Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

Hi, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:39:14 +0200 Alex Alexander wrote: >Hello fellow developers, > >In the first meeting of the new QA team, we discussed the state of the >gtk{,2,3} USE flags in the main tree. [0] > >In its current state, USE="gtk" means gtk2. The Gnome team is trying >to change this into

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

El mar, 11-02-2014 a las 19:33 -0500, Chris Reffett escribió: [...] > This doesn't make sense to me at all. I can't see why slotted > libraries can't just use USE flags to specify what toolkit they're > built against, just like any other package in the tree (so, for > example, a package that needs

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:33:06 -0500 Chris Reffett wrote: > This doesn't make sense to me at all. I can't see why slotted > libraries can't just use USE flags to specify what toolkit they're > built against, just like any other package in the tree (so, for > example, a package that needs webkit-gtk

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: mbox -- looks sort of interesting

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:36:01 +1100 Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 02/12/2014 01:03 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Michael Palimaka > > wrote: > >> On 02/11/2014 11:34 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > >>> One of those ideas I've always wanted to implement is to create a

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:43:41 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > At the time EAPI 0 was in limbo as toolchain required it > (What's the current status of toolchain on that?) GCC is now EAPI 2 except for gcc-apple and kgcc64. I'm going to deprecate EAPI 0 and 1 soon but need to give people time to upda

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/11/2014 06:13 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Thanks for attaching link to team's policy which tries to lift any > kind of ambiguities people may have for what concerns gnome team's > packages, I hope it proved useful in your discussions. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: > But applications is whole different story... > The maintainer makes the decision which toolkit is used and best > supported. If some application has initial port to gtk3, but still > lacks some features the gtk2 version still had, then maintaine

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-plugins/wmbattery: ChangeLog wmbattery-2.42.ebuild wmbattery-2.19-r1.ebuild

On 12/02/14 01:20, Bernard Cafarelli wrote: > Le Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:09:14 +0200 > Samuli Suominen a écrit: >> On 11/02/14 11:42, Bernard Cafarelli (voyageur) wrote: >>> voyageur14/02/11 09:42:47 >>> >>> Modified: ChangeLog >>> Added:wmbattery-2.42.ebuild >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

On 12/02/14 01:51, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> USE="gtk3" is valid only for libraries when it's not easy to >> split/slot as a temporary flag. Applications should simply pick one, >> the latest one that works, since anything else is obviously >> redu

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: > USE="gtk3" is valid only for libraries when it's not easy to > split/slot as a temporary flag. Applications should simply pick one, > the latest one that works, since anything else is obviously > redudant. I don't see why applications should be

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-plugins/wmbattery: ChangeLog wmbattery-2.42.ebuild wmbattery-2.19-r1.ebuild

Le Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:09:14 +0200 Samuli Suominen a écrit: > > On 11/02/14 11:42, Bernard Cafarelli (voyageur) wrote: > > voyageur14/02/11 09:42:47 > > > > Modified: ChangeLog > > Added:wmbattery-2.42.ebuild > > Removed: wmbattery-2.19-r1.ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

Thanks for attaching link to team's policy which tries to lift any kind of ambiguities people may have for what concerns gnome team's packages, I hope it proved useful in your discussions. Le mercredi 12 février 2014 à 00:39 +0200, Alex Alexander a écrit : > Hello fellow developers, > > In the f

Re: [gentoo-dev] mbox -- looks sort of interesting

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: > On 11.02.2014 01:36, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> It's a sandbox that uses a combination of ptrace and seccomp bpf; >> neither ours nor exherbo's uses both of these together. > > Actually, sydbox, Exherbo's sandbox *does* use both together

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

On 12/02/14 00:39, Alex Alexander wrote: > Hello fellow developers, > > In the first meeting of the new QA team, we discussed the state of the > gtk{,2,3} USE flags in the main tree. [0] > > In its current state, USE="gtk" means gtk2. The Gnome team is trying to change > this into "the most recent

[gentoo-dev] RFC: GTK USE flag situation (gtk, gtk2, gtk3; relevant to bug #420493)

Hello fellow developers, In the first meeting of the new QA team, we discussed the state of the gtk{,2,3} USE flags in the main tree. [0] In its current state, USE="gtk" means gtk2. The Gnome team is trying to change this into "the most recent gtk version" (it is a work in progress). Unfortunate

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: www-client/htmlview

# Dion Moult (12 Feb 2014) # Masked for removal in 30 days. Removed as this was a compatibility hack # package, with equivalent functionality already implemented elsewhere (xdg- open # and co). (bug #480522) www-client/htmlview -- Dion Moult

Re: [gentoo-dev] mbox -- looks sort of interesting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jason, On 11.02.2014 01:36, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > It's a sandbox that uses a combination of ptrace and seccomp bpf; > neither ours nor exherbo's uses both of these together. Actually, sydbox, Exherbo's sandbox *does* use both together.

[gentoo-dev] Re: mbox -- looks sort of interesting

On 02/12/2014 01:03 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Michael Palimaka > wrote: >> On 02/11/2014 11:34 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> One of those ideas I've always wanted to implement is to create a >>> portage hook/patch that looks at the dependencies for the package >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: mbox -- looks sort of interesting

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 02/11/2014 11:34 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> One of those ideas I've always wanted to implement is to create a >> portage hook/patch that looks at the dependencies for the package >> being built and configures sandbox to block read-acc

Re: [gentoo-dev] mbox -- looks sort of interesting

On 11/02/14 01:36, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hey folks, > > Late night clicking-while-drooling, I came across something a few > minutes ago that mildly piqued my interest -- mbox > . It's a sandbox that uses a > combination of ptrace and seccomp bpf; neither ours

[gentoo-dev] Re: mbox -- looks sort of interesting

On 02/11/2014 11:34 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Michael Palimaka > wrote: >> >> Looks interesting. It reminds me somewhat of autodep[1]. >> > > Interesting - does this work? I don't see it in portage. It used to work pretty well, but the bundled portage version do

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: mbox -- looks sort of interesting

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Looks interesting. It reminds me somewhat of autodep[1]. > Interesting - does this work? I don't see it in portage. One of those ideas I've always wanted to implement is to create a portage hook/patch that looks at the dependencies fo

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-plugins/wmbattery: ChangeLog wmbattery-2.42.ebuild wmbattery-2.19-r1.ebuild

On 11/02/14 11:42, Bernard Cafarelli (voyageur) wrote: > voyageur14/02/11 09:42:47 > > Modified: ChangeLog > Added:wmbattery-2.42.ebuild > Removed: wmbattery-2.19-r1.ebuild > Log: > Version bump, adds upower support > > (Portage version: