On 12 March 2012 15:24, Alec Warner wrote:
> I will stab the next person who suggests 'xml-like ebuilds.'
State-fully coded ebuilds, while perhaps not to your liking, for some
code-types can be incredibly useful.
For example, 9/10 perl-module ebuilds don't need any code at all in
the ebuild its
On 12 March 2012 15:20, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> Pragmatic reality, the eapi function actually would work fine. As
>> pointed out elsewhere, bash parses as it goes- which isn't going to
>> change.
>
> Unless the ebuild isn't written in bash.
On 03/11/2012 06:55 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:06:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Yeah. Another way of putting it is that the requirement to spawn a bash
>> process and source the ebuild adds a ridiculous amount of unnecessary
>> complexity, in violation of the KISS prin
On 03/11/2012 07:03 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> Pragmatic reality, the eapi function actually would work fine. As
> pointed out elsewhere, bash parses as it goes- which isn't going to
> change.
>
> If someone invokes 'eapi happy-meal' and it's not supported,
> the sourcing is stopped immediatel
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> Pragmatic reality, the eapi function actually would work fine. As
>> pointed out elsewhere, bash parses as it goes- which isn't going to
>> change.
>
> Unless the ebuild isn't written
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> Pragmatic reality, the eapi function actually would work fine. As
> pointed out elsewhere, bash parses as it goes- which isn't going to
> change.
Unless the ebuild isn't written in bash...
How do you source the ebuild if you don't know wh
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:47:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 09:31 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >>
> What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at
> 'synta
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:06:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 11:20 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:49:44 -0500
> > Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> isnt the whole point of the proposal to get eapi without sourcing ?
>
> so that we can use new bash featu
On 12 March 2012 02:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
> Leho Kraav wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote:
>> >
>> > Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are
>> > about 147 ebuilds in portage using github
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:52:40PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:31:24 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > >
> > >>> What if bash starts to parse the script completely a
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> >> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
> >> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
> >> think all the package managers planned on
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> To be able to upgrade a gentoo installation as old as five years is
> interesting and valuable but require an effort that has yet to be
> made.
I suspect it shouldn't be difficult IF you have access to a binary
package respository for the
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2012-03-11 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
games-arcade/ultrastar-ng 2012-03-06 19:58:36 mr_bones_
dev-php/file-iterator 2012-03-10 15:49:39 olemarkus
dev-php/php-codecoverage
Richard Yao schrieb:
> These must be maintained indefinitely to provide an upgrade path for
> older Gentoo Linux installations. It is rare, but people do upgrade
> old installs from time to time. Without some EAPI=1 packages, there is
> no path for people to use to upgrade.
The clean upgrade path
top-posting me too to avoid more confusion, sorry
Se my other reply to this thread, upgrading in place an old gentoo
install is nearly impossible, it's so bad that glibc breakage can
occour, that require a knowledge of the system so high that everything
else become nuances of a vague problem.
Tell
These must be maintained indefinitely to provide an upgrade path for
older Gentoo Linux installations. It is rare, but people do upgrade
old installs from time to time. Without some EAPI=1 packages, there is
no path for people to use to upgrade.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
2012/3/11 Ciaran McCreesh :
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:52:40 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
>> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
>> think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 11.3.2012 23.43, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:28:19PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> On 11.3.2012 17.33, Zac Medico wrote:
> >>> On 03/11/2012 04:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> The Display-If-Installed ato
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:03:50PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Meanwhile, also note that there's PARTLABEL, PARTUUID and ID, that the
> mount manpage promises to honor. I've not used these myself, but there
> was a thread on the btrfs list discussing GPT format and users of its
> partition-labels (a
William Hubbs posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:26:57 -0500 as excerpted:
> Here is the latest version of the news item; this gives a few days
> notification before the unmasking.
Thanks.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you u
Robin H. Johnson posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:08:47 + as excerpted:
> The quickest initramfs, assuming that ALL kernel modules you need to
> boot are already compiled into your kernel:
> genkernel --install --no-ramdisk-modules initramfs
>
> Plus optionally, If you know you don't need any of
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:53:25PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:27 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > here is the udev 181 unmasking news item.
> >
> > If all goes well, this will be committed to the tree ?on 3/14 UTC.
>
> I guess this might be OK for unstable, but before this
On 11.3.2012 23.43, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:28:19PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 11.3.2012 17.33, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2012 04:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
The Display-If-Installed atom shows the news item to stable users once
it's committed. I am not
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:28:19PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 11.3.2012 17.33, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 03/11/2012 04:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> The Display-If-Installed atom shows the news item to stable users once
> >> it's committed. I am not sure at what point does Portage show it whe
On 11.3.2012 17.33, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 04:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> The Display-If-Installed atom shows the news item to stable users once
>> it's committed. I am not sure at what point does Portage show it when
>> the atom is >= so we might want to evaluate the options.
>
> It
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:49:11AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:27:06 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > An initramfs which does this is created by >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25 or
> > >=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> > sure any initram
Rich Freeman schrieb:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
>> Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1 support.
>> So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if any EAPI=1
>> package is installed on the system. If yes, then i
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1 support.
