On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
> proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
>
> The live version of the doc is available at
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependenc
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:12:56 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:09:49AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Since my previous idea of DYNAMIC_SLOTS proved too complex to design
> > and implement, I would like to offer an another idea, based partially
> > on what
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:54:39 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400
> > Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> > > Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation would also
> > > need to change. I
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:17:03 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen (25 Sep 2012)
> # Multiple build failures: #435394, #423991 and #425806
> # Other bugs: #270830, #368409
> # Unmasking would require addressing the build failure bugs
> # Removal in 30 days
> net-misc/mediatomb
I use
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:19 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:20:06 +0200 Michał Górny
> wrote:
>> Who is we? I believe REQUIRED_USE is one of the features which will be
>> available thanks to staying compatible with USE flags instead of
>> reinventing the wheel
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:19:09PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700
> Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 09:55 +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The current dependency syntax:
> > >
> > > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-
Pardon the delay; got busy with work, plus to actually address your
claims re: labels (or refute, as I intend to do)... data was
necessary.
So I went and got the data. :)
Analysis was done roughly 09/17 or so; just looping back and
commenting now however.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 05:59:21PM +
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:37:57PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:41:24 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > This comes from:
> > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260536
> >
> > In that one, we try to use the following:
> > has vala ${IUSE//+/} &
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:09:49AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since my previous idea of DYNAMIC_SLOTS proved too complex to design
> and implement, I would like to offer an another idea, based partially
> on what Ciaran mentioned. Before I start getting into details, I'd like
> to k
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> > Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation would also
> > need to change. I expect, for instance, that the PM's
> > metadata-handling would need t
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation would also
> need to change. I expect, for instance, that the PM's
> metadata-handling would need to occur as normal even though none of
> the package's phase functions would
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:03:36 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Since hasufell brought it up, and as I believe he's going to ask Council
> to approve it before moving forward with this proposal towards including
> it in an EAPI, I wanted to clar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/09/12 02:03 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Since hasufell brought it up, and as I believe he's going to ask
> Council to approve it before moving forward with this proposal
> towards including it in an EAPI, I wanted to clarify some of the
> poi
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
>> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
>> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
>> We don't want the same mess a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Since hasufell brought it up, and as I believe he's going to ask Council
to approve it before moving forward with this proposal towards including
it in an EAPI, I wanted to clarify some of the points mentioned:
- --- Quote, GLEP-62 ---
> Specificati
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:37:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 September 2012 07:43:44 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:13:53 + (UTC)
> > "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > net-fs/openafs/openafs-1.6.1-r1.ebuild:
> > ~amd64-fbsd(default/bsd/fbs
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
>
> If "as-is" will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible
> license should I use instead for such packages?
HPND as long as the license meets the description within the file. If
you've been applying the logic you stated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/09/12 12:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:19:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>>> a) How do we provide a good user interface for it? It took an
>>> awful lot of experimenting to get the exheres-0 suggestions
>>> user in
On Tuesday 25 September 2012 07:43:44 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:13:53 + (UTC)
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> net-fs/openafs/openafs-1.6.1-r1.ebuild:
> ~amd64-fbsd(default/bsd/fbsd/amd64/9.0) ['sys-libs/pam']
>
>
> please stop breaking the tree, kthxby
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:20:06 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Who is we? I believe REQUIRED_USE is one of the features which will be
> available thanks to staying compatible with USE flags instead of
> reinventing the wheel.
Yes, but the REQUIRED_USE wheel is square, and gives a *very* bumpy
ride to u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:19:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > a) How do we provide a good user interface for it? It took an awful
> > lot of experimenting to get the exheres-0 suggestions user
> > interface to be good, and it requires quite a bit mor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:39 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> > Really? I thought it was pretty clearly. Yes, you need an
> > implementation beforehand.
>
> Maybe you should read:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html
>
>
> "The reference imp
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ? The
> > proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has to switch the
> > useflags that are IUSE_RUN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/09/12 12:00 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300 Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
>> Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ?
>> The proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has to
>> switch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 05:57 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> I guess nothing is preventing them from reviewing it. However,
> it's just a waste of time if you're just asking those guys to
> review the GLEP, isn't it?
>
>
That's what the GLEP workflow states,
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ? The
> proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has to switch the
> useflags that are IUSE_RUNTIME in his installed packages db after
> installing the deps and with
On 25-09-2012 17:43:46 +0200, hasufell wrote:
> > That doesn't prevent him from talking from past experiences and giving
> > his opinion. Council is free to ignore his request also.
>
> Yeah, I thank him for that, but the time for user opinions has passed. I
> am asking what is preventing the _cou
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 13:04 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-COMPATIBLE and @OSI-APPROVED again,
> as soon as all packages in the system set have been fixed (only
> net-misc/openssh and sys-apps/man-pages). It shouldn't have been added
> to these groups, in the first
On 09/25/2012 05:36 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:07 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
>>> hasufell wrote:
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 0
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:10:56 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of thing, I
> have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal. So I'd be
> extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've been able to have
> a play with an implemen
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:07 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 25 Sep
games-roguelike/falconseye has been masked since 2006 and it's been
dead upstream for possibly longer.
Probably should have punted it awhile ago, but it's gone now.
On 25/09/2012 04:04, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
> We don't want the same mess again, as we hav
On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell
>>> wrote:
Do we need an implementa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
> >> implementation
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
> >> implemen
Both would needed an dedicated maintainer to overcome these build
failure bugs. Feel free to unmask once fixed and after you have included
yourself in the metadata.xml. Just because they are semi-popular does
not help if nobody is contributing to them.
# Samuli Suominen (25 Sep 2012)
# Multip
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell
> wrote:
>> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
>> implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on
>> this now/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
> implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on this
> now/soon?
Well we can't really compare it to SDEPEND (whic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is anything holding this back to be reviewed by the council in the
near future?
Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on this
now/soon?
mgorny?
-BEGIN PGP SI
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:49:13 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> It is not hard by itself to inherit an eclass. There is just the
> limitation, that occurs with an eclass, e.g.:
>
> -the one from mgorny only does it for autotools based ebuilds only and
> even there only for libraries, headers and binar
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:13:53 + (UTC)
"Mike Frysinger (vapier)" wrote:
[...]
net-fs/openafs/openafs-1.6.1-r1.ebuild:
~amd64-fbsd(default/bsd/fbsd/amd64/9.0) ['sys-libs/pam']
please stop breaking the tree, kthxbye
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:44:33 -0700
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:10:21 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:59:14 -0300
> >> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:51:27 +0200
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)
I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-CO
44 matches
Mail list logo
