Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: "emerge --sync" vs "emaint sync"

2020-05-06 Thread Brian Dolbec
On Wed, 6 May 2020 17:02:42 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I know that most of our documentation tells people to use "emerge > --sync"; however, today I heard about "emaint sync" for the first > time. ;-) > > Which one should we use? Will there be a phase-out for "emerge > --sync" or "e

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: "emerge --sync" vs "emaint sync"

2020-05-06 Thread Samuel Bernardo
Well I use eix-sync... As I can see in comment in the script beginning eix-sync uses emerge --sync: > This script calls emerge --sync and shows the differences. So that kind of transition to emaint sync would require a review from the current tools. On 5/6/20 11:11 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 5/6

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: "emerge --sync" vs "emaint sync"

2020-05-06 Thread Zac Medico
On 5/6/20 3:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I know that most of our documentation tells people to use "emerge --sync"; > however, today I heard about "emaint sync" for the first time. ;-) > > Which one should we use? Will there be a phase-out for "emerge --sync" or > "emaint sync"? Are th

[gentoo-dev] rfc: "emerge --sync" vs "emaint sync"

2020-05-06 Thread William Hubbs
All, I know that most of our documentation tells people to use "emerge --sync"; however, today I heard about "emaint sync" for the first time. ;-) Which one should we use? Will there be a phase-out for "emerge --sync" or "emaint sync"? Are the plans to keep both available? Thanks, William s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-video/subliminal

2020-05-06 Thread Sam James
> On 2 May 2020, at 11:12, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > On 19/04/2020 22:47, Michał Górny wrote: >> # Michał Górny (2020-04-19) >> # Unmaintained. Stuck on Python 3.6. Last release in 2016. >> # Removal in 30 days. Bug #718410. >> media-video/subliminal > > It's an active project. Just not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Cleaning up the installation handbook (Legacy boot / MBR / ...)

2020-05-06 Thread Sam James
> On 2 May 2020, at 21:30, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > