On 06/05/2012 10:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:40 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
>> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
>> unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a s
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:31:01 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> We all know what would be the "ideal solution", the problem is how to
> implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working).
We do? Please tell us. I was under the impression that we still didn't
fully know what the problem w
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:40 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
> unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT
> variable as discussed here:
>
>
On Tuesday 05 June 2012 14:44:13 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i'm pleased to announce the initial x32 release candidate:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/x32/stage3-amd64-x32-20120605.tar.xz
to be kind to infra, i've put this on the mirrors:
http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd6
On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with
> revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages
> with tests)?
I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like the
pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase sugg
compiler wise, you do not need to specify -mx32 yourself. the toolchain
defaults to the x32 ABI (and all programs in there are compiled as x32). you
only need -mx32 if you want to do something like distcc and execute with
toolchains that aren't targeting x32 by default.
as for what are valid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/05/2012 02:44 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> "There's never anything important in all that text." - Anonymous
> Gentoo User
The bad part is, that even reading of these messages can result in a
breakage. I update a bunch of machines with these
On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
>> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild
>> the dependent packages.
>>
>> We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to
>> be rebuilt
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:04:33AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:57:53 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > Btw, good catch on package.mask. Hhadn't thought of that, that
> > *will* be the most contentious point. That can be dealt w/ via
> > having git on portage-1 profil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:44:08 -0400
"Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
> "There's never anything important in all that text." - Anonymous
> Gentoo User
To be fair, most einfo and elog messages are useless spam. When elog
was introduced, it was supposed to be o
i'm pleased to announce the initial x32 release candidate:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/x32/stage3-amd64-x32-20120605.tar.xz
the x32 ABI is the default one, and includes x86/amd64 ABIs. it is not using
/lib32/ (and /lib is not a symlink) like our existing amd64 multilib as that
is
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:57:42 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> If you go back and look at the tree you see a bunch of signed and
>> unsigned commits. How do you easily detect how the unsigned ones got
>> there (via a dev with a merge commit, or
El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
[...]
> "There's never anything important in all that text." - Anonymous
> Gentoo User
>
> We've already determined that the users don't read the output. This is
> a known fact. Something I repeat in #gentoo more often than I care to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/04/2012 05:26 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello, will send this to gentoo-dev mailing list per Zac's
> suggestion ;):
>
> ...They usually do a good job maintaining them, the only issue I
> see they hit from time to time is forgetting to run JUST
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
> But could there be a case where fixing a build in the engine
> wouldn't require data being rereleased? Or having the tag pointing
> to the same commit it was pointing to previously?
>
> If upstream splits a package, and supports building/install
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:47:33 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/04/2012 10:06 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:26:00 +0200 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But minetest in sunrise for example which has two different
> >> repos, one f
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:57:53 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Btw, good catch on package.mask. Hhadn't thought of that, that
> *will* be the most contentious point. That can be dealt w/ via
> having git on portage-1 profile format so we'd have package.mask as
> directories (which Ciaran will vali
17 matches
Mail list logo
