Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:17:10 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > commit: 719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12 > > Author: Mike Frysinger gentoo org> > > AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 + > > Commit: Mike Frysinger gentoo org> > > Co

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:30:31 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the > judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages > unusable. Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE was a mistake, and g

[gentoo-dev] Portage-2.2.20.1 released straight to stable

I've cherry-picked the recent repoman changes for the new git tree onto a new branch starting at the 2.2.20 release. This should take care of all the recent flood of emails about the new workflow. I also included a few man page corrections and improvements. Future: I hope to get the repoman r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On 11 Aug 2015 10:49, James Le Cuirot wrote: > If ppc64le does become popular then I would suggest that we drop 32-bit > ppc first. Others may disagree though. :) ppc isn't being dropped, and ppc64le is entirely orthogonal to support for it -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On 11 Aug 2015 10:45, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 8/11/15 10:33 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote: > >> I think ppc64le would become popular, > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64. > >> > >> 1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort. >

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 81 bugs

Our bug queue has 81 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] golang-vcs.eclass: remove the EGO_SRC variable

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:22:40PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I found something in this patch which I have fixed locally. It is just a > replace on a couple of lines, so I'll explain what it is here rather > than reposting the patch. > > Every occurance of '%/*' in the patch should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 03:13 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to > indicate the preferred interface kit? It could default to any > package that is available with a sequential set of preferred > order. Then eb

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate > the preferred > interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with > a sequential > set of preferred order. > Then ebuild would consult the eselect mo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate the preferred interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with a sequential set of preferred order. Then ebuild would consult the eselect module, and users who care can select the kit they want, and users who d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Managing etc/* in an embbeded system

On 08/11/2015 11:11 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:55 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 08/11/2015 10:48 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:03:54 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 08/11/2015 05:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > Big changes that that go in feature branches and are merged in one > > pass are, from my experience, way too much prone to errors. Did > > anyone ever try to review a merge commit? > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/11/2015 03:41 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > I'd suggest to make a QA team meeting to override this policies > with more correct and rationale. > > Qt team members are greatly appreciated on this meeting. Even more, > i think that we should not tak

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:51:14 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 11/08/15 11:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:11:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > > wrote: > > > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH repositories.dtd] Support multiple elements

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > A quick patch for review. It changes the DTD for repositories.xml to > support multiple tags. We have at least one repository with > more than one owner, and I don't really see creating aliases for our > users just to support that

Re: [gentoo-dev] golang-vcs.eclass: remove the EGO_SRC variable

All, I found something in this patch which I have fixed locally. It is just a replace on a couple of lines, so I'll explain what it is here rather than reposting the patch. Every occurance of '%/*' in the patch should be '%/...' instead. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Managing etc/* in an embbeded system

On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:55 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 08/11/2015 10:48 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > > > On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: News item about Nepomuk removal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, given non-negative replies this is published now. Greeting. Am 08.08.2015 um 13:28 schrieb Johannes Huber: > Hello Gentoos, > > please read and comment on the attached news item for the upcoming > Nepomuk removal. > > Greetings, > - --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: News item about Nepomuk removal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am 09.08.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Duncan: > Johannes Huber posted on Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:28:08 +0200 as > excerpted: > >> Title: Nepomuk removal > > Looks good here, and the title's nice and short too. =:^) > Thanks for positive feedback. Greetin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Managing etc/* in an embbeded system

On 08/11/2015 10:48 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML... > On Jul 22, 2015, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Managing etc/* in an embbeded system

On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > > > > Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML... > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > > >

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 18:45:40 hasufell napisał(a): > On 08/11/2015 06:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 22:51:59 > > hasufell napisał(a): > > > >> > >> I was wondering if that could be automated in a separate branch (only > >> needs to update in 24h intervals). > > >

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

On 08/11/2015 06:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 22:51:59 > hasufell napisał(a): > >> >> I was wondering if that could be automated in a separate branch (only >> needs to update in 24h intervals). > > Please don't cruft the repo with huge metadata. And I have > metadata-app

