On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:51:08 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> That arbitrary collection of packages is called a system. I don't think
> the goal for Gentoo should be to abandon standards like POSIX in favor
> of 'design system yourself but don't come crying to us if you forget
> some vital component w
On 08/31/2012 04:07 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:03:25 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> runtime-switchable USE flags for optional dependencies o.O? It
>>> sounds like using a spoon to eat spaghetti to me.
>>
>> All suggested deps are not equal, so USE flags give you the ability
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 01:05:39 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:49:34 -0400
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:53:35 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > I'm not sure if you're aware of it but Gentoo doesn't aim at
> > > supporting solely Linux an
Gregory M. Turner posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:13:20 -0700 as excerpted:
> For the record, I'm not saying we need to put pkgconfig in - I'm totally
> agnostic about that, as I am about whether it should be brought in as a
> dependency.
[Just replying here as it's handy.]
I don't believe the fol
On 8/31/2012 4:48 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of every
single ebuild.
Every ebuild doesn't need all of those - that is the who
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:03:25 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > I think SDEPEND is a much simpler approach to the issue, why
> > introducing a new kind of USE flags to address what really belongs
> > to *DEPEND?
>
> I guess we could combine the two ideas if we allow USE conditionals
> inside SDEPEND.
B
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:03:25 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > runtime-switchable USE flags for optional dependencies o.O? It
> > sounds like using a spoon to eat spaghetti to me.
>
> All suggested deps are not equal, so USE flags give you the ability to
> pick and choose the ones that you want.
So do
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:49:34 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:53:35 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I'm not sure if you're aware of it but Gentoo doesn't aim at
> > supporting solely Linux and no other system.
>
> elf != linux
Gentoo != elf only.
> > Also, pleas
On 08/31/2012 03:18 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the "runtime-switchable
>> USE flags" proposal:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/2945569
>
> runtime-switchable USE flags for optional depende
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:58:49 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/31/2012 02:40 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > I like this as well.
> > However, since we're going to introduce a *DEPEND split, how about
> > splitting PDEPEND as well?
> >
> > As far as I've seen, PDEPEND has two (or more?) different m
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 00:18:07 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Zac Medico
> wrote:
> >
> > For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the
> > "runtime-switchable USE flags" proposal:
> >
> > https://gist.github.com/2945569
>
> runtime-switchable USE flags f
On 08/31/2012 03:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:58:49 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the
>> "runtime-switchable USE flags" proposal:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/2945569
>
> Do we have an implementation of this yet? I have
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the "runtime-switchable
> USE flags" proposal:
>
> https://gist.github.com/2945569
runtime-switchable USE flags for optional dependencies o.O? It sounds
like using a spoon to eat spaghetti t
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:58:49 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the
> "runtime-switchable USE flags" proposal:
>
> https://gist.github.com/2945569
Do we have an implementation of this yet? I have extreme doubts about
the viability of the idea...
--
Cia
On 08/31/2012 02:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:11:38 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 08/31/2012 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
>>> What exactly would the rules be for handling a package that is in
>>> both DEPEND and HDEPEND, when R
On 08/31/2012 02:40 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I like this as well.
> However, since we're going to introduce a *DEPEND split, how about
> splitting PDEPEND as well?
>
> As far as I've seen, PDEPEND has two (or more?) different meanings:
> - advisory (for instance, informing users about plugins)
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:11:38 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/31/2012 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
> > What exactly would the rules be for handling a package that is in
> > both DEPEND and HDEPEND, when ROOT is in effect? Would the versions
> > be expected
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:40:27 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Would it be possible to add support for ODEPEND (as in "optional"
> dependencies -- I don't really care about the variable name) as well?
> This would be quite beneficial under certain circumstances. One of
> these is when ebuilds are shi
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:53:35 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure if you're aware of it but Gentoo doesn't aim at
> supporting solely Linux and no other system.
elf != linux
>
> Also, please tell me how to handle multiple slots sanely without
> pkg-config in a package like Boost, for
I like this as well.
However, since we're going to introduce a *DEPEND split, how about
splitting PDEPEND as well?
As far as I've seen, PDEPEND has two (or more?) different meanings:
- advisory (for instance, informing users about plugins)
- cycle-breaking to help the dependency solver
Would it b
On 08/31/2012 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
> What exactly would the rules be for handling a package that is in both
> DEPEND and HDEPEND, when ROOT is in effect? Would the versions be
> expected to match? What about use flags?
