's j

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 04/12/16 20:58, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:31 PM, A. Wilcox > wrote: >> Roadmap - --- >> >> Since the shell environment is flexible, this change can be >> implemented almost immediately; the defaults specified in the >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 05/12/16 03:06, james wrote: > On 12/04/2016 06:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:07:59PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> I gather both Quickbooks and Sage have a more modular approach to >>> "proper" accounting software applicable to small and large >>> businesses. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 12/04/2016 06:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:07:59PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: I gather both Quickbooks and Sage have a more modular approach to "proper" accounting software applicable to small and large businesses. I know my mother used Quickbooks in the past wit

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:31 PM, A. Wilcox wrote: > Roadmap > - --- > > Since the shell environment is flexible, this change can be > implemented almost immediately; the defaults specified in the Gentoo > base profile ensure that at worst nothing will immediately change. As > forks, derivative

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 12/04/2016 04:03 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 04/12/16 23:49, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:07:59PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> I gather both Quickbooks and Sage have a more modular approach to >>> "proper" accounting software applicable to small and large businesses

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

On 12/04/2016 10:10 AM, james wrote: > On 12/04/2016 02:22 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:30:29PM -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: Net Total: $50,924.19 >>> So from 09-16 avg of ~$4.6k per year over 11 years. >> 10 year

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 17:31:30 -0600 "A. Wilcox" wrote: > === > Proposal for addition of distribution variables > === > > :Author: > A. Wilcox (Adélie Linux) >

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 12/04/2016 05:55 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: (OT accounting systems) If there is a good GNUCash support for non-profit accounting (which does differ from small-business accounting, see [2]), and matching documentation for it, I'm VERY interested to know about it. Robin, I posted on on th

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 12/04/2016 05:55 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: (OT accounting systems) On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 01:10:16PM -0500, james wrote: GNUcash is superior to Quickbooks, as it is a 'double entry' accounting system. Last time I check Quickbooks was not 'double entry' and that is a big deal in accounting

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] depend.apache.eclass EAPI=6 support

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Please review. Given that I'm only tangentially involved with Apache myself, I > would like to keep the changes to the eclass minimal... > > [The last nontrivial changes to the eclass were made in 2012 and 2008.] For future patches, pl

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] depend.apache.eclass EAPI=6 support

On 12/04/2016 06:18 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Starting with EAPI=6, the variables APACHE_BASEDIR and APACHE_MODULESDIR > are not exported in global scope anymore. Currently, we emit a warning when using depend.apache with EAPI=6. How many packages are triggering that warning? If we stop expo

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2016-12-04 23:59 UTC

The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2016-12-04 23:59 UTC. Removals: games-action/awesomenauts20161204-19:02 chewi6b134b7 Additions: app-admin/mtail 20161129-08:36 zmedico eac7a87 dev-libs/caliper

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 04/12/16 23:49, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:07:59PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I gather both Quickbooks and Sage have a more modular approach to >> "proper" accounting software applicable to small and large businesses. I >> know my mother used Quickbooks in the past

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:07:59PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I gather both Quickbooks and Sage have a more modular approach to > "proper" accounting software applicable to small and large businesses. I > know my mother used Quickbooks in the past with good success and the > support of her accou

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 === Proposal for addition of distribution variables === :Author: A. Wilcox (Adélie Linux) :Date: 2016-12-04 :Status: Request for Comment Introduction -

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] depend.apache.eclass EAPI=6 support

Please review. Given that I'm only tangentially involved with Apache myself, I would like to keep the changes to the eclass minimal... [The last nontrivial changes to the eclass were made in 2012 and 2008.] -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuett

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 04/12/16 22:55, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > (OT accounting systems) > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 01:10:16PM -0500, james wrote: >> GNUcash is superior to Quickbooks, as it is a 'double entry' accounting >> system. Last time I check Quickbooks was not 'double entry' and that is >> a big deal in ac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:26:11PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Is it worth the Foundation dropping a few $ for that hardware to *get* > transported to its rightful destination, or shall we wait a few more > years for something to happen!? :) The costs of shipping it was already approved, we're ju

[gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

(OT accounting systems) On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 01:10:16PM -0500, james wrote: > GNUcash is superior to Quickbooks, as it is a 'double entry' accounting > system. Last time I check Quickbooks was not 'double entry' and that is > a big deal in accounting. QuickBooks is double-entry, and has been

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 2:15:59 PM EST Alec Warner wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson > > > > Flameeyes donated his tinderbox hardware, but it's still sitting at > > antarus's desk in Mountain View, waiting for him to ship it to OSUOSL > > (hopefully before it's even mo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On 04/12/16 22:15, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 02:10:27PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects bei

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 02:10:27PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being > > started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different projects > > that I'

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] kernel-2.eclass: Convert eclass to use documentation standards.

