Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Jaco Kroon
Hi All, On 2019/10/21 18:42, Richard Yao wrote: If we consider the access frequency, it might actually not be that bad. Consider a simple example with 500 files and two directory buckets. If we have 250 in each, then the size of the directory is always 250. However, if 50 files are accessed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:58:51 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: > I'm not sure what this is in reference to so it seems to be a > non-sequitur, but I like the policy of at least waiting a day for > review of non-critical fixes. Phrased another way, let people in every > timezone have a chance. Its not aim

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:37 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:37:28 +0200 > Piotr Karbowski wrote: > > > This is a bit unhealthy, especially when some developers that maintain > > packages are out of reach, or the patches to update ebuild just rot on > > the bugzilla and are not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:37 AM Piotr Karbowski wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like to bring the topic of defining default policy to do changes to > packages within ::gentoo that one does not maintain. > > This topic goes back from time to time on #gentoo-dev, and as I was > told, it was originally sent

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread James Cloos
> "RY" == Richard Yao writes: RY> ext4 is probably okay, but don’t quote me on that. Ext4 works fine here for a local distfiles mirror. -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:37:28 +0200 Piotr Karbowski wrote: > This is a bit unhealthy, especially when some developers that maintain > packages are out of reach, or the patches to update ebuild just rot on > the bugzilla and are not taken in by maintainers. IME this is far from the norm and should

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:42 AM Richard Yao wrote: > Also, another idea is to use a cheap hash function (e.g. fletcher) and just > have the mirrors do the hashing behind the scenes. Then we would have the > best of both worlds. It probably would have been better to make these suggestions when t

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Mikle Kolyada
On 21.10.2019 3:05, Joshua Kinard wrote: > So looking at texlive-latexextra-2019-r2.ebuild, it defines three variables: > > - TEXLIVE_MODULE_CONTENTS, with 1,241 space-delimited module names > - TEXLIVE_MODULE_DOC_CONTENTS, with 1,227 space-delimited doc names > - TEXLIVE_MODULE_SRC_CONTENTS

[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: dev-python/gnome-keyring-python

2019-10-21 Thread Matt Turner
# Matt Turner (2019-10-21) # Replaced by introspection bindings. Bug #628938 # Removal in 30 days dev-python/gnome-keyring-python signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Matthew Thode
On 19-10-21 19:37:28, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to bring the topic of defining default policy to do changes to > packages within ::gentoo that one does not maintain. > > This topic goes back from time to time on #gentoo-dev, and as I was > told, it was originally sent to gentoo-de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: ruby24-only packages

2019-10-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:31 PM Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 12:15 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > > Infra uses thin a lot, is there a replacement? > > > www-servers/puma would be a good replacement. > > Feel free to unmask it for now if that helps infra to transition. Upstream > EO

[gentoo-dev] Proposal: change to default policy of doing changes to packages that are maintained by other developers

2019-10-21 Thread Piotr Karbowski
Hi, I'd like to bring the topic of defining default policy to do changes to packages within ::gentoo that one does not maintain. This topic goes back from time to time on #gentoo-dev, and as I was told, it was originally sent to gentoo-dev mailing list by robbat2 (I failed to find this in archive

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Richard Yao
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 19:24 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: >>> On 10/18/2019 09:41, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hi, everybody. >>> >>> It is my pleasure to announce that yesterday (EU) evening we've switched >>> to a new distfile mirror layout.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 20:05:40 -0400 Joshua Kinard wrote: > Longer-term, I think this entire approach should be revisited by the TeX > team to make it behave more like Perl or Python packages by having discrete > ebuilds for these modules. That's not exactly a small undertaking, but > this current

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:57:54 -0400 Joshua Kinard wrote: > I know we've got a ton of Perl packages for the core set of Perl modules, > but doesn't the CPAN eclass also have the capability to auto-generate an > ebuild package for virtually any Perl package distributed via CPAN? Can > that logic be