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 22:51:59 hasufell napisał(a): > On 08/10/2015 10:47 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:13:23 +0200 hasufell wrote: > >> On 08/10/2015 05:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > Expanding on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rsync mirror security

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: > >> constantly adds any security to the tree. What might add security for >> end-users is if git automatically checked the push signatures, which >> are the signatures that ensure that branches aren't tampered with >> (which is what rebasin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're >> better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, >> than having a bazillion different conventions that use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 12:03 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 08/11/2015 05:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> >> Big changes that that go in feature branches and are merged in >> one pass are, from my experience, way too much prone to errors. >> Did anyone ever try to r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On 08/11/2015 05:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Big changes that that go in feature branches and are merged in one pass > are, from my experience, way too much prone to errors. Did anyone ever > try to review a merge commit? > You will run repoman (and probably other pkgcore based checks) befo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mirroring Gentoo project/team members on GitHub

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:32:40PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull requests > to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient to have > a little better framework for pinging package maintainers. > > With the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 11:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:11:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 11/08/15 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 P

Re: [gentoo-dev] Summary line

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 10:35 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 12 August 2015 at 02:28, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: >> Stuff like 'cat/pn: version bumps', 'cat/pn: new features', >> 'cat/pn: adjusted dependencies' are generic (and short) enough >> yet descriptive eno

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:11:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 11/08/15 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 Patrice Clement > > napisał(a): > > > >> Hi there > >> > >> According to > >> https://wiki.gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Popov > wrote: >> 11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет: >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov >>> wrote: 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 Patrice Clement > napisał(a): > >> Hi there >> >> According to >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, >> >> "there may be developer-specif

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:26:46 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 8/11/15 10:19 AM, hasufell wrote: > > On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200 > >> Michał Górny wrote: > >> > >>> Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 > >>> Patrice Clement napisał(a):

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > I would not say "caution" so much as good judgment. The first example that > came to mind was working with the profiles which crosses many directories > and files. In the past when I did restructuring to the hardened profiles, I > test

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 09:04 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:19:12 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > >> Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 > >> Patrice Clement napisał(a): > >> > >>> Hi there > >>> > >>> According to > >>> https

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 08:58 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a >>> point, why i am wrong. >> >> You clearly have not. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rsync mirror security

> constantly adds any security to the tree. What might add security for > end-users is if git automatically checked the push signatures, which > are the signatures that ensure that branches aren't tampered with > (which is what rebasing you bring up actually does). It is news to me that a signat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mirroring Gentoo project/team members on GitHub

11.08.2015 17:32, Michał Górny пишет: > Hello, everyone. > > Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull requests > to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient to have > a little better framework for pinging package maintainers. > > With the unofficial mirror/pull

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mirroring Gentoo project/team members on GitHub

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/2015 16:32, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull > requests to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient > to have a little better framework for pinging packag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On 8/11/15 10:33 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote: I think ppc64le would become popular, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64. 1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort. 2. Some PowerPC use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:33:26 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote: > > I think ppc64le would become popular, > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64. > > > > 1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort. > > 2. Some PowerPC user, little endia

[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >>> >>> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >>> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >>> wis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Summary line

11.08.2015 17:36, hasufell пишет: > On 08/11/2015 04:28 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 11/08/15 04:57 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: >>> The more we stuff into the summary line, the harder it will be to >>> write meaningful summaries. And thus, people will write crappy ones >>> or ignore the len

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 06:10 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, > why i am wrong. > > It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any > versions of GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Summary line

On 08/11/2015 04:28 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 11/08/15 04:57 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: >> The more we stuff into the summary line, the harder it will be to >> write meaningful summaries. And thus, people will write crappy ones >> or ignore the length limit. I recommend against any more >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Summary line (was: Re: Referencing bug reports in git)

