Michał Górny posted on Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:06:40 +0100 as excerpted:
> FFMPEG_IMPL feels like a natural extension of USE=ffmpeg. USE=ffmpeg
> tells to use ffmpeg or a replacement, FFMPEG_IMPL tells what will
> exactly get used. Much less confusion.
+1
> Thirdly, this opens space for having more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:21:53 +0100
Manuel Rüger wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 02.02.2015 22:58, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >
> > sys-apps/portage-2.2.16 is ready for release and is just waiting
> > for the news anno
Note: not a Gentoo dev, just a confused user
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> Note:
>If you have default portage settings for location, sync-type then
>it should use the backup defaults and sync the gentoo repo still.
>
What are the 'backup defaults'?
A
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 19:24:38 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Brian Dolbec
> wrote:
> >
> > sys-apps/portage-2.2.16 is ready for release and is just waiting
> > for the news announcement about the new plug-in sync system being
> > used and the changes in it's operation.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> sys-apps/portage-2.2.16 is ready for release and is just waiting for the
> news announcement about the new plug-in sync system being used and the
> changes in it's operation.
>
> Attached is the news announcement for review.
You might want t
Il 02/02/2015 23:30, Pacho Ramos ha scritto:
> El sáb, 31-01-2015 a las 16:48 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We need to revert the following change to toolchain.eclass:
>>
>> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.647&r2=1.648
On 02/02/2015 05:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> For feature flag, name is the only issue. Currently USE=ffmpeg serves
> that purpose and I think changing that would have a very high cost
> (and cause a lot of bikeshed), esp. if we would end up reusing the flag
> for another purpose. So most likely
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 15:06:40
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> The idea is that instead of having USE=libav (that's tangential to
> USE=ffmpeg and confusing) to use a USE_EXPAND like FFMPEG_IMPL taking
> either ffmpeg or libav. Now, why...
Ok, since this is going to be a long night, a quick summar
El sáb, 31-01-2015 a las 16:48 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We need to revert the following change to toolchain.eclass:
>
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.647&r2=1.648
>
> It turns out that bsd and prefix need fixincl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02.02.2015 22:58, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> sys-apps/portage-2.2.16 is ready for release and is just waiting
> for the news announcement about the new plug-in sync system being
> used and the changes in it's operation.
>
> Attached is the news ann
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
sys-apps/portage-2.2.16 is ready for release and is just waiting for the
news announcement about the new plug-in sync system being used and the
changes in it's operation.
Attached is the news announcement for review.
- --
Brian Dolbec
-BEGI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
# Brian Evans (02 Feb 2015)
# Last rites bug 538584
# >=dev-lang/php-5.4 no longer includes the extension needed
# In preparation of dev-lang/php:5.3 removal, Removal in 30 days
dev-php/PEAR-MDB2_Driver_sqlite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: Gn
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 19:53:14 +0100
Toralf Förster wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Toralf Förster
> ---
> pym/portage/news.py | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/pym/portage/news.py b/pym/portage/news.py
> index 2c45f85..ec10feb 100644
> --- a/pym/portage/news.py
>
Signed-off-by: Toralf Förster
---
pym/portage/news.py | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/pym/portage/news.py b/pym/portage/news.py
index 2c45f85..ec10feb 100644
--- a/pym/portage/news.py
+++ b/pym/portage/news.py
@@ -421,5 +421,5 @@ def display_news_notifications(
Jan Matejka:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:00:24 +0100
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/15 18:30, Jan Matejka wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:49:13 +0100
>>> Luca Barbato wrote:
>>>
On 07/11/14 06:06, Harsh Bhatt wrote:
>>>
Also make might enjoy improvements.
>>>
>>> shake?
>
>> Anyth
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 18:18:14
Alexis Ballier napisał(a):
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:08:01 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
> > > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > >> Why? When you have USE="-ffmpeg",
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:00:24 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 16/01/15 18:30, Jan Matejka wrote:
> > On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:49:13 +0100
> > Luca Barbato wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/11/14 06:06, Harsh Bhatt wrote:
> >
> >> Also make might enjoy improveme
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:08:01 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> >> Why? When you have USE="-ffmpeg", the libav flag is a "don't care"
> >> which is ignored. "ffmpeg" controls the fea
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 11:00:59
Michael Orlitzky napisał(a):
> On 02/02/2015 10:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > Maybe. Though it still will keep the confusion of !libav meaning ffmpeg.
