Am Montag, den 02.03.2009, 08:31 +0100 schrieb Christian Faulhammer:
> Hi,
>
> Petteri Räty :
>
> > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> > to get some idea what the general developer pool th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alistair Bush wrote:
>
>
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 19:18 Mon 02 Mar , Alistair Bush wrote:
>>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>
>> Could you explain what you see as the important difference that makes
>> package.mask bad and a separate overlay good
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 03:08:52PM +0100, Torsten Veller wrote:
> Please review the attached perl-module.eclass.
> Patch linked below.
Are you going to include the changes from Bug 254980 so that s390 can
build their stages properly?
Specifically, going to EAPI2 and adding DEPEND="dev-lang/perl[!b
Is it safe to remove an entry from package.use (in profiles) if the
package has an IUSE default for the respective flag?
To be more concrete, Emacs ebuilds have IUSE="+xpm" now, but we still
have an entry "app-editors/emacs xpm" in profiles/base/package.use
which I would like to remove. As I under
On Monday 02 March 2009 08:24:35 Torsten Veller wrote:
> > > find "${D}/${VENDOR_LIB}" -type f -a \( -name .packlist \
> > > -o \( -name '*.bs' -a -empty \) \) -delete
> > > find "${D}/${VENDOR_LIB}" -depth -mindepth 1 -type d -empty -delete
> >
> > I'm curious how portable the find (
* "Robin H. Johnson" :
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 03:08:52PM +0100, Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Please review the attached perl-module.eclass.
> > Patch linked below.
> Are you going to include the changes from Bug 254980 so that s390 can
> build their stages properly?
>
> Specifically, going to EAPI
Alistair Bush schrieb:
> Asking non-dev contributors to handle package.mask's would be a "less
> than ideal". Resulting in "interesting breakages". Currently by adding
> java-experimental ( which might I add isn't available thru layman ) you
> are accepting that risk.
>
> At least java and kde ha
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Is it safe to remove an entry from package.use (in profiles) if the
> package has an IUSE default for the respective flag?
>
> To be more concrete, Emacs ebuilds have IUSE="+xpm" now, but we still
> have an entry "app-editors/emacs xpm" in p
On 10:27 Mon 02 Mar , Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > Is it safe to remove an entry from package.use (in profiles) if the
> > package has an IUSE default for the respective flag?
> >
> > To be more concrete, Emacs ebuilds have IUSE="+xpm" no
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:41:23 +0200
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> So here the reverting of a masking in gentoo-x86 is quite intentional
> and currently desired.
This is fundamentally broken as a concept.
Adding an overlay should not have any impact upon other repositories.
It should be possible for a us
# Thomas Sachau (2 Mar 2009)
# Mask for removal, was merged into dev-java/fec
net-libs/fec
will be removed in ~30 days
--
Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 13:08 Mon 02 Mar , Torsten Veller wrote:
> Currently the eclass doesn't set any dependencies. If it is used the
> ebuild has to depend on perl if needed.
>
>
> I see the following options:
>
> 1) Don't add DEPEND to the eclass.
>So if a package is used for stage-building we have to r
On Monday, 02. March 2009 10:29:59 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Also, having separate overlays would allow one to do experimental stuff
> with eclasses in the experimental overlay without affecting users of the
> base overlay. Until we get versioned eclasses, I don't see how one can
> do tha
Thanks Petteri,
>
> 1) Status quo
> - does not allow changing inherit
> - bash version in global scope
> - global scope in general is quite locked down
lets move on!
>
> 2) EAPI in file extension
> - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild
> a) .ebuild-
>
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:08:15PM +0100, Torsten Veller wrote:
>The part I don't understand in the bug above is:
>Does adding dev-lang/perl[-build] automagically reinstall
>perl during stage-building
>(here portage stops and complains).
Yes. Portage will rebuild Perl with USE=-buil
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:51:07AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 13:08 Mon 02 Mar , Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Currently the eclass doesn't set any dependencies. If it is used the
> > ebuild has to depend on perl if needed.
> >
> >
> > I see the following options:
Perl modules by definit
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 16:48 +, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:41:23 +0200
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > So here the reverting of a masking in gentoo-x86 is quite
> intentional and currently desired.
>
> This is fundamentally broken as a concept.
>
> Adding an overlay shoul
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:55:38 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> We didn't implement anything but let's just talk about what we wanted
> to see. We simply wanted overlay users to keep testing gnome 2.24
> components that were masked or using masked packages in
> base/package.mask so we just made
unless i see any new issues come up, bash-4.0-r1 will be going into ~arch this
week. now would be a good time to sync up and try bash-4.0 on your system :p.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 19:27 Mon 02 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> unless i see any new issues come up, bash-4.0-r1 will be going into ~arch
> this
> week. now would be a good time to sync up and try bash-4.0 on your system :p.
> -mike
comet $ source /usr/share/bash-completion/genkernel
-bash: /usr/share/bash-c
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Actually seems like quite a few of the bash-completion scripts have
> issues with 4.0 ... might want to just run through those.
nam-1.11.ebuild has the same error. repoman can't source it.
/mnt/sda8/portdev/tree/regen2/net-analyzer/nam/na
On Monday 02 March 2009 22:56:27 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 19:27 Mon 02 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > unless i see any new issues come up, bash-4.0-r1 will be going into ~arch
> > this week. now would be a good time to sync up and try bash-4.0 on your
> > system :p. -mike
>
> comet $ sourc
-frecord-gcc-switches is a really cool gcc option to save the CFLAGS a
binary was built with in the binary itself. This could help with our bug
reporting or with various QA checks. Imagine if `emerge --info cat/pkg`
showed the CFLAGS that the binaries were actually built with, instead of
some g
On Tuesday 03 March 2009 01:25:49 Caleb Cushing wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Actually seems like quite a few of the bash-completion scripts have
> > issues with 4.0 ... might want to just run through those.
>
> nam-1.11.ebuild has the same error. repoman can'
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> look closely and you'll see it's simply wrong. it's a bug if older versions
> of bash didnt reject it.
they didn't. given it's the one ebuild that failed to source by emerge
--regen in the whole tree and therefore failed reverse-transfer,
f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009 22:56:27 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 19:27 Mon 02 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> unless i see any new issues come up, bash-4.0-r1 will be going into ~arch
>>> this week. now would be a good time to
> Are we to say that we shouldn't allow tools to have support for this. I
> think that it is a nature progression that if we are to allow overlays to
> extend the portage tree that we should allow overlays to extend other
> overlays.
I probably shouldn't butt in...
first, no I don't want you to
Caleb Cushing posted
81bfc67a0903022319j38aba363nbb46e272e26be...@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:19:29 -0500:
> second. I generally think anything beyond a personal overlay is crap.
> All these overlays like sunrise, java-overlay, and on and on...
> basically official, o
On 01:27 Tue 03 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009 22:56:27 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Actually seems like quite a few of the bash-completion scripts have
> > issues with 4.0 ... might want to just run through those.
>
> i dont use bash completion so i dont have any actually
On 23:54 Mon 02 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 01:27 Tue 03 Mar , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 02 March 2009 22:56:27 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > Actually seems like quite a few of the bash-completion scripts have
> > > issues with 4.0 ... might want to just run through those.
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
