Hi List,
first of, I am no dev, but I was really wondering, why ldap is a default
useflag in the 2008.0 desktop profile, maybe someone could enlighten me?
I am especially wondering, why would the average desktop user want LDAP
but not samba, for CIFS etc. ?
I guess, the ways, of the devs are
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrick Börjesson wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts:
>>> Marius Mauch wrote:
>>>
>>> > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
>>> > solutions in #gento-porta
Fabian Groffen wrote:
I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I installed
Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on purpose conservative
with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not much more than
"-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels conservative to me. Stil
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:09:36 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >>> all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 ap
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0200
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
all,
I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time
to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc
2.5 or high
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0200
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > all,
> >
> > I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time
> > to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc
> > 2.5 or high
On 2008-07-15 22:58, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts:
> Patrick Börjesson wrote:
> > On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts:
> > The same thing would apply to gcc if all "real" depends were to be
> > required in all ebuilds, but that would pretty much have to be manually
>
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:43:28 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting idea. Unfortunately our depstring parser doesn't like
> empty parentheses (as they are usually problem indicators), so it
> doesn't work out.
Bleh. You can hack around that using a second (looping) pass then.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:34:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:23:26 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Right, just I'd expect the parsing of SRC_URI (with conditionals) to
> > be a bit tricky in bash, not something I'm going to work on. An
Patrick Börjesson wrote:
> On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts:
>> Marius Mauch wrote:
>>
>> > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
>> > solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
>> > automatically inject the deps based on SRC
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
For future EAPIs, we can have the package manager define
super-magic/thing-i-use-to-unzip.
++
One could argue that having package manager support for extracting 7z
is also not sane, of course, but that's something we're stuck with in
current EAPIs.
Or we could allow
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
For future EAPIs, we can have the package manager define
super-magic/thing-i-use-to-unzip.
++
One could argue that having package manager support for extracting 7z
is also not sane, of course, but that's something we're stuck with in
current EAPIs.
Or we could allow
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:23:26 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, just I'd expect the parsing of SRC_URI (with conditionals) to
> be a bit tricky in bash, not something I'm going to work on. An
> eclass-based solution would have a few benefits though wrt the
> metadata cache.
Wel
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:12:37 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:14:18 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
> > solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
> > au
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:45:38 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Couldn't the ebuild be wrong? For example, if the package manager
> uses fancy-unzip-replacement to unzip packages, but the ebuild
> depends on unzip, then wouldn't it fail? It seems like we're trying
> to have ebuild
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:23:08 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could someone explain why manually doing work is better than
automatically detecting the deps? This sounds like an argument
against automation, and I'm not following it.
Sometimes the magic wi
If an ebuild lists bzip2 in DEPEND, the package manager has to bring it in.
The proposed method would only add automatically determined dependencies, not
remove what you listed in DEPEND.
A hypothetical problem is; If a package source file has a bz extension but does
not need bzip2 in any way,
On 20:25 Tue 15 Jul , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:23:08 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could someone explain why manually doing work is better than
> > automatically detecting the deps? This sounds like an argument
> > against automation, and I'm not
On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> all,
>
> I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time to
> toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc 2.5 or
> higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following:
>
> default/linux: LDFLAGS="
all,
I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time to
toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc 2.5 or
higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following:
default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu"
default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:23:08 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could someone explain why manually doing work is better than
> automatically detecting the deps? This sounds like an argument
> against automation, and I'm not following it.
Sometimes the magic will be wrong. For exam
\On 20:10 Tue 15 Jul , Patrick Börjesson wrote:
> On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts:
> > Yes. I think that's something which should be done manually.
>
> Indeed, the correct solution would be to state the deps manually in each
> ebuild that requires the dep. But in thi
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:15:16 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could do it just as an eclass...
> >
> > inherit work-out-my-unpack-deps-for-me
> >
> > In principle, there's nothing that can't be done on the ebuild side
> > here.
>
> Wouldn't this also require having a variable li
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:14:18 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
A
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Hi all,
Here is the summary from Thursday's council meeting. The complete log
will show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.
wrt GLEP 56:
i) I don't see a specification when use.local.desc is finally going to be
dropped
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is the summary from Thursday's council meeting. The complete log
> will show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.
>
wrt GLEP 56:
i) I don't see a specification when use.local.desc is finally going to be
dropped
ii) Why not switch to XM
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:14:18 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
A m
Fabian Groffen wrote:
Manual override as in "emerge --nodeps" or something.
No, manual override as in "the ebuild turns off auto-detection and
specifically asks for app-arch/{bzip2,gzip,tar,whatever} using DEPEND"
Cheers,
Rémi
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:14:18 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
> solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
> automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
> A mapping of extensions
On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
> > solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
> > automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
> > A mapp
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:58:36 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be more constructive to create a list of new
> features/capabilities that depend on this GLEP. For each I'd define:
>
> 1. The feature/unmet need.
> 2. Why it can't be done or can only be done poorly witho
On 15-07-2008 19:53:47 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>> Potential problems:
>> - might cause trouble for some packages that use custom code for
>> unpacking, or due to circular deps, this could simply be solved with a
>> new RESTRICT value though.
>
> As long as this is done to a
Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
So you're saying the GLEP's of no use until Portage supports them, but
Portage can't support them until you say yes to the GLEP...
I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have
other official package managers approved
Petteri Räty wrote:
> I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have
> other official package managers approved before accepting the GLEP.
In addition, I'd want to see why the particular approach suggested in this
GELP is the "only" way (as some seem to claim). I have y
Marius Mauch wrote:
Potential problems:
- might cause trouble for some packages that use custom code for
unpacking, or due to circular deps, this could simply be solved with a
new RESTRICT value though.
As long as this is done to allow a 100% manual override, then this is a
_very_ good idea.
Marius Mauch wrote:
> As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
> solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
> automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
> A mapping of extensions and their unpack deps would be kept in the tree
> (e.g
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:16:42 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you're saying the GLEP's of no use until Portage supports them,
> > but Portage can't support them until you say yes to the GLEP...
>
> I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or
> have other
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:58:01 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes I can think a lot of features like this that would be of great
use in the main tree but as long as Portage is the only official and
stable package manager and doesn't support the things you
Marius Mauch kirjoitti:
So, is this something ebuild maintainers would like in general, or does
such a feature cause you nightmares?
I have actually been thinking about writing support for this into the
Java eclasses because most Java upstreams use .zip files and we need
app-arch/unzip in D
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:58:01 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes I can think a lot of features like this that would be of great
> use in the main tree but as long as Portage is the only official and
> stable package manager and doesn't support the things you listed, the
> GLEP is no
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no
compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope
functions in future EAPIs. As such those problems as stated
Marius Mauch wrote:
As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
A mapping of extensions and their unpack deps would be kept in the tree
(e.g. mapping
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 14:37 Sat 12 Jul , Markus Dittrich (markusle) wrote:
> > 1.1 sci-mathematics/axiom/axiom-200805.ebuild
> >
> > file :
> > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sci-mathematics/axiom/axiom-200805.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=ma
43 matches
Mail list logo
