Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs back to bug-wranglers@

2008-06-30 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To anyone (else) out there who thinks that bug wranglers should be > punished when they make mistakes in the heap of unthankful work they > perform on a more than daily basis, I would like you to know that if > you reassi

Re: [gentoo-dev] new eclass and portage category: octave-forge.eclass and dev-octave

2008-07-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
> [3] > http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/science/browser/overlay/eclass/octave-forge.eclass You may want to look into making it eclass-manpages ready. -Jeremy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] IBM article of interest ?

2008-07-17 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Philip Webb wrote: 080717 Jan Kundr�t wrote: "01 Dec 2000 Updated 03 Jul 2008" [2] [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-awk1.html The '03 Jul 2008' has been added since I sent my comment to them yesterday ! However, the incorrect URL for Gentoo Technologies -- www.gentoo.org -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select

2008-07-19 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. This isn't enough? %% grep KNOW * make.defaults:I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING="yes" ;)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New policy: LDFLAGS should be respected

2008-07-26 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already available. So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that isn't broken with regards to a policy _needed_ to enforce this action? Are bugs being ignored o

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New PROPERTIES=interactive value to identify interactive packages?

2008-08-06 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Please consider a new PROPERTIES=interactive setting that allows an ebuild to indicate that it uses stdin and stdout for user I don't think anyone will disagree with this one. The one problem that I see is that if the ebuild still doesn't have this value in it, portage will *look* like it has

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New PROPERTIES=interactive value to identify interactive packages?

2008-08-07 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Zac Medico wrote: Like Alec said, I don't think this is a difficult thing to get right and even if the maintainer doesn't get it right initially then it's not something that's very difficult to spot and fix. More elusive bugs certainly do exist. That said, I still would like to make use of the s

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Plethora of Patches

2008-08-13 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Andrew D Kirch wrote: Good points, I take it that you have found a mentor and are becoming a dev to drive this project then? -Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Plethora of Patches

2008-08-14 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremy Olexa wrote: >> >> Andrew D Kirch wrote: >> >> >> Good points, I take it that you have found a mentor and are becoming a dev >> to drive this project then? >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: remove app-office/borg from portage.

2008-08-18 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Brooks wrote: >> Random idea: How about a different bug assignee for maintainer-needed >> packages with provided ebuilds/patches? Either something generic, or >> try to go for something more category/package specifi

Re: [gentoo-dev] LICENSE and revbumps

2008-08-27 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Ryan Hill wrote: On the other hand, it also seems completely ridiculous from a practical POV to have to wait 30 days (and waste arch team resources) to fix an incorrect licence on a stable package. And have everyone recompile the package, thus wasting cpu cycles and users' time. I would have

[gentoo-dev] RFC: addition of virtual/fonts package

2008-09-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
I'm thinking that a virtual/fonts package would be a good addition to the tree. We have hit this issue in Gentoo Prefix where any font package would satisfy a dependency. I also have an open bug where a package depends on corefonts but the reporter has stated that another fonts package will wor

[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: x11-terms/root-tail

2008-09-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Jeremy Olexa wrote: # Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (12 Sep 2008) # Masked for removal in 60 days. dead upstream, missed modular X transition. # See bug #127193 x11-terms/root-tail I have lifted this mask. Multiple users have said that it works and they want it in the tree. I al

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: addition of virtual/fonts package

2008-09-23 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Ryan Hill wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:03:53 -0500 Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm thinking that a virtual/fonts package would be a good addition to the tree. We have hit this issue in Gentoo Prefix where any font package would satisfy a dependency. I also have an ope

Re: [gentoo-dev] Usage of econf with an additional || die

2008-09-30 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Ben de Groot wrote: So, can we have a nice little table of which functions die by themselves and which ones need || die added in ebuilds? Please? Thanks, A quick grep of /usr/lib/portage/bin clues you in that every function that is an external file does *not* die by itself. So, emake, do*,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask

2008-10-02 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> # Gen 2 Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (`date`) >> # Masked for testing. >> >=rofl-cat/omgpkg-ver >> >> >> Please people, >> >> >>if you

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?

2008-10-05 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Friedrich Oslage wrote: Am Sonntag, den 05.10.2008, 16:26 -0500 schrieb Steev Klimaszewski: Thoughts? Helps? Afaik we have 3 types of arches: - experimental They are not CCed on stablization bugs and don't do stablizations at all. ~mips, ~sparc-fbsd and ~x86-fbsd - unsupported They are CCe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?

