Re: [gentoo-dev] fixing dev-libs/icu c++11 bustage, testers wanted

2012-11-14 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 14/11/2012 21:02, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > My _limited_ testing seems to indicate it's "working". But if you people > can just do your tests, that would be most welcome. Please report back > either success or failure. What kind of testing are you thinking of? Execution or build? And I assum

[gentoo-dev] fixing dev-libs/icu c++11 bustage, testers wanted

2012-11-14 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
tl;dr - please test dev-libs/icu-50.1-r2 and report if it works for you or not; if it doesn't, please try dev-libs/icu-50.1-r1 and also report I've done two version bumps of dev-libs/icu related to the c++11 bug (feel free to add the package to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

2012-11-14 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/14/2012 06:17 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Samuli Suominen wrote: >> so unless you are willing to go that far as introducing yourself at the >> xfce devel mailing list and accepting the mantle of upstream of them, we >> are really stuck at this distribution level patching just like others > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

2012-11-14 Thread Peter Stuge
Samuli Suominen wrote: > so unless you are willing to go that far as introducing yourself at the > xfce devel mailing list and accepting the mantle of upstream of them, we > are really stuck at this distribution level patching just like others That makes no sense to me. If you (not you specifica

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

2012-11-14 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 14/11/12 12:36, Peter Stuge wrote: It also means that if I had strong interest in XFCE then I would work on getting patches from other distribution upstream, so that Gentoo did not need to have any patches at all. I also want to clarify that *everything* we have for XFCE in gentoo-x86 now *

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

2012-11-14 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 14/11/12 12:36, Peter Stuge wrote: Samuli Suominen wrote: I'm just afraid our XFCE port gets lagged behind because of this as compared to other distros ... I am, as you know, a strong proponent of doing things right, rather than doing them fast. In this case that means that it is not the e

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

2012-11-14 Thread Peter Stuge
Samuli Suominen wrote: > I'm just afraid our XFCE port gets lagged behind because of this as > compared to other distros ... I am, as you know, a strong proponent of doing things right, rather than doing them fast. In this case that means that it is not the end of the world if Gentoo ebuilds do

[gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

2012-11-14 Thread Samuli Suominen
Everything printed by ... http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/genrdeps/rindex/xfce-base/libxfcegui4 ... if not fixed already by an ~arch version needs a patch that ports it from libxfcegui4 to libxfce4ui These patches are available mainly at ... http://bugzilla.xfce.org/ (anything submitted

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

2012-11-14 Thread Ben de Groot
On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake, > > etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only > > E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder. > > > >