Tom Wijsman posted on Thu, 02 May 2013 07:09:10 +0200 as excerpted:
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> After some early issues with "too much magic" re preserved-libs
>
> Why is it magic? It is well explained what it does (eg. man make.conf).
>
>> I originally would rather let the upgr
gnome-games was splitted in separate packages per game and, then, we
need an eclass to also set proper settings inherited from gnome2 and
games eclasses. This should also solve:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=432848
eclass and ebuild (games-puzzle/five-or-more) to try attached
# Copyright
Hi,
I've thought for a bit and got the conclusion that the best solution
for quite an irritating syntax of autotools-multilib is to use
sub-phase functions. To increase consistency between ebuilds, the same
phases can be used in autotools-utils directly.
The idea is that current ebuild looking li
More details in the mail preceding the patch.
---
gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 47 --
gx86/eclass/autotools-utils.eclass| 157 +-
2 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
b/gx86/
On 05/02/2013 12:41 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> gnome-games was splitted in separate packages per game and, then, we
> need an eclass to also set proper settings inherited from gnome2 and
> games eclasses. This should also solve:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=432848
>
> eclass and ebuild
El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 14:34 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> On 05/02/2013 12:41 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > gnome-games was splitted in separate packages per game and, then, we
> > need an eclass to also set proper settings inherited from gnome2 and
> > games eclasses. This should also solve:
> > htt
On 05/02/2013 03:40 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 14:34 +0200, hasufell escribió:
>> On 05/02/2013 12:41 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> gnome-games was splitted in separate packages per game and, then, we
>>> need an eclass to also set proper settings inherited from gnome2 and
>>> g
On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:40:06 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 08:57:35 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > Then the person implementing the code for Paludis is either a
> > > monkey or a robot*. Anyone capable of reasoning could puzzle out
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Er, we are. Following the spec is not a mistake. If there's a mistake,
> it was made by the Council when they approved the wording.
Both Portage and Paludis are following the spec. The spec isn't
incorrect, it just doesn't fully describe t
El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 15:54 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> On 05/02/2013 03:40 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 14:34 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> >> On 05/02/2013 12:41 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> gnome-games was splitted in separate packages per game and, then, we
> >>> need an
On 05/02/2013 05:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 15:54 +0200, hasufell escribió:
>> On 05/02/2013 03:40 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 14:34 +0200, hasufell escribió:
On 05/02/2013 12:41 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> gnome-games was splitted in separate
El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 17:16 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> On 05/02/2013 05:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 15:54 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> >> On 05/02/2013 03:40 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El jue, 02-05-2013 a las 14:34 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> On 05/02/2013 12:4
currently default_src_install is carried out in $BUILD_DIR and not in $S
that means people have to do something like this:
DOCS=( "${S}"/ChangeLog{,.libffi,.libgcj,.v1} "${S}"/README )
The attached patch is a bit ugly, but I don't see a better way. It will
allow:
DOCS=( ChangeLog{,.libffi,.libgcj
On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:24:19 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> currently default_src_install is carried out in $BUILD_DIR and not in $S
>
> that means people have to do something like this:
> DOCS=( "${S}"/ChangeLog{,.libffi,.libgcj,.v1} "${S}"/README )
>
> The attached patch is a bit ugly, but I don't s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2013 06:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:24:19 +0200 hasufell
> wrote:
>
>> currently default_src_install is carried out in $BUILD_DIR and
>> not in $S
>>
>> that means people have to do something like this: DOCS=(
>> "${
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Otherwise I could just use a second variable and unset DOCS.
>
Hm no, that would suck too, cause it will jump into the the first if
clause. I'll probably inline it all then.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:26:06PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> - its a consistent approach that is bootloader agnostic
> - it doesn't require you to understand your bootloaders scripting system to
> add it to the init= line
> - its "no brains required, and hard to mess up"
Why should we do somet
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:26:06PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> bootloader configuration under grub1 for instance, was quite
>> straight-forward. Now with grub-2, its quite convoluted, for me at least.
>
> I haven't looked at grub2 yet, but I
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> If you manually write your own configuration for GRUB2, it is no more
> convoluted than for GRUB Legacy.
>
> If you use grub-mkconfig to generate a configuration file, you can
> append the init option by setting
> GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="init=/us
Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
> Not all the Gentoo users are as skilled as you (a developer). Having a
> programmatic, bootloader agnostic way to swap /sbin/init is useful for
> the reasons I explained. Yet I haven't read any solid reason not to do
> that.
Another bootloader agnostic way is to pass ini
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Not all the Gentoo users are as skilled as you (a developer). Having a
> programmatic, bootloader agnostic way to swap /sbin/init is useful for
> the reasons I explained. Yet I haven't read any solid reason not to do
> that.
Well, there is
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> If you manually write your own configuration for GRUB2, it is no more
>> convoluted than for GRUB Legacy.
>>
>> If you use grub-mkconfig to generate a configuration file, you can
>>
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:39:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>
> >> If you manually write your own configuration for GRUB2, it is no more
> >> convoluted than for GRUB Legacy.
> >>
On 3 May 2013 07:01, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
>
> If it's that simple, why on earth do we have all the eselect modules we
> have!?
>
>
Hm, upon reading that list and seeing what they do, it raises another
argument in favour of eselect:
If there needs to be more things changed prior to reboot tha
Mike Gilbert posted on Thu, 02 May 2013 14:13:30 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:26:06PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>> bootloader configuration under grub1 for instance, was quite
>>> straight-forward. Now with grub-2, it
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:27:36AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 May 2013 07:01, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If it's that simple, why on earth do we have all the eselect modules we
> > have!?
> >
> >
> Hm, upon reading that list and seeing what they do, it raises another
> argument i
William Hubbs schrieb:
> If you use this symlink approach to actually switch your init to point
> to systemd, then you boot and things don't work, you are hosed.
Well, not fully hosed. You could still edit your kernel command line from
the boot loader pointing init=.. to the actual location and
Most of the bugs filed on the gcc 4.8 tracker so far have been caused by
packages being built with -Werror. I just noticed one package where the
Makefile was being patched to remove -g from CXXFLAGS but -Werror on the same
line was left in. Just in case people weren't aware, building with -Werror
Ryan Hill wrote:
> If you're fixing one of these bugs by silencing the warning be sure
> to remove the flag also.
How about sending the fix upstream instead?
Thanks, from an upstream
//Peter
pgpHGm3ZpE6z3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
29 matches
Mail list logo
