Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:45:27 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 30/10/2012 17:42, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> icu-49.1.2 seems to build just fine against glibc-2.16.0, here. I just
>> rebuilt to be sure. (With gcc-4.7.2.)
>
> I said "1.50+", I'm referring to Boost.
Thanks. Makes MUCH
Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 22:48 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
> On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the
> > tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a
> > rebuild of reverse dependencies
On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the
> tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a
> rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at
> that time when boost slotting was in
Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 11:30 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
> correctly with it, I'
Okay let's see a moment what's going on with the slotted boost.
www-plugins/gnash has a blocker on the old unslotted boost because it
doesn't really support multiple boost that well, like most other packages.
sci-biology/cufflinks and sci-biology/express are next to completely
screwed because the
On 30/10/2012 20:18, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> One of major problems with this tinderbox is that it cannot be used
> to test packages against newer versions of packages present in
> overlays [1]
Which is not a problem since we're _not_ talking about packages in
overlays but of a
2012-10-31 04:18:14 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis napisał(a):
> Besides founding problems in about 10% of packages
s/founding/finding/
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
2012-10-29 23:07:15 Diego Elio Pettenò napisał(a):
> c) try to get betas and rcs in asap _but masked_;
>=sys-devel/gcc-4.7.0, whose usage is required to trigger some problems, is
>already package.masked.
> d) call for a tinderbox run (I can do that with a quick email);
One of major problems wit
On 30/10/2012 19:50, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I think that slotting is needed, but pkg_postinst() could create
> (without using `eselect boost`) symlinks like /usr/include/boost
> etc. It is possible that a package works with e.g. Boost 1.50, but
> not 1.51, so it could use boos
2012-10-30 19:30:16 Diego Elio Pettenò napisał(a):
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
> correctly with it, I'm questioning the
On 30/10/2012 17:49, Ryan Hill wrote:
> And I had to argue to get 1.48 fixed. I'm not sure why we have to keep so
> many unbuildable versions in the tree.
Because as mgorny explained earlier he's expecting some fairy to make it
possible to _always_ install an older boost just because it's slotted
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:34:02 -0400
James Cloos wrote:
> > "DEP" == Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
>
> DEP> Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of
> DEP> slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all <1.50
> DEP> are broken.
>
> One datapoint:
>
> Si
On 30/10/2012 17:42, Duncan wrote:
>
> icu-49.1.2 seems to build just fine against glibc-2.16.0, here. I just
> rebuilt to be sure. (With gcc-4.7.2.)
I said "1.50+", I'm referring to Boost.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:41:40 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 30/10/2012 16:34, James Cloos wrote:
>> Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
>> depends, I found that 1.48 and 1.49 build with gcc 4.7.2; but none of
>> the earlier versions did.
>
> And on
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:45:38 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Besides, honestly it's not that bad. I think that half the headache that
> we're having is due to the slotting more than from boost itself. And the
> other half is due to people actually not going to fix their crap because
> "oh I can
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:28:47 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Only every second person is using the ChangeLog in eclass/ as pointed
> out and discussed in this ML for so many times it's ridicilous.
So step up and set a good example. Since when do we defer to the LCD (Laziest
Common Developer)?
On 30/10/2012 16:34, James Cloos wrote:
> Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
> depends, I found that 1.48 and 1.49 build with gcc 4.7.2; but none
> of the earlier versions did.
And only 1.50+ will work with glibc-2.16.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@fla
> "DEP" == Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
DEP> Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of
DEP> slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all <1.50
DEP> are broken.
One datapoint:
Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
depends, I
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:56:11 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 30/10/2012 10:46, Duncan wrote:
>> ... tho I had to remask gnutls-3.1.3 as I experienced some problem
>> (IDR what) with it. But I'm running 3.1.2 without issue.
>> What gnutls-3.1.x are you planning to unmask? Do I
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:47:51 -0500
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Stop the bike shedding. Provide real constructive improvements. I'm
> not copying and pasting the same hunk of code in a bunch of ebuilds.
The point of getting approval for eclasses is not to force you to copy
and paste code. It's to ensu
On 30/10/12 23:24, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:17:25 +0100
Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested by
many people, without ML review due to u
On 30/10/12 23:16, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 15:47:51 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as r
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:17:25 +0100
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > Added: udev.eclass
> > Log:
> > New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested
> > by many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
>
>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
>> mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu>> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
>> > In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't i
On 30-10-2012 15:47:51 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> Added: udev.eclass
> >> Log:
> >> New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as
> >> requested by many peo
On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu>> wrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
> In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared
library,
> so there shouldn't be a conflict
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
> > In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
> > so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
>
> But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd
>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Added: udev.eclass
>> Log:
>> New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested
>> by many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
>
> Uhm...
>
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
> In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
> so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd
rather, say, hunt an RWX section problem (a security problem) with a
si
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote:
> >
> > I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean,
> > I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled
> > copy, but it shouldn't be surprising in
On 30/10/2012 13:10, Michał Górny wrote:
> By inheriting boost-utils and using the correct function to use older
> boost slot?