For the sake of simplicity, I
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:31:43 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:03:33 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400
> > Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA256
> > >
> > > On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ba
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:01:01 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Mike Gilbert
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
> >> mandatory for a normal instal
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> For those who may not know, chromium-os currently uses a
> hard-host-depends ebuild as a workaround for our lack of HDEPEND
> support [1]. We could easily add HDEPEND in EAPI 5 if we want, since
> we already have a Portage patch attached to bu
On 08/31/2012 04:03 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> For those who may not know, chromium-os currently uses a
> hard-host-depends ebuild as a workaround for our lack of HDEPEND support
> [1]. We could easily add HDEPEND in EAPI 5 if we want, since we already
> have a Portage patch attached to bug #317337 [2
For those who may not know, chromium-os currently uses a
hard-host-depends ebuild as a workaround for our lack of HDEPEND support
[1]. We could easily add HDEPEND in EAPI 5 if we want, since we already
have a Portage patch attached to bug #317337 [2]. Here is a summary of
what that Portage patch wi
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
>> mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is to
>> have all the deps specified
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:03:33 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I believe that the more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Good evening everyone,
It is again this time of year where the Recruiters project[1] is
seeking more manpower. We are looking for a maximum of two people to
join this project as soon as possible. The ideal candidates must be
developers for more than
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:56:06 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
> > mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is
> > to have all the deps spe
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
> mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is to
> have all the deps specified and nothing left in @system, and while
> progress isn't fa
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> people seem to be settling on x86_64-pc-linux-gnux32 as the default tuple, so
> i'll be updating our profiles to use that by default. this shouldn't impact
> anyone already running x32 as the existing tuple/ABI settings should continue
> to
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:08:12 +0200 as excerpted:
> Reducing @system may be a goal but it should be a *reasonable* goal. Not
> reducing because we can reduce but because it is bloated with unneeded
> software.
>
> We shouldn't even try to go below POSIX system requirements; we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 12:12 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 31-08-2012 18:08:12 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> And for a reasonable Gentoo toolchain, pkg-config is a must-have.
>> At least since we deprecated and are seriously fighting libtool.
>
> what?
depre
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:12:58 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 31-08-2012 18:08:12 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > And for a reasonable Gentoo toolchain, pkg-config is a must-have. At
> > least since we deprecated and are seriously fighting libtool.
>
> what?
Libtool archives, I meant.
--
Best
On 31-08-2012 18:08:12 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> And for a reasonable Gentoo toolchain, pkg-config is a must-have. At
> least since we deprecated and are seriously fighting libtool.
what?
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 12:08 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 31/08/12 11:27 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
>>> wrote:
Coming back to this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 11:27 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
>> wrote:
>>> Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus
>>> that we
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:48:23 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> >
> > So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
> > virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of
> > every single ebuild.
>
> Every ebuild doesn't n
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe that the more important direction here is to make
> >> development *easier*, not harder. A
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we
> > should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS
> > because this name is too generic,
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:45:21 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we
> > should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS
> > because this name is too generic
On 31 August 2012 11:05, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that the more important direction here is to make
>>> development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> I believe that the more important direction here is to make
>> development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEPENDs over
>> and over again to every single package is at l
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:42:10 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:06:06 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted:
> >
> > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
> > > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.n
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:58:00 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Of course an individual PM could choose to keep support for as long
> as they want, but unless I'm missing something, that'd let PMs drop
> support for old EAPIs if desired, with at least a reasonably sane
> upgrade pat
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we
> should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS
> because this name is too generic, see the old discussion.) Then we
> could add it to EAPI 5.
>
> Ulri
On 08/30/2012 08:33 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:38:11 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> My main concern is doing bumps all the time just for their own sake.
>
> Yes. That's why I didn't tackle that side at all. But I've seen the
> "PM's can never drop support for an E
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Let's say, we as in Gentoo decide that we're completely sick of keeping all
> that old code out there adjusted to newer and newer gcc versions that are more
> and more critical towards minor details of the c++ standards. So, we declar
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
> virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of every
> single ebuild.
Every ebuild doesn't need all of those - that is the whole point. As
Duncan already pointed ou
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:06:06 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
> > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Various people have in fact expressed a desire to
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number of
>> packages in @system, for various reasons including both the paralle
Am Freitag, 31. August 2012, 11:03:06 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:57:25 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
> > >> scarabeus suggested the change "dev should use latest eapi when
> > >> bumping"
> > >> to "dev must u
Right now, it just contains the function Tiziano listed in his post[1].
I'd appreciate further ideas, feedback, and possibly an example from
someone who will actually need it.
---
gx86/eclass/boost-utils.eclass | 47 ++
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
crea
Am Freitag, 31. August 2012, 11:11:37 schrieb Fabian Groffen:
> On 31-08-2012 11:03:06 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > any fun to look up things in PMS anew everytime you edit something. (Was
> > the prayer to Paludis only required in EAPI=7 in src_prepare or in
> > EAPI=8 in pkg_preinst?) Thi
On 31-08-2012 11:03:06 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> any fun to look up things in PMS anew everytime you edit something. (Was the
> prayer to Paludis only required in EAPI=7 in src_prepare or in EAPI=8 in
> pkg_preinst?) This problem could however also be solved by selectively
> phasing
>
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:57:25 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
> >> scarabeus suggested the change "dev should use latest eapi when bumping"
> >> to "dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses".
> >> He was asked to b
On 8/31/12 10:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> A new "doheader" (and "newheader") helper function is on our list of
> possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just
> copy the code from doconfd or doenvd.
I'm somewhat interested. Here's the current code dev-lang/v8 uses to
instal
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Since not all the buildsystem we support use make for the actual
> build, and they don't necessarily support make-like options (-jX -s
> and so on), it would be nice to be able to express a JOBS variable
> that could be used for parallel
Hi all,
A new "doheader" (and "newheader") helper function is on our list of
possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just
copy the code from doconfd or doenvd.
However, this function was suggested in Bug 21310 [1] which was filed
in 2003. The absence of any activity there ma
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:46:21 -0400 as excerpted:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 201
61 matches
Mail list logo