2008-10-06 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500 Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would suggest moving all the "slacking" arches to "experimental" until there is des

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New keywords for non-Gentoo Linux platforms

2008-10-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Fabian Groffen wrote: Most notably, in Prefix all keywords are full GLEP53 style, which results in e.g. amd64-linux. We did this on purpose, because in Prefix we don't necessarily are on Gentoo Linux. We also chose to expand fbsd, nbsd and obsd to their long variants, mainly because the short

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding features to Portage that work on top of any EAPI

2008-10-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:46:55 +0200 > What's the scope of the changes? I think it'd be easiest to discuss > this if you posted an informal summary describing the differences in > terms of which bits of PMS are affected. Ci

Re: [gentoo-dev] System packages in (R)DEPEND?

2008-10-13 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Sachau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see packages like bison, flex, perl or sed in the system set. And i also > see ebuilds depending on > them. I also heard from Peter Volkov (pva) that there where discussions about > removing different > packages from t

Re: [gentoo-dev] [v4] Planning for automatic assignment computation of bugs

2008-10-19 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Robin H. Johnson wrote: Notes: -- 1. For handling no-herd, we should add an entry into herds.xml to catch it (maintainer-needed g.o). Every herd listed in an ebuild MUST be in herds.xml. As rbu pointed out, this is slightly incorrect. Most of my ebuilds contain no-herd. ;) As do ot

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos USE flag

2008-10-31 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:52:59 -0400 > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Someone remind me again why we have the kerberos USE flag enabled by >> default? > > AFAIK it was added so that the default profile provides

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Mark Loeser wrote: I really don't understand why it is better to break the stable trees of $ARCH instead of just making them all ~ARCH. (ie. ~mips, ~x86-fbsd, etc). If the $ARCH doesn't have the manpower to do stable reqs then they don't have the manpower to fix broken stable trees either or

Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Mark Loeser wrote: So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from our users something that is useful. Its back now, but I think we should consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to. We already have something very similar to this on the forums,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-util/netbeans: ChangeLog netbeans-6.5-r1.ebuild netbeans-6.5.ebuild

2008-11-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Peter Volkov wrote: В Сбт, 22/11/2008 в 18:11 +, Miroslav Sulc (fordfrog) пишет: fordfrog08/11/22 18:11:25 Added:netbeans-6.5-r1.ebuild Log: netbeans compiles fine even with JDK 1.6 so I dropped the restriction on JDK, also commons-fileupload linking fixed Index:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Jeeves IRC replacement now alive - Willikins

2008-12-01 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Getting the bot out there > - > If you would like to have the new bot in your #gentoo-* channel, would > each channel founder/leader please respond to this thread, stating the > channel name, and

[gentoo-dev] Proposal for flag-o-matic.eclass (append-ldflags)

2008-12-08 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Hello, I am seeking a positive code review on the following change to flag-o-matic.eclass, diff is below (reasons are below that): %% cvs diff Index: flag-o-matic.eclass === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for flag-o-matic.eclass (append-ldflags)

2008-12-14 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Hello, > I am seeking a positive code review on the following change to > flag-o-matic.eclass, diff is below (reasons are below that): Er, cancel that. The proposed patch isn't robust enough to catch something like "appen

[gentoo-dev] bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2008-12-16 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Exhibit A: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/eclass/python.eclass?r1=1.48&r2=1.49 This causes me pain on my hosts that don't have >=bash-3.1[0] for /bin/bash. Because I can't install portage with an old bash until I get a new python installed which uses python.eclass which isn't supp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: what happened to /etc/init.d/hal{d,daemon,whatever} script ?

