-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
>>
>> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
>> between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch
>> the leaf and less importa
Now that Gentoo is much better in handling multilib libraries, but
Gentoo is source-based, there's the question of which header files are
used between different ABI builds.
As I understand it, only the headers from the default ABI are installed.
That means that building for abi_x86_32 on a am
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 10:56:10
Nikos Chantziaras napisał(a):
> Now that Gentoo is much better in handling multilib libraries, but
> Gentoo is source-based, there's the question of which header files are
> used between different ABI builds.
>
> As I understand it, only the headers from the d
On 22/08/13 11:16, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 10:56:10
Nikos Chantziaras napisał(a):
Now that Gentoo is much better in handling multilib libraries, but
Gentoo is source-based, there's the question of which header files are
used between different ABI builds.
As I understand i
Dnia 2013-08-21, o godz. 12:33:14
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Proposed implementation follows:
>
> > einstalldocs() {
> > if ! declare -p DOCS &>/dev/null ; then
> > local d
> > for d in README* ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS TOD
Dnia 2013-08-21, o godz. 14:49:45
Pacho Ramos napisał(a):
> El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 14:35 +0200, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >
> > > Could appending to DOCS be allowed? I have seen a lot of time of me
> > > needing to install all docs "manually"
Second version:
einstalldocs() {
if ! declare -p DOCS &>/dev/null ; then
local d
for d in README* ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS TODO CHANGES \
THANKS BUGS FAQ CREDITS CHANGELOG ; do
[[ -s ${d} ]] && dodoc "${d}"
done
elif [[ $(declare -p DOCS) =
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
> Second version:
Looks good to me.
One minor non-technical point: Could you use double quotes instead of
single quotes around "declare -a", for better readability? Last time
we had single quotes they ended up as backquotes in the devmanual and
from
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
>>> exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
>>> s
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras
>>> wrote:
Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
exp.
On 22 August 2013 18:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras
>>> wrote:
Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
exp.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
>> might still keep them.
>
> What's the point of
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
On 08/22/2013 01:28 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
would get dro
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber wrote:
>
> Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
> And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
> granularity moot.
>
> It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
> or anything.
>
22.08.2013 16:26, Markos Chandras пишет:
> On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber wrote:
>>
>> Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
>> And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
>> granularity moot.
>>
>> It's like nailing them to debian stable
22.08.2013 06:05, Albert Hopkins пишет:
> This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
> unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
>
Try Prefix[1], it works very well in some cases ;-)
[1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/
On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber wrote:
>>
>> Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
>> And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
>> granularity moot.
>>
>> It's like nailing them to debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/08/13 06:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system
> provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start
> pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable
>
Dnia 2013-08-21, o godz. 22:05:21
Albert Hopkins napisał(a):
> This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
> unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
I doubt it. Especially that those features actually require root
privileges to be enabled
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:47:18 +0200
Michael Weber wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not
> > encourage this. Users are free to do whatever they want.
> Actually every other post is about keywording special versions o
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
>> problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
>> running ~arch on most libs.
>
> Wow! That is somethi
> RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-misc/gnote/ChangeLog,v
> retrieving revision 1.34
> retrieving revision 1.35
> diff -u -r1.34 -r1.35
> --- ChangeLog 22 Aug 2013 16:14:52 - 1.34
> +++ ChangeLog 22 Aug 2013 16:36:24 - 1.35
> @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
> # ChangeLog for app-misc/gn
Am Donnerstag, 22. August 2013, 13:28:24 schrieb Markos Chandras:
> >
> > Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
> > problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
> > running ~arch on most libs.
>
> Wow! That is something we actively encourage people
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:03:35AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> > 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
> >>
> >> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
> >> between coul
Hi,
It seems to be a pattern now to mask the language "target" USE flags
for unstable versions, such as python_targets_python3_3 and
php_targets_php5-5.
This is very handy since e.g I do not need two revisions of
dev-php/xdebug:
- one that can be stabilised, supporting stable php5.3 and php5.4an
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 19:13:25
Markos Chandras napisał(a):
> > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-misc/gnote/ChangeLog,v
> > retrieving revision 1.34
> > retrieving revision 1.35
> > diff -u -r1.34 -r1.35
> > --- ChangeLog 22 Aug 2013 16:14:52 - 1.34
> > +++ ChangeLog 22 Aug 20
Dnia 2013-08-22, o godz. 21:08:52
Ole Markus With napisał(a):
> However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
> working great except that I cannot remove php_targets_php5-5 from
> use.stable.mask until all arches have stabilised php. For those arches
> with stable php5.5,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ole Markus With wrote:
> However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
> working great except that I cannot remove php_targets_php5-5 from
> use.stable.mask until all arches have stabilised php.
You could have separate use.stable.mask ent
On 22/08/13 21:27, Zac Medico wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ole Markus With
> wrote:
>> However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
>> working great except that I cannot remove php_targets_php5-5 from
>> use.stable.mask until all arches have stabilised php.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Ole Markus With
wrote:
> On 22/08/13 21:27, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ole Markus With
>> wrote:
>>> However, now the time has come for php5.5 to be stabilised, and all is
>>> working great except that I cannot remove php_targets_php5-
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200
> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras
> > wrote:
> > > I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
> > >
> > > - s390
> > > - sh
> > > - ia
32 matches
Mail list logo
