Re: [gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 18:12:02 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:55:46 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 15:51:52 Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:44:14 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > > # @USAGE: [archives that we will unpack] > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:55:46 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 15:51:52 Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:44:14 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > # @USAGE: [archives that we will unpack] > > > > > # @RETURN: Dependencies needed to unpack all the archives >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 15:05 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > # @BLURB: helpers for extraneous file formats and consistent behavior across > EAPI's > # @DESCRIPTION: > # Some extraneous file formats are not part of PMS, or are only in certain > # EAPI's. Rather than worrying about that, support the

Re: [gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 15:51:52 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:44:14 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > # @USAGE: [archives that we will unpack] > > > > # @RETURN: Dependencies needed to unpack all the archives > > > > # @DESCRIPTION: > > > > # Walk all the specified files (def

Re: [gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:44:14 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > # @USAGE: [archives that we will unpack] > > > # @RETURN: Dependencies needed to unpack all the archives > > > # @DESCRIPTION: > > > # Walk all the specified files (defaults to $SRC_URI) and figure > > > out the # dependencies that are

Re: [gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 15:30:16 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:05:40 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > # You have to specify the off_t size ... I have no idea how to > > extract that # information out of the binary executable myself. > > Basically you pass in # the size of the off

Re: [gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:05:40 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > # You have to specify the off_t size ... I have no idea how to > extract that # information out of the binary executable myself. > Basically you pass in # the size of the off_t type (in bytes) on the > machine that built the pdv # archive.

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: New eclass: mozlinguas.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > I'd love to have the attached eclass reviewed before I commit it. For > those using gmail, here's a web copy: http://i.cx/ahp > (git.o.g.o/mozilla) > After comments from mgorny on #gentoo-dev, I've made the following changes: (a) Use moz

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can we get PIE on all SUID binaries by default, por favor?

2012-02-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 31 January 2012 19:58:32 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 01/29/2012 02:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 28 January 2012 07:26:59 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> I've run nbench on two amd64 systems both running the same kernel > >> vanilla-3.2.2. > > > > i don't think nbench is

[gentoo-dev] unpacker.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
any feedback before merging this initial version ? https://bugs.gentoo.org/399019 -mike # Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/eutils.eclass,v 1.377 2012/01/03 08:45:36 jlec Exp $

[gentoo-dev] RFC: New eclass: mozlinguas.eclass

2012-02-01 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
Hello folks, We in the mozilla team got tired of duplicating the same 50 lines of code across 6 ebuilds, and decided to consolidate them inside one eclass. The eclass is specific to Mozilla products (no one else can or should use it). It generates SRC_URI using a list of supported language packs

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] Which ebuild category should these ebulds go into?

2012-02-01 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 02/01/2012 09:42 AM, ScytheMan wrote: > Take a look at g15daemon (useful for some logitech keyboards). > > There you have: > > app-misc/g15daemon > dev-libs/libg15 > Great, thanks! Best, Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can we get PIE on all SUID binaries by default, por favor?

2012-02-01 Thread prometheanfire
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:58:32 -0500 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 01/29/2012 02:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 28 January 2012 07:26:59 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> I've run nbench on two amd64 systems both running the same kernel > >> vanilla-3.2.2. > > i don't think nbench is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] Which ebuild category should these ebulds go into?

2012-02-01 Thread ScytheMan
Take a look at g15daemon (useful for some logitech keyboards). There you have: app-misc/g15daemon dev-libs/libg15

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] Which ebuild category should these ebulds go into?

2012-02-01 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 07:01 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > spacenavd > driver daemon (with optional X support) > --> sys-apps/spacenavd ? > --> app-misc/spacenavd ? > --> .. ? I would suggest either sys-apps or x11-drivers. > libspnav > library accessing before-me

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: FlowScan, CUFlow, and JKFlow

2012-02-01 Thread Samuli Suominen
# Sammuli Suominen (01 Feb 2012) # Masked for removal in 30 days for having unallowed depend for # unslotted