On 29 September 2012 18:20, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 09/29/2012 09:53 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
>> earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P)
>>
I just added gcc-4.7.2 to the tree, and I'd like to unmask it in a couple
weeks. I don't see anything I'd consider a blocker on the tracker*, but
95 open bugs is still a lot. If you have a bug blocking the tracker please
take a look at it soon. Many of these are trivial and could make good
bugsd
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the
>> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this.
>
> I'm aware that we can't distinguish
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> I have one question: The license can be GPL-compatible but the
> software itself non-free. So binary-only packages distributed under
> e.g. BSD license should remain BSD or not?
Yes, if it's BSD licensed then it should have LICENSE=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2012 08:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:37:15 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, hasufell
>> wrote:
>>> That still does not explain the reasons why this work was
>>> initiated.
>>>
>>>
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:20:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 29-09-2012 a las 20:40 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:45:07 +0200
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On 09/29/2012 05:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wro
On 09/29/2012 12:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:00:18 +0200
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>
>> 2012/9/29 Michał Górny :
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
>>> earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P) eclasses
>>> f
Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
>> Why not directly use the FSF freedoms:
>> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>> your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
>> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
> 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 h
El sáb, 29-09-2012 a las 20:40 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:45:07 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 09/29/2012 05:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > >
> > > There isn't so much a problem with the current python-d
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:13:14 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:42:19 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > Following the late discussion, I have updated GLEP-62. It no longer is
> > designed to be 'backwards compatible' and instead it was suited for
> > addition in a new EAPI.
>
>
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:12:38 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/29/2012 02:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Following the late discussion, I have updated GLEP-62. It no longer is
> > designed to be 'backwards compatible' and instead it was suited for
> > addition in a new EAPI.
> >
>
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:45:07 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/29/2012 05:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> > There isn't so much a problem with the current python-distutils-ng
> > eclass but rather it's to expand it to a more comprehensive
>
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:37:15 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, hasufell wrote:
> > That still does not explain the reasons why this work was initiated.
> >
> > If there is any way to fix the current eclass, that should be preferred.
>
> I tend to agree. Michał, let
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 15:49:32 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/29/2012 12:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:20:31 +0100 Markos Chandras
> > wrote:
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512
> >>
> >> On 09/29/20
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:42:19 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Following the late discussion, I have updated GLEP-62. It no longer is
> designed to be 'backwards compatible' and instead it was suited for
> addition in a new EAPI.
You've still not addressed the UI side of it in any way.
You've also sti
On 09/29/2012 02:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following the late discussion, I have updated GLEP-62. It no longer is
> designed to be 'backwards compatible' and instead it was suited for
> addition in a new EAPI.
>
> Thus, IUSE_RUNTIME is now independent of IUSE, and runtime dependenci
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:46:14 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Fun fact; peoples usage of labels in exherbo is thus:
>
> build+run:
> set of deps
> run:
> set of deps/conditionals/etc
That's largely because there are a lot of former Gentoo developers
there who all said "oh, yeah, I forgot we coul
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:23:50 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> Something like this would work with current versions of portage:
>
> if ! declare -F usex >/dev/null ; then
> usex() { use "$1" && echo "${2-yes}$4" || echo "${3-no}$5" ; }
> fi
>
> However, it's probably not a good idea to assume that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:45:07 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> In that case we are missing 95% of the features of python.eclass.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Seriously, most of the problem with python.eclass (and several other
problematic eclasses) i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2012 05:50 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 29/09/12 11:45 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 09/29/2012 05:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>>> There isn't so much a problem with the current
>>> python-distutils-ng eclass but rather it's to expand i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29/09/12 11:45 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/29/2012 05:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>> There isn't so much a problem with the current
>> python-distutils-ng eclass but rather it's to expand it to a more
>> comprehensive replacement for both di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2012 05:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> There isn't so much a problem with the current python-distutils-ng
> eclass but rather it's to expand it to a more comprehensive
> replacement for both distutils and python eclasses. In order to
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2012 05:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> There isn't so much a problem with the current python-distutils-ng
> eclass but rather it's to expand it to a more comprehensive
> replacement for both distutils and python eclasses. In order to
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29/09/12 10:26 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/29/2012 04:19 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 09:49 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2012 12:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:20:31 +0100 Markos Chandras
wrote:
>
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, hasufell wrote:
> That still does not explain the reasons why this work was initiated.
>
> If there is any way to fix the current eclass, that should be preferred.
I tend to agree. Michał, let me first say I value the time you have
invested to make the eclasses be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2012 04:19 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 29/09/12 09:49 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 09/29/2012 12:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:20:31 +0100 Markos Chandras
>>> wrote:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29/09/12 09:49 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/29/2012 12:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:20:31 +0100 Markos Chandras
>> wrote:
>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512
>>>
>>> On 09/29/2012 09:53 AM, Micha? Górny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2012 12:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:20:31 +0100 Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 09/29/2012 09:53 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Instead of the float
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:20:31 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 09/29/2012 09:53 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
> > earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well,
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:00:18 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2012/9/29 Michał Górny :
> > Hello,
> >
> > Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
> > earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P) eclasses
> > for review.
> >
> > They are designed as 'mostly' dr
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:00:18 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2012/9/29 Michał Górny :
> > Hello,
> >
> > Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
> > earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P) eclasses
> > for review.
> >
> > They are designed as 'mostly' dr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/29/2012 09:53 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
> earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P)
> eclasses for review.
>
> They are designed as 'mostly' drop-
2012/9/29 Michał Górny :
> Hello,
>
> Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
> earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P) eclasses
> for review.
>
> They are designed as 'mostly' drop-in python-distutils-ng replacement.
>
Hi,
the eclasses look pretty, so
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:29:17 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:02:44AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > 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 14:47:3
Hello,
Following the late discussion, I have updated GLEP-62. It no longer is
designed to be 'backwards compatible' and instead it was suited for
addition in a new EAPI.
Thus, IUSE_RUNTIME is now independent of IUSE, and runtime dependencies
can be expressed in SDEPEND only.
There's still a case
Hello,
Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent
earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P) eclasses
for review.
They are designed as 'mostly' drop-in python-distutils-ng replacement.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
37 matches
Mail list logo