2008-12-23 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Andrey Grozin wrote: On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, Petteri R?ty wrote: Who has been removing die statements? Is this a suggested way of action somewhere by someone? As recently discussed on the list, econf dies by itself, and || die should better be removed after econf. The same is true for, e.g., eqma

Re: [gentoo-dev] glep-42-news: sparc multilib profile

2008-12-30 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Friedrich Oslage wrote: > [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~bluebird/sparc-multilib/ I would put it in the gentoo.org/doc/en/ domain and link to it in the gentoo-sparc index (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/sparc/index.xml) 2 cents, Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files

2008-12-31 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Fabio Rossi wrote: On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Duncan wrote: Except that... in theory, some or all of those apps could technically be used on/for other distributions and platforms as well. Yes, this is the theory but I think they'll be never ported to other distributions. sabayon doesn'

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o supported overlays should register

2009-01-02 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Jeroen Roovers wrote: Hi folks, in light of some recent discussions where overlay maintainers found that bug reports had been assigned "incorrectly" and thought it was apt to inform the miscellaneous bug wranglers of the correct assignees, I thought it would be a good idea to introduce a n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Usage of cp -i to prevent overwriting upstream files

2009-01-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Ferris McCormick wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:50:47 +0100 > Jan Kundrát wrote: > >> Ferris McCormick wrote: >> > 'cp -i' will at least ask a question, and I find that marginally better >> > --- it's confusing, but at least it says something. But it seems to me

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Donnie Berkholz wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed t

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 21:28 Wed 21 Jan , Jeremy Olexa wrote: Can we get a consensus on bash version in the tree? this thread[1] is unresolved. I understand that the PMS draft is not set in stone (or something), but please...let's progress and update the spec[2]. I feel that

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

2009-01-24 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Hi. I talked to Zac earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas and Patrick raised the concern we might need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0. Zac confirmed that the first stable ver

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

2009-01-26 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote: I talked to Zac earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an entry to

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

2009-01-26 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Alec Warner wrote: On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

2009-01-31 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Donnie Berkholz wrote: app-misc/colordiff sys-process/iotop I picked up these two. metadata changed. I'll get to the bugs next week sometime. -Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.3 patches will be applied nowish

2009-02-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > All bugs blocking #198121 having obviously correct (eg. missing header) > patches will be applied by me in the coming week. If you have concerns > about me touching your package (i swear i'll wash my hands first), > please let me know. > > As alw

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

2009-02-11 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Santiago M. Mola wrote: > Hello, > > All my packages are up for grabs. Feel free to add yourself to > metadata.xml and don't hesitate to ask me any doubts about them. I hope this doesn't mean you are retiring.. =/ > app-shells/bash-completion I already have a s

[gentoo-dev] Time to remove app-shells/bash-completion-config

2009-02-17 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Hello, I would like to request that bash-completion-20081218 to be marked stable by the arches soon here. In doing so, I'm going to make the following change to bash-completion.eclass: -RDEPEND="bash-completion? - ( || ( - app-admin/eselect -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Time to remove app-shells/bash-completion-config

2009-02-17 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 11:55 Tue 17 Feb , Jeremy Olexa wrote: >> We should only be using eselect now to enable bash-completion. I think >> bash-completion-config is broken now anyway >> (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25

[gentoo-dev] Re: Time to remove app-shells/bash-completion-config

2009-02-19 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Hello, > I would like to request that bash-completion-20081218 to be marked > stable by the arches soon here. > > In doing so, I'm going to make the following change to bash-completion.eclass: > >

[gentoo-dev] treecleaner policy change wrt removal date

2009-02-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Small change: Effective immediately "30 days notice" is becoming 30-59 days and "60 days notice" is becoming 60-89 days. Basically, all removal dates are going to be the last day of the month in whichever month is appropriate. This allows us to process many bugs at once. You won't see an exa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Petteri Räty wrote: 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 thinks. Everyone is only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?

2009-02-26 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Mounir Lamouri wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mounir Lamouri wrote: Hi, I was writing a trivial version bump for net-voip/gnugk-2.2.8 (bug #258518) but upstream added a file named p2pnat_license.txt (see h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a > while? While they might not be actively committing they are still > knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a > fix for small packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3

2009-03-09 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Tiziano � wrote: Hi everyone With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example). So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some dis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: As opposed to those same bugs being assigned to maintainer-needed and getting lots of attention? The inactive dev can just as easily resolve a m-needed bug as one that is assigned to himself. The added benefit that some people actually look at the m-needed que

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo KVM images now available :)

2009-03-16 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:53 AM, wrote: Hi, I already posted some initial images on tinderbox. http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/virtualization/amd64/ Some weeks old by now. But I am fairly confident that image building can be made automatic via scripting. Granted, I did not make an announcemen

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Alexey Shvetsov wrote: Alec Warner wrote: I am interested in the number of ebuilds at specific APIs in the tree, do you have those numbers? Basically, how much work is this (raw ebuild count)? Total ebuilds 26209 EAPI0 ebuilds 22880 EAPI1 ebuilds 1855 EAPI2 ebuilds 1474 this numbers b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: please stop using foo-${PV}-bar.patch in other ebuild versions than ${PV}