> So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if any EAPI=1
> package is installed on the system. If yes, then it aborts, telling the
> user
# Samuli Suominen (11 Mar 2012)
# Deprecated bindings since gtkmozembed was removed at upstream
# Removal in 30 days.
dev-perl/Gtk2-MozEmbed
dev-dotnet/gecko-sharp
# Samuli Suominen (11 Mar 2012)
# Replaced by USE="ntfsprogs" in sys-fs/ntfs3g
# Removal in 30 days wrt bug 384865
sys-fs/ntfsprogs
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Leho Kraav wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are
> > about 147 ebuilds in portage using github snapshots. This evaluates
> > to 83 different package
On 03/11/2012 10:25 AM, Leho Kraav wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are about
>> 147 ebuilds in portage using github snapshots. This evaluates to 83
>> different packages.
>>
>> The problem wit
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
> Here is the latest version of the news item; this gives a few days
> notification before the unmasking.
> [...]
> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-17 UTC.
You should remove the "UTC" here, or add a time.
Ulrich
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:35:36 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 07:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:28:41PM -0800, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >> On 3/10/12 6:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> neither the genkernel nor dracut docs have specific instructions
> >>> abou
On 03/11/2012 07:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:28:41PM -0800, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 3/10/12 6:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
neither the genkernel nor dracut docs have specific instructions about
I guess we could pour more effort in getting dracut more easy to use
and/or
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:28:41PM -0800, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 3/10/12 6:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > neither the genkernel nor dracut docs have specific instructions about
>
> I guess we could pour more effort in getting dracut more easy to use
> and/or try to figure out which are the item
I moved some of the functions currently implemented in the ebuilds for
www-client/chromium and www-client/google-chrome into a new eclass
"chromium.eclass".
This will allow the two packages to share some code, and it will reduce
the size of each chromium ebuild by around 4K (18K -> 14K).
I have a
Here is the latest version of the news item; this gives a few days
notification before the unmasking.
William
Title: udev-181 unmasking
Author: William Hubbs
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2012-03-14
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: =181, if you have /usr on a separate p
On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are about
> 147 ebuilds in portage using github snapshots. This evaluates to 83
> different packages.
>
> The problem with github is that it suffixes the tarballs with
>
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:46:05 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> That I suspected, that's why I asked about feasibility.
> "grep 1 $(portageq vdb_path)/*/*/EAPI && die" might work for portage
> and its current VDB layout.
vdb_path is one of those things that really really needs to die...
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:18:45 +0100
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1
>> support. So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if
>> any EAPI=1 package is installed on the system. If yes, th
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:18:45 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1
> support. So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if
> any EAPI=1 package is installed on the system. If yes, then it
> aborts, telling the user
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:14:33 +0100
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the packag
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:14:33 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> >> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
> >> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
> >> think all the package managers planned on supporti
On 03/11/2012 04:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> The Display-If-Installed atom shows the news item to stable users once
> it's committed. I am not sure at what point does Portage show it when
> the atom is >= so we might want to evaluate the options.
It's displayed after the package is installed, be
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
>> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
>> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
>> think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for
>> quite a while longer.
> We have to support them indefini
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
> On 03/11/12 21:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
>>> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
>>>
>>> I wouldn't mind having a deprec
On 03/11/12 21:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
>> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
>>
>> I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (
On 03/11/2012 03:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:52:40 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
> think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for
> quite a while longer.
We hav
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
>
> I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6
> months maybe?), but there's no need
On 03/11/12 20:01, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> After reading previous discussion:
> http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/gentoo-dev-Deprecate-EAPIs--ftopict530567.html
>
> Looks like preventing NEW commits from using eapi1 (via repoman) could
> be done without major issues. This could even being done also f
After reading previous discussion:
http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/gentoo-dev-Deprecate-EAPIs--ftopict530567.html
Looks like preventing NEW commits from using eapi1 (via repoman) could
be done without major issues. This could even being done also for eapi2
as it's close enough to eapi3, but I do
On 11.03.2012 04:53, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:27 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> here is the udev 181 unmasking news item.
>>
>> If all goes well, this will be committed to the tree on 3/14 UTC.
>
> I guess this might be OK for unstable, but before this goes stable we
> really
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:36:24 +
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:41:02 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > > A major change like this needs more notice than this. The news
> > > item should give some reasonable notice of the change to give
> > > people time to get their initramfs se
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:41:02 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > A major change like this needs more notice than this. The news item
> > should give some reasonable notice of the change to give people time
> > to get their initramfs setup working and tested before it is needed
> > in anger.
>
> Mayb
As times have changed and IRC is used more an more. I propose adding an
optional data field to layman's repositories.xml file
format. This information would be listed along with the other
information when running:
# layman -i some-overlay
This added information would then be available and list
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:06:35 +
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:27:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > If all goes well, this will be committed to the tree on 3/14 UTC.
>
> A major change like this needs more notice than this. The news item
> should give some reasonable notic
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:27:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> If all goes well, this will be committed to the tree on 3/14 UTC.
A major change like this needs more notice than this. The news item
should give some reasonable notice of the change to give people time to
get their initramfs setup worki
58 matches
Mail list logo