On 12 August 2015 at 02:28, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Stuff like 'cat/pn: version bumps', 'cat/pn: new features', 'cat/pn: > adjusted dependencies' are generic (and short) enough yet descriptive > enough to see what went on while scanning the log. I personally find those summaries a bit too terse

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote: > I think ppc64le would become popular, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64. > > 1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort. > 2. Some PowerPC user, little endian apparently feels cheap

[gentoo-dev] Mirroring Gentoo project/team members on GitHub

Hello, everyone. Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull requests to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient to have a little better framework for pinging package maintainers. With the unofficial mirror/pull request project, I was either looking for project me

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> >> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version

[gentoo-dev] Summary line (was: Re: Referencing bug reports in git)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 04:57 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > The more we stuff into the summary line, the harder it will be to > write meaningful summaries. And thus, people will write crappy ones > or ignore the length limit. I recommend against any more > pre

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On 8/11/15 10:19 AM, hasufell wrote: On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 Patrice Clement napisał(a): Hi there According to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, "

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:12:29PM +0200, hasufell wrote: > On 08/11/2015 03:52 PM, Patrice Clement wrote: > > Hi there > > > > According to > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, > > "there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches > > etc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет: >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 Sergey Popov wrote: > If both of flags are not s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 >> Patrice Clement napisał(a): >> >>> Hi there >>> >>> According to >>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, >>> "there may

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH repositories.dtd] Support multiple elements

Hello, A quick patch for review. It changes the DTD for repositories.xml to support multiple tags. We have at least one repository with more than one owner, and I don't really see creating aliases for our users just to support that. Any comments? Index: repositories.dtd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 00:02 +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > 3. Create a whole new solution like USE="gui" (what happens if I have > multiple gui implementation USE flags set?) This is what I would suggest. It would remove 90% of the problem since most applications use only one gui toolkit. If no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On 08/11/2015 03:52 PM, Patrice Clement wrote: > Hi there > > According to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, > "there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches > etc". As far as I understand, it means I can go and create my own branch on >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 > Patrice Clement napisał(a): > > > Hi there > > > > According to > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, > > "there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specif

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

Hi! On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 > Patrice Clement napisał(a): > > > According to > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, > > "there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches > > etc". As fa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 Patrice Clement napisał(a): > Hi there > > According to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, > "there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches > etc". As far as I understand, it means I can go and create my

[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On 11/08/15 23:04, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case f

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:29:55 +0200 > Alexander Berntsen wrote: >> On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: >> > Users can fetch/pull from Github. >> Users should not have to interface with or rely on proprietary >> software to use Gentoo

[gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

Hi there According to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, "there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches etc". As far as I understand, it means I can go and create my own branch on the main repository and push it and it gets spread all over

[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On 11/08/15 23:39, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> >> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: >>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 >>> Sergey Popov wrote: >>> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. Should this be set in EVERY ebu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: > > Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy > remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone > wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users > with REQUIRED_USE they are still fr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 >> Sergey Popov wrote: >> >>> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. >>> Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? >>> >>> Maybe provide some sug

[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On 11/08/15 22:58, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i >>> am wrong. >> >> You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described >> on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 > Sergey Popov wrote: > >> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. >> Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? >> >> Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where >> qt_use_default is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 16:04 +0300, Sergey Popov wrote: > You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > > qt? ( > > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask. That flag should be called "gui". Not "qt". This would be the real solu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 Sergey Popov wrote: > If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. > Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? > > Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where > qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

11.08.2015 16:04, Sergey Popov пишет: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: > On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: >>> I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, >>> and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. >> >> So, you prefer to make ugly mess

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: > On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: >> Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i >> am wrong. > > You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described > on the page and has been reiterated on this list

[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: > 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: >> I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, >> and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. > > So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or > introduc

[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: > Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i > am wrong. You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You are undermining what little confidence there i

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:29:55 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > > Users can fetch/pull from Github. > Users should not have to interface with or rely on proprietary > software to use Gentoo. Like the stuff running on the big expensive routers that make

