Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

2014-08-04 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 8/5/14, 12:03 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > The bigger problem is actually KEYWORDREQ's so we are going to > request maintainers not ever drop ~ppc or ~ppc64 even when they feel > a major bump has occurred, eg a deep rewrite to a library. We know > this is living dangerously but we'll going t

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/{Bcryptor,Yamlog}

2014-08-04 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (05 Aug 2014) # Abandoned upstream with no in-tree consumers. Likely added by mistake # when evaluating the dependencies of dev-python/passlib. Additionally, # Yamlog's public source code repository has been removed. # Removal in 30 days, bug #518920. dev-python/Bcryptor dev-python/

[gentoo-dev] Re: Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

2014-08-04 Thread Tony Vroon
On 04/08/14 23:03, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > We are considering culling the team members accordingly. And you are well within your rights to do so. I do have two G5 towers now (one purchased because the other went unstable on me) and will make an effort to set up a fresh 64UL environment. Regard

[gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

2014-08-04 Thread Anthony G. Basile
Hi everyone, The ppc and ppc64 team members just had a meeting. One of our main issues was reconstituting those teams because they were in a state of disorganization. We've come up with a plan to move forward and address Pacho's original concern about ppc/ppc64 falling behind. Here's what we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The meaning of || ( a:= b:= ) dependencies

2014-08-04 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Michał Górny wrote: > Reasonable. However, as I see it, we'll end up having up to four > different operators: > - || that is deprecated yet everyone will still use it (like they don't > use :* right now), > - ||* that will be used scarcely, > - <<= that would be the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The meaning of || ( a:= b:= ) dependencies

2014-08-04 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-08-04, o godz. 08:06:42 Ulrich Mueller napisał(a): > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Michał Górny wrote: > > In particular, I was thinking we could reuse this syntax: > > > || ( A:= B:= ) > > > to express any-of dependencies that do not support runtime switching > > of providers -- since

Re: [gentoo-dev] The meaning of || ( a:= b:= ) dependencies

2014-08-04 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-08-03, o godz. 20:41:42 Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a): > > b. do we need ||= ( A B C ) -- i.e. provider switching rebuilds > > without subslot rebuilds? > > Technically, no I don't think we would need > provider-switching-rebuilds without subslot-rebuilds, but that only > works if every