On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:12:55 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:54:21PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:15:43 -0700
> > Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> > > There's a trick to this; currently, those generated scripts hardcode
> > > the allowed/known pytho
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts?
+1. I had a server become inaccessible recently because I took down
one of the interfaces and it took sshd down with it. That's because
there's also a problematic interaction with rc_depend_strict, which
for "n
On 10/18/2012 09:09 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Anyways, we're seriously getting off topic here. I don't think anyone
> objected to removing the EAPI 0 requirement for system packages (and in
> reality no one follows it anyways.
An EAPI 0 requirement for system packages is just silly these days.
> E
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:36:27 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Well, it's not just about ebuilds you maintain. Think about something
> > like the gcc-porting trackers where you have to touch a lot of ebuilds
> > across the tree. You really do have to have a working knowledge of the
> > differences
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:54:21PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:15:43 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > There's a trick to this; currently, those generated scripts hardcode
> > the allowed/known python versions for that package. We obviously have
> > to preserve that;
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:50:04PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:28:59AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> Regarding your /usr/bin/python3.2 /usr/bin/sphinx-build example:
> >> invoking python on a binary (or a symli
Ah, and a minor note.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:15:43 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> /usr/libexec/python/wrapper upon invocation, takes a look at argv[0];
> sees how it was invoked basically. This will be the /usr/bin/whatever
> pathway. It reads the symlink, in the process getting the allowed
>
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:15:43 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> There's a trick to this; currently, those generated scripts hardcode
> the allowed/known python versions for that package. We obviously have
> to preserve that; I propose we shove it into the symlink path.
>
> Basically, we add a /usr/
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:28:59AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> Regarding your /usr/bin/python3.2 /usr/bin/sphinx-build example:
>>> invoking python on a binary (or a symlink to a bin
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:28:59AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> Regarding your /usr/bin/python3.2 /usr/bin/sphinx-build example:
>> invoking python on a binary (or a symlink to a binary) isn't going to
>> work at all. So I don't see how you'
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Personally I see no major difficult in moving to eapi4, what exact
> difficult are you (I mean people still sticking with eapi0/1) seeing?
It is harder than cp. :)
If I write a new ebuild I would always target the most recent EAPI.
However,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:28:59AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> If we are somehow going to eliminate the installation of a separate
> script for each python version, then the symlink idea sounds like a
> good solution for expressing the suppo
El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 13:49 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > I didn't think eapi4 features were still "unfamiliar" to so many
> > people... let's say, what about deprecating eapi1, 2 and 0 for newer
> > ebuilds? Is eapi2 so unfamiliar also
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:02:42AM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 02:15 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On a related note; we currently install multiple versions of the same
> > script- the only difference being the shebang. If one ignores the
> > shebang, in some cases this
All,
If an init script has "need net" in its dependencies, this is
automatically problematic, because the script will be stopped when *any*
provider of net is stopped.
This is not good for services like sshd or ntpd for example, because, in
their default configuration they are able to start regar
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I didn't think eapi4 features were still "unfamiliar" to so many
> people... let's say, what about deprecating eapi1, 2 and 0 for newer
> ebuilds? Is eapi2 so unfamiliar also to not force it as older eapi for
> newer ebuilds (eapi3 changes loo
El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 09:36 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red
> >> herring. The fact that there are packages w
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> If folks haven't looked at python_generate_wrapper_scripts in
> python.eclass, I'd suggest doing so. For examples of it's usage, grep
> for 'python_generate_wrapper_scripts' in /usr/bin/; any place you see
> it, look for -${PYTHON_TARGETS} (
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 02:15 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> If folks haven't looked at python_generate_wrapper_scripts in
> python.eclass, I'd suggest doing so. For examples of it's usage, grep
> for 'python_generate_wrapper_scripts' in /usr/bin/; any place you see
> it, look for -${PYTHON_TARGET
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red
>> herring. The fact that there are packages written in Erlang in the
>> tree doesn't cause me any issues even though
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:00:43PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Either way, thoughts?
>
> It looks like you haven't looked at the python-r1 effort. That means
> you probably also aren't subscribed to the gentoo-python mailing list.
> I
If folks haven't looked at python_generate_wrapper_scripts in
python.eclass, I'd suggest doing so. For examples of it's usage, grep
for 'python_generate_wrapper_scripts' in /usr/bin/; any place you see
it, look for -${PYTHON_TARGETS} (for example,
/usr/bin/sphinx-build{,-2.7,-3.2}.
Each usage
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>> In my ideal world ("if I were king"), today I would delist them
>> from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their
>> immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.
>
> I'm strongly in favor of t
23 matches
Mail list logo