2009-03-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Alin Năstac wrote: Fine, then remove $PV from patch name and use it in any ebuild version you want. Or just decouple the patch version from the ebuild version (foo-bar-r1.patch sounds OK to me). What exactly is your problem that you are trying to solve here? Posting to the community to stop

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please review: prefix.eclass

2009-04-02 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Hi, > > Donnie Berkholz : > >> On 12:59 Fri 27 Mar     , Fabian Groffen wrote: >> > This eclass facilitates in some of the needs of the Gentoo Prefix >> > project.  For now it provides the 'eprefixify' function, which is >> > often used

[gentoo-dev] RFC: best way to introduce USE=prefix

2009-04-03 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Hello all, In the Gentoo Prefix project we have a special USE flag: 'prefix', kind of like $ARCH USE flags. I am writing here to ask of the best way to introduce a global implicit USE flag to gentoo-x86. There has been some interest from other devs to kill diffs in ebuilds between gentoo-x86 and pr

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: best way to introduce USE=prefix

2009-05-01 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 04-04-2009 20:41:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> The two aren't mutually contradictory. Quite the contrary. >> >> For EAPI 3, we're aiming to make it illegal to do anything with a flag >> unless it's either explicitly listed in IUSE or

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

2009-05-13 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Mart Raudsepp wrote: Hello, I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to get it out there, as to see if feedback finds it a good one - and if that is so, if there are people who want to make it happen. Hmm, I wonder what the point is when there is 400 maintainer-neede

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Leverton wrote: > yourself, "shell-like".   "printf -v EAPI 1" is perfectly valid shell (at > least if we decide to allow bash 3.1 features), and has the same effect To stir things up: Who decides this? There are more and more bash-3.1 features in the tree a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere

2009-05-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Comments welcome, and thanks for reading. (replying to random) Look, there has been a whopping 6 developer comments on this thread - none of them opposed. This means to me that you should continue on with your plan. You are already a moderator of our forums, so get someone with cvs access

Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation

2009-05-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Hi, > > there is no set date, but I want to post a GLEP 42 news item before the > actual stabilisation.  Maybe other channels like the web page can carry > that news then, too.  Please comment the attached news item. >  Vapier wanted

Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation

2009-05-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Saddler wrote: > Jeremy Olexa wrote: >> I hope it goes without saying that bug 213988 >> (http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988) should be resolved before either >> stabilization or news posting. The doc is somewhat out of date now. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation

2009-05-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Saddler wrote: >> Jeremy Olexa wrote: >>> I hope it goes without saying that bug 213988 >>> (http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988) should be resolved before either >>> stabi

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere

2009-05-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dale wrote: > Alistair Bush wrote: >> Dale wrote: >> >> The Gentoo subforum on LQ would help to collect the posts in one place. >>> That would be the point.  Gentoo has its own forum so why have two >>> forums?  What would be the point in having two

Re: [gentoo-dev] New metadata fields

2009-06-03 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Steve Dibb wrote: > I had an idea for some new fields to go in metadata.xml.  Not sure if we > would need a GLEP for this or not?  Anyway, what do you guys think: > > Two things I can think of adding that would be useful: > > - ChangeLog URL > - Bug Tracker > > I kn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy regarding enabling IUSE defaults application in ebuild

2009-06-08 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Maciej Mrozowski wrote: While it usually doesn't do any particular harm (but I guess security and prefix/alt team won't agree on this) - insanely enabling everything by default The Prefix team does not care either way. is not the best idea in my opinion. Of course we need an example. Let's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2009/2010 - Nominations are now open

2009-06-12 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Thanks to those that have nominated me, I would not have expected it to be honest. I am going to decline for the Council election. I have lots of other items going on in my life and can't quite add this to my plate. Thanks, Jere

[gentoo-dev] app-portage/deltup needs help

2009-07-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Hello devs, It has been brought to my attention that deltup is in need of some lovin' via a treecleaner bug (bug 246916). Both deltup and app-portage/getdelta are used in combination to provide smaller tarballs. If anyone is interested in helping out the Gentoo dial-up users, please consider

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New eselect news item for X11 on alphas