Which will not work.
Can you build boost-1.49 with glibc-2.16? NO! At least not without
patching it by changing its API.
So how do you propose to solve package A that do
On 30/10/2012 13:04, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> #1 - the MAX_BOOST_VERSION thing isn't needed anymore (and i get the
> impression that it actually is, but putting that aside since i don't
> maintain any packages that depend on boost), and
It'll just behave like _every other library_ we have in the
On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean,
> I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled
> copy, but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when upstream makes
> breaking changes in the API.
Because
On 30/10/12 22:18, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:08:07 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:57:11 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
"Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" wrote:
[...]
case ${
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:08:07 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:57:11 +0200
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> > On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
> > > "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >>
> > >> case $
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:02:59 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> > wrote:
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >>
On 30/10/12 22:06, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:56 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC) "Samuli Suominen
(ssuominen)" wrote:
[...]
case ${EAPI:-0} in 0|1|2|3|4) ;; *) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in
EAPI ${
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:32:57 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
> > How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken
> > with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with
> > each release?
>
> How are you going to
On 30/10/12 22:02, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne Ú
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:57:11 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
> > "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >>
> >> case ${EAPI:-0} in
> >>0|1|2|3|4) ;;
> >>*) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:56 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC) "Samuli Suominen
> (ssuominen)" wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> case ${EAPI:-0} in 0|1|2|3|4) ;; *) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in
>> EAPI ${EAPI} not yet established." es
On 30-10-2012 16:56:21 -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > # @FUNCTION: _udev_get_udevdir
> > # @INTERNAL
> > # @DESCRIPTION:
> > # Get unprefixed udevdir.
> > _udev_get_udevdir() {
> > if $($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --exists udev); then
> > echo -n "$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --variable=udevdir
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 02:30 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>> Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Mi
On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
"Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" wrote:
[...]
case ${EAPI:-0} in
0|1|2|3|4) ;;
*) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet
established." esac
sounds like a useless and annoying check for
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
> >>
> >> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 + (UTC)
"Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" wrote:
[...]
>
> case ${EAPI:-0} in
> 0|1|2|3|4) ;;
> *) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet
> established." esac
sounds like a useless and annoying check for just exporting one function
>
> RDEPE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
>>
>> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>>
>>> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the
>>> us
On 30/10/12 21:17, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested by
many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
Uhm...
Please, stop doing this!
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
>
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> > thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> > different from all others and
On 30/10/12 21:24, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the users,
eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on ... can we just
go back to just install it and that's about it?
How are you going to solve the
On 30/10/12 21:17, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Added: udev.eclass
Log:
New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested by
many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
Uhm...
Please, stop doing this!
On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
> How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken
> with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with
> each release?
How are you going to solve the problem that the packages that are not
fixed to work with a new
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>
> > Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> > thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> > different from all others and no
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
> correctly with it, I'm ques
On 30-10-2012 19:08:39 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Added: udev.eclass
> Log:
> New eclass to determine udevdir from udev.pc pkg-config file as requested
> by many people, without ML review due to unproductive feedback
Uhm...
Please, stop doing this!
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a differen
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
correctly with it, I'm questioning the usefulness of having it slotted.
Among other things, with
On 30/10/2012 10:46, Duncan wrote:
> ... I've been running gnutls-3.x for some time (at one point it was
> needed for the live-git pan I run), tho I had to remask gnutls-3.1.3 as I
> experienced some problem (IDR what) with it. But I'm running 3.1.2
> without issue.
I've been using gnutls-3 on
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:44:20 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of
>> shaking out upstream.
>
> *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
> pe
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 09:50 +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I would like to know about mobile team status and also show that this
> > team has important bugs assigned to them for a long time, some of them
> > with patches (and
On 30/10/2012 08:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That might warrant a news item. Sure, they're ~arch, but they're not
> going to know about this unless somebody tells them.
Is it just my impression or did you just volunteer? ;)
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.fl
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
>> out upstream.
>
> *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
> people who're usin
On 10/29/2012 03:32 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote:
> On Ponedeljek 29. of October 2012 15.52.20 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote:
>>> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
>>> of licensing concerns.
>>>
>>> http://www.spotify.com/us/l
On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
> out upstream.
*shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while
though, as we s
On Thursday 27 September 2012 12:02:58 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> build is specifically for catalyst and/or for building the stages,
> right? If so, this one makes sense to me to add.
this is used in a few packages, but we should encourage trimming it rather
than expanding. i see that the kernel
On Monday 15 October 2012 13:45:22 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile
> > > structure to include a description so that people know the int
On Tuesday 02 October 2012 15:53:41 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big
> > issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known
> > to build fail, but they'v
On Friday 19 October 2012 15:01:57 Pacho Ramos wrote:
> At least in spanish, it's mandatory to end phrases with a dot ".", would
> you agree with trying to enforce this trivial change with a repoman
> warning?
actually the opposite here ... DESCRIPTION should be a sentence fragment, and
should av
68 matches
Mail list logo
