Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig

On 02/01/13 17:28, Matt Turner wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. pkg-config is now lighter and has less dependencies than before as the switch from bundled

[gentoo-dev] Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation?

In latest portage tree snapshot: * Digest verification failed: * /usr/portage/dev-libs/gobject-introspection/gobject-introspection-1.34.2-r1.ebuild * Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size * Got: 2598 * Expected: 2582 The problem is that the directory was apparently included into dai

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation?

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > The problem is that the directory was apparently included into daily > snapshot between 00:31:07 UTC (ebuild commit) and 00:31:13 UTC > (Manifest commit). For those that don't remember, CVS does not have > atomic commits, so it's not possibl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation?

On 01/03/2013 02:09 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > In any case, we probably shouldn't spend a whole lot of effort on this > given the somewhat-impending git migration, which neatly solves this > problem. Maybe there's some low-hanging fruit in the commit ordering, > though? I was thinking it might be

Re: [gentoo-dev] ship app-arch/pbzip2 instead of app-arch/bzip2

On 03/01/13 03:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/02/2013 06:11 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: El lun, 29-10-2012 a las 10:39 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: I'm confident no one woul

Re: [gentoo-dev] ship app-arch/pbzip2 instead of app-arch/bzip2

On 03/01/2013 11:30, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> > > Feel free to steal the code used in eselect-pinentry. > > It was originally written by mgorny for eselect-sh, but then later > modified by me, and has not had a single bug ever since. Can I reiterate that it'd be cool to have an "eselect tools"?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-multilib: wrapper eclass for multilib builds.

Pacho Ramos schrieb: > El mar, 25-09-2012 a las 10:21 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió: >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:49:13 +0200 >> Thomas Sachau wrote: >> >>> It is not hard by itself to inherit an eclass. There is just the >>> limitation, that occurs with an eclass, e.g.: >>> >>> -the one from mgorny

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About unresolved bugs assigned to voip for ages

El jue, 03-01-2013 a las 00:43 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn escribió: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Pacho Ramos schrieb: > > Looks like finally you added yourself to metadata but with instructions > > to bug-wranglers to CC you and assign to herd. I would like to co

Re: [gentoo-dev] About *ECLASS_ONCE_* stuff at top of some eclasses but not others

El mié, 02-01-2013 a las 18:59 -0500, Mike Gilbert escribió: > On 1/2/2013 6:54 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On 1/2/2013 6:41 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> What is the purpose of this stuff: > >> if [[ ${___ECLASS_ONCE_EUTILS} != "recur -_+^+_- spank" ]] ; then > >> ___ECLASS_ONCE_EUTILS="recur -_+^+_

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About unresolved bugs assigned to voip for ages

El jue, 03-01-2013 a las 12:41 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: [...] > Well, I was referring to this exact case as voip team already pointed > they weren't looking to ekiga stuff and, then, didn't had much sense to > me to see bugs assigned to them instead of real maintainer (will commit > access) wi

[gentoo-dev] configuration-doc.eclass: an eclass to install a CONFIGURATION doc file and show an elog message first time package is installed

This comes from the following gentoo-dev thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/264888 Its usage will lead to the installation of a CONFIGURATION file under /usr/share/doc/${PF} and show of elog messages with its content first time package is installed, relying in doc file for fu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About unresolved bugs assigned to voip for ages

On Jan 3, 2013 6:54 AM, "Pacho Ramos" wrote: > > El jue, 03-01-2013 a las 12:41 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > [...] > > Well, I was referring to this exact case as voip team already pointed > > they weren't looking to ekiga stuff and, then, didn't had much sense to > > me to see bugs assigned to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages without source code (was: Clarify the "as-is" license?)

> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >>> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the >>> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages without source code (was: Clarify the "as-is" license?)

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or > "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the > @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such > packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About unresolved bugs assigned to voip for ages

El jue, 03-01-2013 a las 09:33 -0500, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) escribió: > > On Jan 3, 2013 6:54 AM, "Pacho Ramos" wrote: > > > > El jue, 03-01-2013 a las 12:41 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > > [...] > > > Well, I was referring to this exact case as voip team already > pointed > > > they weren't

Re: [gentoo-dev] configuration-doc.eclass: an eclass to install a CONFIGURATION doc file and show an elog message first time package is installed

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 02:01:03PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: > # Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 > # $Header: $ > > # @ECLASS: configuration-doc > # @MAINTAINER: > # Pacho Ramos > # @AUTHOR: > # Author: Pacho Ramos > # @B

Re: [gentoo-dev] collision-protect -> protect-owned ?

On 01/02/2013 10:13 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 00:25 -0500, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >> On 01/03/2013 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:49:02 -0800 >>> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: >>> It came up again with

Re: [gentoo-dev] configuration-doc.eclass: an eclass to install a CONFIGURATION doc file and show an elog message first time package is installed

El jue, 03-01-2013 a las 14:29 -0600, William Hubbs escribió: [...] > > case "${EAPI:-0}" in > > 0|1|2|3) > > die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI:-0} (too old) for ${ECLASS}" > > ;; > > 4|5) > > # EAPI>=4 is required for REPLACING_VERSIONS preventing us > >

[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages without source code (was: Clarify the "as-is" license?)

Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:40:08 -0500 as excerpted: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or >> "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the >> @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, b

Re: [gentoo-dev] configuration-doc.eclass: an eclass to install a CONFIGURATION doc file and show an elog message first time package is installed

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:03:21PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El jue, 03-01-2013 a las 14:29 -0600, William Hubbs escribió: > [...] > > > case "${EAPI:-0}" in > > > 0|1|2|3) > > > die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI:-0} (too old) for ${ECLASS}" > > > ;; > > > 4|5) > > >