2009-07-15 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Tobias Klausmann wrote: Hi! On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Christian Faulhammer wrote: Tobias Klausmann : Revision: 2 This is only needed for an in-repo revision...so please leave it at 1. but but no fixes are available yet, please see But but Imagine a trembling lower lip with that :) Fi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keeping profiles/ tidy

2009-07-31 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Samuli Suominen wrote: I've just closed http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105016. But bugs like these shouldn't be around in the first place. When you remove a package from tree, please grep the profiles/ directory for matching entries and remove them too. Anyhow, package.mask's and package

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

2009-08-06 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Samuli Suominen wrote: As subject says, default/linux/*/10.0 default/hardened/linux/*/10.0 Profiles are up, the 10.0 releng / 10th anniversary ones. All new development is to be done with these. For users of 2008.0 this doesn't mean much as they are cloned ones. New LiveCD's will be based on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multimedia overlay

2009-08-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Josh Saddler wrote: Why isn't this on git.overlays.gentoo.org? If it's not on Gentoo infrastructure, it's not "official." Q: Are All Official Overlays Hosted On overlays.gentoo.org? A: No. Gentoo developers are free to put their overlay wherever suits them best; they don't have to use ov

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant'

2009-08-12 Thread Jeremy Olexa
I am suggesting that the new 10.0 profiles be marked as EAPI-2 compliant. This involves setting the content of the 'eapi' file to "2" and bumping up the required portage version. This seems like progress to me. Often, developers are complaining that they can't use SLOT syntax in profiles (I know t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking of libxcb 1.4 and related libs in !2008.0 profiles

2009-08-18 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Rémi Cardona wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a quick heads up that I have just unmasked x11-libs/libxcb-1.4 and its > companion libraries in all profiles _except_ 2008.0. Hey Rémi, Next time, mind running echangelog in the appropriate directory? It help us look at a glan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking of libxcb 1.4 and related libs in !2008.0 profiles

2009-08-18 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Rémi Cardona wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Just a quick heads up that I have just unmasked x11-libs/libxcb-1.4 and its >> companion libraries in all profiles _except_ 2008.0. > > He

Re: [gentoo-dev] Test request: Bugzilla load balancer

2009-08-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've been doing some more mucking with the Bugzilla code and setup, and > I think I've got most of the issues worked out that previously prevented > it from being fully load balanced. > > So, please test at: > http://bugs-web-

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo stats server/client @ 2009-08-22

2009-08-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Sebastian Pipping wrote: Hello! Arrivals The third peport table on installed packages "most-unmasked" has just arrived: http://smolt.hartwork.org:45678/static/stats/gentoo.html#installed_packages_most_unmasked Questions = Before adding the forth "least-installed" table, I'd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay

2009-08-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 08/22/2009 05:59 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 08/22/2009 05:39 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Sebastian Pipping wrote: Commits are done automatically, triggering and pushing is manual at the moment. By now a cron-based setup is running syncing the pure-funtoo ove

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay

2009-08-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Of course that's my personal opinion. I don't use "developer/experimental" overlays, I only use those who provide some extra packages I want. And I was under the impression that pure-funtoo falls under this category: providing packages that don't exist in portage.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 LiveDVD release enhancements

2009-08-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Samuli Suominen wrote: Fernando V Orocu (likewhoa) has been working on getting the 10.0 LiveDVD images in shape for the Gentoo 10th year anniversary release. We need some assistance in terms of LiveDVD testers, user suggestions for new packages & software testers since there will be over 100+ new

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay

2009-08-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Sebastian Pipping wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Uhm, I just discovered that there are conflicts with portage too. That is not good. After I added pure-funtoo, it messed up my emerge -u world (stuff like wanting to upgrade to sys-apps/baselayout-2.1.5). Hopefully fixed http://git.goodpoint.

