On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:46:10PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > At least an initial read suggests that you just multiplied the mirror
> > space requirements by however many times you use this trick. I don't
> > believe infra
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 15:41 +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> some news about euscan (still available at http://euscan.iksaif.net)
>>
>> - New design (yay !)
>> - Atom feeds available for each herd/category/maintainer/package
>> (htt
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:11:28 +0200
Michal Hrusecky wrote:
> please take a look at attached eclasses. Purpose is to make
> installation of obs services (plugins for osc) easier.
>
> Comments and improvements are welcome.
I don't get the concept of having two eclasses for this. The first one
look
2011/9/20 Michał Górny :
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:11:28 +0200
> Michal Hrusecky wrote:
>
>> please take a look at attached eclasses. Purpose is to make
>> installation of obs services (plugins for osc) easier.
>>
>> Comments and improvements are welcome.
>
> I don't get the concept of having two e
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:46:10PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > At least an initial read suggests that you just multiplied the mirror
> > space requirements by however many times you use this trick. ?I don't
> > believe infra
On 09/20/11 09:12, Alex Alexander wrote:
>> The only real gotcha is if portage is so old that it can't handle the
>> binary packages. However, to get around that we really just need a
>> set of step-wise binary updates for portage itself so that you can
>> sequence it up to something that can inst
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
> Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly
> viable for upgrading from a EAPI<2 manager for paludis. I'll leave
> it to Ciaran to comment on the fea
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:28, Brian Harring wrote:
> Intent is to restore it to EAPI0- frankly it really depends on what
> the python teams intentions are for EAPI0, currently that support is
> marked to be removed on "06/2011".
We'd have to take a look at the complexity distribution, but I thin
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
> > Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly
> > viable for upgrading from a EA
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:07:44 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> You didn't answer the static question btw...
Because the answer's complicated!
The short version is, it could be made to work, if there's a need for
it, and so long as you've got gcc 4.5 for static libstdc++ support, but
it won't work rig
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 01:14 +0300, Alex Alexander escribió:
> EAPI in profiles and the -live version suffix are some of the improvements
> many people would like to see in the tree. Unfortunately, the risk of breaking
> systems with old versions of portage has been too high, holding evolution
>
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
> really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in
> their / and, later, try to update?
Possibly at least few file collisions, if portage would be able to
cl
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 15:09 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 01:14 +0300, Alex Alexander escribió:
> > EAPI in profiles and the -live version suffix are some of the improvements
> > many people would like to see in the tree. Unfortunately, the risk of
> > breaking
> > sys
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 15:16 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
> > really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in
> > their / and, later, try to updat
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
> The eselect dependency is hard, and can't easily be made optional,
> so ideally eselect should stick with older EAPIs.
Eselect's maintainer is well aware of this. I intend to kee
Pacho Ramos posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 as excerpted:
> I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
> updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
> later, try to update?
I believe it was Mike that pointed me at the error in th
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 13:57 +, Duncan escribió:
> Pacho Ramos posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
> > updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
> > later, try to
On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the
> tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new
> features we want to provide.
>
> Then, freeze the tree and clone it into a revbumped rsync module,
On 09/20/2011 08:19 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
>> My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the
>> tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new
>> features we want to provide.
>>
>> Then, freeze the
On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > What do you guys think?
I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
later, try to update?
Usually things turn ugly - used to be that portage saw that th
On 09/20/11 17:19, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the
tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new
features we want to provide.
Then, freeze the tree and clone it
On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
> Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd need a
helper script to figure out your current state (using portage version and
tree snapshot maybe), then prepare the environment to upgrade
> (and how do you handle the "common" ca
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
>> Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd need a
>> helper script to figure out your current state (using portage version and
>> tree snapshot maybe), then prepare the
On 10:00 Tue 20 Sep , Corentin Chary wrote:
> Could someone write ebuilds for euscan and euscanwww ? It should not
> take a lot of time, but my ebuilds skills are probably not good
> enought to do that.
Sounds like good practice for when you become a Gentoo dev. =)
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donni
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:48:37 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Rich Freeman
> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
> >> Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd
> >> need a helper script to figure out your current state (u
Hello all,
I've prepared a bunch of patches to git-2.eclass.
1-2 -- replacing scary unreadable parts of code with nicer ones.
3-4 -- basically just coding style changes.
5-7 -- little logic simplification.
8 -- eclassdoc fixes.
9 -- prevents environment injection of internal var.
10 -- tries
0001 - i had reason to put local definitions on the top, it is way
more readable to see right away what local vars function has, so
please stick to it.
0004 - Did you ever hear that executing another code in condition is
damn annoying to trace? :)
0007 - I placed it into the conditionals to be clea
On 09/20/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've prepared a bunch of patches to git-2.eclass.
Just a suggestion (and maybe a bit off-topic), but I think if you sent
each patch separately, as replies to the original thread (git send-email
can do that), it would make the review of ea
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:36 +0300
Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> On 09/20/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've prepared a bunch of patches to git-2.eclass.
> Just a suggestion (and maybe a bit off-topic), but I think if you sent
> each patch separately, as replies to the o
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:46:10 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 0007 - I placed it into the conditionals to be clear what is
> happening, what if there will be added another if without the push...
Well, that part is not important, I can rollback it. It was mostly for
the repack/prune part.
> 0010 - 0
Hi guys,
as I am now messing around libreo I am meeting a lot packages that
none bothered to stablereq since 2009 or so, the versions in ~ are
cleaner, more up to date, and possibly contain less bugs.
The issue here is that if some part of the tree looses lots of its
maintainers we as devs usually
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:16:46PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 04:22 Sun 18 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:59:08PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that p
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 23:18 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Well it would be something like priority based queue with maximum 60
> points value.
> Each update after the month in main tree would get 0 points for
> stabilisation, any-developer / maintainer would be able to add up to
> 40 points to any
2011/9/20 Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon :
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 23:18 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> Well it would be something like priority based queue with maximum 60
>> points value.
>> Each update after the month in main tree would get 0 points for
>> stabilisation, any-developer / maintainer would
On 09/20/11 23:18, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
[snipped to bits]
> So, the issue is obvious, we have packages in testing that are in
> better shape than stable ones.
I'm aware that some of my packages could use a stablereq, but since I
don't run any stable machines at the moment it just never bothers me.
Patrick Lauer posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:00:38 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > What do you guys think?
>> I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
>> really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their
>> / and, lat
36 matches
Mail list logo
