Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 > Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > >> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. > > I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P > Sure, whenever I'm feeling particularly masochistic and

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sed script redundancy

2011-10-27 Thread Ryan Hill
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:39:22 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > for a while now I've been wondering if all those sed scripts in all > those ebuilds are really effective. > > To find out, I've tried a couple of angles on a sed hook that basically > dissects the sed command line provided, divides every

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:47, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. > > I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P i wouldn't bother as it's most likely not going to be accepted at

[gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets

Re: [gentoo-dev] hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 10/27/11 11:03 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> In glibc: DEPEND="gcc[hardened?]" >> In gcc: PDEPEND="elibc_glibc? glibc[hardened?]" > > I even got an OK on #gentoo-hardened, but I just realized that EAPI-0 > (that both packages in

[gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Duncan
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. posted on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:08:36 +0200 as excerpted: > On 10/27/11 11:03 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> In glibc: DEPEND="gcc[hardened?]" >> In gcc: PDEPEND="elibc_glibc? glibc[hardened?]" > > I even got an OK on #gentoo-hardened, but I just realized that EAPI-0 > (that bo

Re: [gentoo-dev] hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 10/27/11 11:03 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > In glibc: DEPEND="gcc[hardened?]" > In gcc: PDEPEND="elibc_glibc? glibc[hardened?]" I even got an OK on #gentoo-hardened, but I just realized that EAPI-0 (that both packages in question use) doesn't allow use deps like [hardened?]. I guess bumpin

[gentoo-dev] hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
As a part of my earlier threads I tried to figure out the migration plan from not hardened glibc and not hardened gcc to both of them hardened. That of course raises questions like - what we compile first, and what are dependencies here? Here's what I have figured out - by _experimenting_ not spe

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Council] ChangeLog generation within Gentoo

2011-10-27 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
On 10/26/11 19:33, Bruno wrote: > In order to not bloat the tree I would like to see old entries purged > when there are more than 25-50 of them, especially if they refer to > ebuilds gone since more than 3-6 months. One thing to remember: Even if old ebuilds are gone in the tree already, they s

[gentoo-dev] Re: [Council] ChangeLog generation within Gentoo

2011-10-27 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 27-10-2011 03:28:33 +, Duncan wrote: > Fabian Groffen posted on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:00:22 +0200 as excerpted: > > On 26-10-2011 14:02:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Well, if the desire to trim changelogs is generally agreed upon we > >> could always just count the lines and post a top-10