Re: [gentoo-dev] About udev-145: new features / extras and kernel requirements

2009-08-31 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:16:47PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: >> > Hi there! >> > >> > The new udev-145 and newer have some new kernel requirements. How should >> > the >> >

[gentoo-dev] About XFCE, renames, eclass, etc

2009-09-02 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Hello all, You /may/ have noticed some fuzz going on with XFCE lately. Here is a quick outline of what Samuli and myself (mainly him though with my 'consulting' =P ) have been doing. - pkg renames: We want to match what upstream calls the packages. This includes renaming plugins to $foo-plugi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Multimedia overlay

2009-09-03 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Is this dead before it even began?  I'm getting no replies from > yng...@gentoo.org. He is away: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/devaway.xml?select=yngwin#yngwin

Re: [gentoo-dev] About XFCE, renames, eclass, etc

2009-09-03 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Eray Aslan wrote: On 03.09.2009 05:38, Jeremy Olexa wrote: - xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality. This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo Linux. This is desired

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)

2009-09-04 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free > operating system. FWIW: Given the state of ebuilds, I think this should never be attempted unless the user knows it may not be accurate[1]. We should not attempt to guarante

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles

2009-09-12 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 29 August 2009 05:42:45 Duncan wrote: Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted: On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebasti

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl-module.class review

2009-09-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Torsten Veller wrote: > if s/EXPF/TEST_EXPF/ in test.eclass, it does: > >  * another_test_src_configure >  * another_test_src_compile >  * test_pkg_postinst Although I don't anticipate xfconf and cmake being used together, we changed xfconf.eclass. ;) Thanks for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: opengl-manpages, xorg-docs, xorg-sgml-doctools

2009-09-22 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > 090922 Rémi Cardona wrote: >> # Rémi Cardona (19 Sep 2009) >> # Outdated and useless X doc packages >> # Masked for removal in 30 days >> app-doc/opengl-manpages >> app-doc/xorg-sgml-doctools >> app-doc/xorg-docs >> Before anyone asks, opengl-

Re: [gentoo-dev] On shebangs of scripts

2009-09-23 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently, we added a new QA check in Gentoo Prefix' Portage to check > shebangs (the #! things) of scripts before they are installed.  We > basically did this simply because we don't want to use say > /usr/bin/perl and because th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in xfce-base/xfconf: ChangeLog xfconf-4.6.1.ebuild

2009-10-05 Thread Jeremy Olexa
2009/10/5 Tomáš Chvátal : > Dne pondělí 05 Říjen 2009 23:31:03 Samuli Suominen napsal(a): >> Jeremy Olexa (darkside) wrote: >> > darkside    09/10/05 21:22:30 >> > >> >   Modified:             ChangeLog xfconf-4.6.1.ebuild >> >   Log: >> >   P

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup

2009-10-08 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: > Stelian Ionescu wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 16:32 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: >>> I wrote a script to check which ebuilds use built_with_use and have >>> keywords in never versions making the ebuild unused. This means that >>> neither arch o

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

2009-10-13 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:55:45 +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote: > Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break > stuff on significant percent of other users. > It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting, > since it was at quite inconvenient mome

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86 commit in net-mail/getmail: ChangeLog getmail-4.9.2.ebuild

2009-10-16 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: Le mardi 13 octobre 2009 à 23:48 +0200, Jeroen Roovers a écrit : On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:22:13 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: We are working on a proper explanation targetted to devs of this. I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused. How large of a change to the tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is?

2009-10-16 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Daniel Bradshaw wrote: Hi all, It occurs to me that my work flow when doing updates follows a fairly predictable (and probably common) pattern. The obvious next step is to wonder why no one though of automating it... When doing updates I tend to look through the package list and classify things

[gentoo-dev] Status of 10.0 profiles??

2009-10-20 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Hello, Since the "10.0 release" there has not been an outward facing announcement for users to switch profiles. * Are we deprecating the 2008.0 profiles? * Are 10.0 profiles "feature complete" ? * Will there be an announcement? * Why are only the 2008.0 hardened profiles deprecated? ( %% find /us

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-24 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Maciej Mrozowski wrote: Hi there! Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking place 22 Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon), having Gentoo GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead with splitting desktop profile to DE-specific s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Prefix: on EPREFIX, ED and EROOT inside ebuilds

2009-11-19 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Some questions answered. snipped the rest. Denis Dupeyron wrote: 2009/10/18 Tomáš Chvátal : Why on earth portage simply does not detect the prefix enviroment is being run and then INTERNALY switch D->ED and other variables. If that means we can get away without touching ebuilds, apart from ch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla testers wanted - "Email send to: no one" issue

2009-11-24 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:09:23 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 03 November 2009 13:33:55 Christian Ruppert wrote: >> Dear gentoo-dev subscriber, >> >> as some of you might have been noticed, we're having some trouble with >> Bugzilla's mail notification. >> In some cases you might see so

  1   2   3   >