On 12/03/2016 04:47 PM, Mike Pagano wrote: > This patch modifies, removes and adds comments only. No code was harmed > in the creation of this patch. > This is to conform with ECLASS documentation standards. > > --- > eclass Committed -- Mike Pagano Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

> On Sun, 04 Dec 2016, William L Thomson wrote: > I hope that is still possible, and I am not sure if it was even in > 07-08. I am not tax expert, not a CPA or anything close. Likely need > to retain and speak to one. May have to refile and start over not > sure. > [...] Can you please move

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:22:33 + Markos Chandras wrote: > On 12/04/2016 05:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:58:26 + > > Markos Chandras wrote: > > > >> On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 + > >>> Markos Chandras wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New version constraints: variant one

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:21:34 +0800 > konsolebox wrote: > >> Well that's just it: ease of use and simplicity vs. portability with >> possible new parameter types in the future; your pick. I'll >> personally go for the former this time. >> >> Al

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On 12/04/2016 05:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:58:26 + > Markos Chandras wrote: > >> On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 + >>> Markos Chandras wrote: >>> On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 3 Dec

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On 12/04/2016 12:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:58:26 + Markos Chandras wrote: On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 + Markos Chandras wrote: On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:35:32 +0100 Patrice C

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

On 12/04/2016 02:22 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:30:29PM -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: Net Total: $50,924.19 So from 09-16 avg of ~$4.6k per year over 11 years. 10 years of participation, 9 of which we got paid for. So ~$5.7k/y

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:58:26 + Markos Chandras wrote: > On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 + > > Markos Chandras wrote: > > > >> On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:35:32 +0100 > >>> Patrice Clement wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New version constraints: variant one

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:21:34 +0800 konsolebox wrote: > Well that's just it: ease of use and simplicity vs. portability with > possible new parameter types in the future; your pick. I'll > personally go for the former this time. > > Also, what kind of added type of parameters would you expect tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New version constraints: variant one

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:53:51 +0800 > konsolebox wrote: > >> I got similar idea here, but my version is that you don't have to use >> u: or v: > > The entire point of defining it as a prefix-space was to avoid ambiguity, > and leave plenty of r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 + > Markos Chandras wrote: > >> On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:35:32 +0100 >>> Patrice Clement wrote: >>> Friday 02 Dec 2016 14:10:27, Michał Górny wrote : > Hi, eve

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New version constraints: variant one

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:53:51 +0800 konsolebox wrote: > I got similar idea here, but my version is that you don't have to use > u: or v: The entire point of defining it as a prefix-space was to avoid ambiguity, and leave plenty of room for other such selector prefixes. Relying on properties like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On 04/12/16 14:03, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > I recall some discussion about tinderboxing suggesting that more > important than testing all possible use flag combinations, would be to > test: > > * all use flags disabled (some packages fail miserabily if you don't > enable at least one

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 11:42:14 PM EST Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I just wanted to point this e-mail out and thank you for the effort > spent to share information like this. This is a great step, and once we > get the books in order, sharing this information using automated means > could get

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 7:22:51 AM EST Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:30:29PM -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > > > > Net Total: $50,924.19 > > > > > > > So from 09-16 avg of ~$4.6k per year over 11 years. > > 10 years of partic

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 + Markos Chandras wrote: On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:35:32 +0100 Patrice Clement wrote: Friday 02 Dec 2016 14:10:27, Michał Górny wrote : Hi, everyone. I've heard multiple times

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:47 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Saturday, December 3, 2016 9:33:00 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 12/03/2016 09:25 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: This is generally considered infeasible: I would not think such, j

Re: [gentoo-dev] Review request: Ruby 2.0 removal news item

Hans de Graaff wrote: > > Ruby MRI 2.0 has been retired by upstream in February 2016.[1] > We remove Ruby MRI 2.0 support from the tree now. Ruby MRI 2.1 remains > activated in base profile's RUBY_TARGETS variable by default. Hmmm... what about dependencies? home01 ~ # eshowkw ruby Keywords for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Review request: Ruby 2.0 removal news item

On 12/03/2016 11:51 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote: > Title: Ruby 2.0 removal; Ruby 2.1 default > Author: Hans de Graaff > Content-Type: text/plain > Posted: 2016-12-04 > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 1.0 > Display-If-Installed: > Ruby MRI 2.0 has been retired by upstream in February 2016.[1] > We r