Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > That eapply_user is called can be enforced by repoman, or by a QA > warning. > I hate to reply again on the same topic, but how would repoman even know whether eapply_user will always get called? Isn't that equivalent to the halting prob

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multilib team lead election / future

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:36:51 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, multilibbers! > > It seems that one year past last election has passed. The team's not > doing much lately either now that the major part of the work is done. > This pretty much brings two possibilities: > > 1. electing a new lead,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] cmake-utils.eclass: die if ninja is enabled but not installed

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:49:13 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:22:48 +1100 > > Michael Palimaka wrote: > > > >> On 16/10/15 03:04, Michał Górny wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Dnia 15 października 2015 17:44:47 CEST, Mich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:08:38 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > [Resending since my first message didn't make it to -dev-announce.] > > > > The first draft of EAPI 6 is ready. I shall post it as a series of > > 22 patches following th

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Sorry for coming very late on this, but what is the rationale behind > setting in stone an 'eapply' different to an 'epatch' that has been > widely tested for decades now ? Or even defining eapply in PMS ? The rationale is that we cannot apply pa

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > [Resending since my first message didn't make it to -dev-announce.] > > The first draft of EAPI 6 is ready. I shall post it as a series of > 22 patches following this message in the gentoo-pms mailing list. > > Please review. The goal i

[gentoo-dev] EAPI Cheat Sheet for review

In addition to the EAPI 6 specification, a draft of the "EAPI Cheat Sheet" is ready. http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/6-draft/eapi-cheatsheet.pdf http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/6-draft/eapi-cheatsheet-nocombine.pdf The second version doesn't combine the leaflet pages and may be better suited for on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 08:38:51 > Rich Freeman napisał(a): > >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell wrote: >> > On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> >> >> >> The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 hasufell wrote: > You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. > What's the problem? Running autorecrap. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] cmake-utils.eclass: die if ninja is enabled but not installed

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:22:48 +1100 > Michael Palimaka wrote: > >> On 16/10/15 03:04, Michał Górny wrote: >> > >> > >> > Dnia 15 października 2015 17:44:47 CEST, Michael Palimaka >> > napisał(a): >> >> This could happen if ninja is manually

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] cmake-utils.eclass: die if ninja is enabled but not installed

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:22:48 +1100 Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 16/10/15 03:04, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > Dnia 15 października 2015 17:44:47 CEST, Michael Palimaka > > napisał(a): > >> This could happen if ninja is manually enabled (eg. make.conf) but not > >> installed > >> --- > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 17:22:10 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 10/17/2015 03:07 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: > > > >> And still doesn't give sufficient control to the user. Documenting > >> proper hooks is more useful. > > > > Nothing prevents the PM f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:07:03 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 10/17/15 11:00 AM, hasufell wrote: > > On 10/17/2015 03:47 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 > >> hasufell wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >>> You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/15 11:00 AM, hasufell wrote: On 10/17/2015 03:47 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 hasufell wrote: [...] You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. What's the problem? autoreconf Can you elaborate why this would be a problem?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 03:07 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: > >> And still doesn't give sufficient control to the user. Documenting >> proper hooks is more useful. > > Nothing prevents the PM from implementing eapply_user() as a hook. > Whether that will be the ca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 03:47 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 > hasufell wrote: > > [...] >> You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. >> What's the problem? > > autoreconf > Can you elaborate why this would be a problem?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 hasufell wrote: [...] > You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. > What's the problem? autoreconf

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: > And still doesn't give sufficient control to the user. Documenting > proper hooks is more useful. Nothing prevents the PM from implementing eapply_user() as a hook. Ulrich pgpvZFlssUzXm.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:56 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:49 AM, hasufell wrote: >> >>> The other feature that is supposed to be in EAPI6 (I didn't read the >>> draft yet) is that the PM should refuse to install the package if >>> eapply is never called (ie src_prepare is overridden

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:52 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: > >>> 2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by >>> default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to >>> implement patch applying function anyway, we may as well make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:49 AM, hasufell wrote: > >> The other feature that is supposed to be in EAPI6 (I didn't read the >> draft yet) is that the PM should refuse to install the package if >> eapply is never called (ie src_prepare is overridden and the ebuild >> didn't call eapply). It is requ

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 08:38:51 Rich Freeman napisał(a): > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell wrote: > > On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > >> > >> The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and > >> eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: >> 2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by >> default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to >> implement patch applying function anyway, we may as well make it >> public to avoid unnecessary duplication. > U

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >>> >>> The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and >>> eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 14:19:15 > "Jason A. Donenfeld" napisał(a): >> What's the story of eapply? Why does this need to go into the PMS, >> and not continue to be supplied by epatch from the eclass? What >> is gained from moving it to PMS, and w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> >> The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and >> eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? >> IOW, it'd be nice if every package was, by defau

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > 2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by > default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to > implement patch applying function anyway, we may as well make it public > to avoid unnecessary duplication. > Un

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and > eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? > IOW, it'd be nice if every package was, by default, patchable by the user. > IMO, eapply_user should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 14:19:15 "Jason A. Donenfeld" napisał(a): > Hey Ulrich, > > I may be a bit late to the discussion, and perhaps I should really just be > reviewing mailing list posts from years past, but... > > What's the story of eapply? Why does this need to go into the PMS, and not >

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and > eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? IOW, > it'd be nice if every package was, by default, patchable by the user. > Looks like I a

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

Hey Ulrich, I may be a bit late to the discussion, and perhaps I should really just be reviewing mailing list posts from years past, but... What's the story of eapply? Why does this need to go into the PMS, and not continue to be supplied by epatch from the eclass? What is gained from moving it t

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools.eclass: support AM_GNU_GETTEXT_REQUIRE_VERSION

Dnia 2015-10-13, o godz. 18:25:45 Michał Górny napisał(a): > gettext 0.19.6 supports AM_GNU_GETTEXT_REQUIRE_VERSION in addition to > AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION. No negative replies for a few days. I've merged it merrily. -- Best regards, Michał Górny pgpiyPvMs1P7

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] autotools.eclass: support AM_GNU_GETTEXT_REQUIRE_VERSION

Dnia 2015-10-13, o godz. 15:13:45 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): > On 13 Oct 2015 18:25, Michał Górny wrote: > > gettext 0.19.6 supports AM_GNU_GETTEXT_REQUIRE_VERSION in addition to > > AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION. > > ok, although not entirely correct -- gettexize supports this, but autoreconf > does n

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-5 news item wrt C++ ABI

On 10/2/15 10:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: Title: GCC 5 Defaults to the New C++11 ABI Author: Mike Frysinger Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2015-10-02 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-5 GCC 5 uses the new C++ ABI by default. When building new code, you