> >
>
> We could remove USE=libav from the tree, leaving only USE=ffmpeg. Then
> ffmpeg_impl_libav would
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 18:08:01
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> >> Why? When you have USE="-ffmpeg", the libav flag is a "don't care"
> >> which is ignored. "ffmpeg" controls th
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Why? When you have USE="-ffmpeg", the libav flag is a "don't care"
>> which is ignored. "ffmpeg" controls the feature, "libav" chooses
>> the implementation. This is very clear from the
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> >> In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or
> >> libav as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to
> >> introduce two (
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Please restore the news item and unmask the revbumps, so we can get on
> with business. :)
+1
pgpf349IEiEzV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or
>> libav as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to
>> introduce two (ffmpeg_impl_ffmpeg and ffmpeg_impl_libav), but of
>> the 4 possible comb
On 3 February 2015 at 00:00, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 10:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Maybe. Though it still will keep the confusion of !libav meaning ffmpeg.
>>
>
> We could remove USE=libav from the tree, leaving only USE=ffmpeg. Then
> ffmpeg_impl_libav would switch the imple
On 02/02/2015 09:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> Just after the news item got published, user Wes mailed me with
> a suggestion. While I think someone mentioned it earlier
> in the bikesheds over ffmpeg, I have completely forgotten about it
> and now I'd like to reconsider it. For t
On 02/02/2015 10:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Maybe. Though it still will keep the confusion of !libav meaning ffmpeg.
>
We could remove USE=libav from the tree, leaving only USE=ffmpeg. Then
ffmpeg_impl_libav would switch the implementation if USE=ffmpeg is enabled.
> Maybe a little cleane
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:12:50 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > What are your thoughts?
>
> In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or libav
> as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to introduce
> two (ffmpeg_impl_ffmpeg and ffmpeg_impl_libav), but of the 4 possi
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 10:44:46
Michael Orlitzky napisał(a):
> On 02/02/2015 09:12 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> >> What are your thoughts?
> >
> > In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or libav
> > as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to introduce
>
On 02/02/2015 09:12 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> What are your thoughts?
>
> In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or libav
> as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to introduce
> two (ffmpeg_impl_ffmpeg and ffmpeg_impl_libav), but of the 4 possible
> comb
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 08:54:04
Gordon Pettey napisał(a):
> Having USE="ffmpeg" at all is the source of any confusion in case somebody
> is using libav. Either with an expand set (which seems wasted just for two
> options) or two regular flags, just force one or none. There is absolutely
> no s
Having USE="ffmpeg" at all is the source of any confusion in case somebody
is using libav. Either with an expand set (which seems wasted just for two
options) or two regular flags, just force one or none. There is absolutely
no sense in having USE="ffmpeg" on for a system using libav.
On Mon, Feb
Cool.
However, this should be done in a revbump, so that we do not rely on
dynamic deps. And it's reasonable to assume that people want to update
for this change.
Hans de Graaff (graaff):
> graaff 15/01/19 20:07:18
>
> Modified: ruby-1.9.3_p551.ebuild ruby-2.2.0.ebuild Change
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
> FFMPEG_IMPL feels like a natural extension of USE=ffmpeg. USE=ffmpeg
> tells to use ffmpeg or a replacement, FFMPEG_IMPL tells what will
> exactly get used. Much less confusion.
> Thirdly, this opens space for having more than two different
> implem
Hi, everyone.
Just after the news item got published, user Wes mailed me with
a suggestion. While I think someone mentioned it earlier
in the bikesheds over ffmpeg, I have completely forgotten about it
and now I'd like to reconsider it. For this reason, I've reverted
the news item while it's still
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 10:46:34
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> > On Sun, 1 Feb 2015, I wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 1 Feb 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >>> + local restore_umask=":"
> >>> + if [[ ${EVCS_UMASK} ]]; then
> >>> + restore_umask=$(umask -p)
> >>> +
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:40:47 +0100
Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> Looks like everyone is file stable requests with own
> rules or better to say is without common rules.
What is the problem?
> I'd like to document a sort of best-practice(s) on
> our wiki.
> Who want to partecipate?
It's a wiki. N
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2015, I wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> + local restore_umask=":"
>>> + if [[ ${EVCS_UMASK} ]]; then
>>> + restore_umask=$(umask -p)
>>> + umask "${EVCS_UMASK}" || die "Bad options to umask:
>>>
38 matches
Mail list logo
