Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove annoying "You should enable -g (or higher) for debugging!" message

On 5/7/11 5:04 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Dne 7.5.2011 16:20, "PaweB Hajdan, Jr." napsal(a): >> This is mostly a nit-like RFC. The developer profile adds a >> profile.bashrc, which prints the "You should enable -g (or higher) for >> debugging!" message when "-g" is not in CFLAGS. > >> I wonder if

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

On 6/2/11 6:04 PM, Gökdeniz Karadağ wrote: > I use the foo2zjs package, and because other versions are broken, have > moved to the live version. But I think expecting a stable version in the > tree is not too much for a user. A tarball snapshot in a ~dev space > would solve the issue I presume. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] MULTI_ABI support addition to main tree portage

On 06/02/2011 03:04 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > For this problem, I think some kind of per-ebuild ABI_DEPENDENT flag > should be used to recognize which packages ABI dependencies should > apply to. Without thinking about it too hard, it seems like perhaps > only packages in RDEPEND should be considere

Re: [gentoo-dev] MULTI_ABI support addition to main tree portage

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:06 AM, justin wrote: > Hi, > > after testing this, and I have to say it mostly works smooth and fine, I > hit a huge problem. > > I wanted to emerge a package which just depends on glibc provided libs > for the oposite ABI my main ABI is. This specific package has an > op

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

On 6/2/11 7:00 PM, Dane Smith wrote: > I'm going to guess you've already tried this, but just in case. Did you > try asking him to version things more... sanely? I've had to do that a > few times and people are usually surprisingly receptive. Ah, and see also

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

On 6/2/11 7:00 PM, Dane Smith wrote: > I'm going to guess you've already tried this, but just in case. Did > you try asking him to version things more... sanely? I've had to do > that a few times and people are usually surprisingly receptive. Right, that's a good idea. Have you visited

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/02/11 12:56, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 6/2/11 6:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> I think it may be useful to have a snapshot anyway. If you can't >> tarball it, maybe a tagged VCS ebuild? I'm not sure if such a thing is >> supposed to lie unma

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

On 6/2/11 6:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > I think it may be useful to have a snapshot anyway. If you can't > tarball it, maybe a tagged VCS ebuild? I'm not sure if such a thing is > supposed to lie unmasked in the tree but it's better than no non-live > ebuild. I know that would be useful, and I'd

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:20:41 +0200 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > The upstream doesn't support snapshots of the tarball, and claims the > auxiliary files cannot be redistributed. > > I think the best course of action is to leave just the live ebuild > (I'm using it on one system that has a print

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

On 02-06-2011 18:20, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: I'd like to remove I use the foo2zjs package, and because other versions are broken, have moved to the live version. But I think expecting a stable version in the tree is not too much for a user. A tarball snapshot in a ~dev space would solve

[gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

I'd like to remove signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > wrote: >> (c) has irked enough developers and users that people pushed council to >> update the policy about the use of ChangeLogs. > > > Yes, and I'm surprised that these same d

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> > - no discussion on what to include or not (everything is in there) >> >> In git, we can make git log skip commit messages while generating the >> ChangeLog, so this is incorrect. See

[gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)

Fabian Groffen posted on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:13:38 +0200 as excerpted: > Obviously, all history is lost. VCSs other than CVS might keep history > across moves here (svn, git, hg...), hence a "follow" could perhaps find > renames. Question is if this can be detected in such a way that a > useful

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)

On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > - no discussion on what to include or not (everything is in there) > > In git, we can make git log skip commit messages while generating the > ChangeLog, so this is incorrect. See section "Commit Limiting" in git > log --help. Assuming thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > I start from the assumption that generation of ChangeLogs is NOT limited > to any VCS. This assumption is incorrect, but I guess it's a close enough approximation for the current discussion. > Simple pros I see mentioned: > - no more need f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01-06-2011 15:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:27:04 +0300 > Samuli Suominen wrote: >> Wouldn't it be better to just trust devs to use common sense in what >> gets into ChangeLogs, and actually be grateful about if they take the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

On 06/02/11 09:40, Eray Aslan wrote: >> Is git faster then rsync? I've never done any checks but it'll be >> surprising if it will. > > Git usually is faster - except the initial clone. Basically, rsync > protocol scales with the project size not with change size. We're discussing performance o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:35:24 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > (c) has irked enough developers and users that people pushed > > council to update the policy about the use of ChangeLogs. > > Yes, and I'm surprised that these same developers pushed towards a > negative solution (kick productive peop

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > On 01-06-2011 19:50, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> The current situation is: >> >> (a) Not dire. >> (b) Not urgent. > > (c) has irked enough developers and users that people pushed council to > update the policy about the use of Chan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

On 2011-06-02 8:09 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: > ChangeLog files are text to be distributed to our users so they are > completely independent of vcs we use. Just ditch the Changelogs and be done with it. The only objection I know is that changelogs act as a NEWS file. Well, it is not a good enough r

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

Peter Volkov posted on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:09:04 +0400 as excerpted: >> One of the huge benefits in using git would be really fast emerge >> --syncs. Not having some kind of system for migrating users to git >> seems like a lot of the benefits are lost. > > Is git faster then rsync? I've never do