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Having a quality infrastructure should happen in parallel to github mirrors. > > Uses may use the proprietary one or the opensource one. > While I generally tend to agree with you, if we're just talking about mirroring is this a real proble

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Referencing bug reports in git

On 08/11/2015 01:49 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann wrote: >>> >>> The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100 >>> packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Referencing bug reports in git

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann wrote: >> >> The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100 >> packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier >> partial rollback? > >>> **if the change affects mul

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > commit: 719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12 > Author: Mike Frysinger gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 + > Commit: Mike Frysinger gentoo org> > CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 + > URL:https://

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rsync mirror security

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: >> That is, I was under the impression signing a tag only signs the >> references themselves, and then relies on SHA1 referential integrity >> beyond that. > > No, a signed tag verifies that the whole integrirty of the entire > repository, wh

[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

I'd suggest to make a QA team meeting to override this policies with more correct and rationale. Qt team members are greatly appreciated on this meeting. Even more, i think that we should not take any decision on this without at least Qt team lead(or half of Qt team devs) So, let's arrange some t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

11.08.2015 13:18, Georg Rudoy пишет: > > You missed the fourth option: the package can not be built without Qt > GUI, but it supports building with either Qt version at the same time. > Not a problem. REQUIRED_USE="|| ( qt4 qt5 )" At least one of flags should be enabled, but both can be enable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

2015-08-11 11:10 GMT+01:00 Sergey Popov : > > 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such > package even exists?) > Take app-text/poppler as an "officially supported" example. Take x11-libs/qwt as an example of a library that gets a patched library name to avoid colli

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: > I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, > and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt',

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i am wrong. It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any versions of GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. Let's me reiterate some of the cases: 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, bu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

I think ppc64le would become popular, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64. 1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort. 2. Some PowerPC user, little endian apparently feels cheap, wrong, and PCish. 3. Other distrbutions like Ubuntu, Redhat and SUSE already support little end

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

What's not clear with 'apropriate' word in my sentence? Let me clarify - if package depend either on Qt4 or Qt5 and CAN not be built with Qt at all - force this behaviour with REQUIRED_USE. I think that it was obvious that i have meant exactly this case, cause other cases are unreasonable here.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:22:21 +0800 Leno Hou wrote: > Please let me know forward/steps to port gentoo on ppc64le. I'm not on the ppc team but I do some ppc(64) testing for Java packages. Although these are relatively well-maintained keywords overall, I think the team would struggle to cope with a

[gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

Greetings ! Any Ideas/steps of how to porting gentoo on ppc64le architecture? Is it that we should add 'ppc64le' keyword to portage ? As some of you might know, Ubuntu has been introduced in support of ppc64le. ! It's just as it sounds ppc64( 6

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Referencing bug reports in git

On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100 > packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier > partial rollback? I think you've misread "The rule" https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Commit_

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

On 11 August 2015 at 20:38, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 10:29:55 > Alexander Berntsen napisał(a): > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: >> > Users can fetch/pull from Github. >> Users should not have to interfac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Referencing bug reports in git

Hi! On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Duncan wrote: > Ryan Hill posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:17:30 -0600 as excerpted: > > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:58 + (UTC) > > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > >> What about: > >> > >> * bug number in summary strongly recommended > > > > Making the bug num

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 10:29:55 Alexander Berntsen napisał(a): > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > > Users can fetch/pull from Github. > Users should not have to interface with or rely on proprietary > software to use Gentoo. Th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Referencing bug reports in git (WAS: Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sci-libs/opencascade/)

On 08/11/2015 10:12 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 09:56:55 > Dmitry Yu Okunev napisał(a): >> On 08/11/2015 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: 3. Too many text, hard to read. Some bugs may refer to a dozen of URLs. >>> >>> And how is a dozen numbers bette

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > Users can fetch/pull from Github. Users should not have to interface with or rely on proprietary software to use Gentoo. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN

  1   2   >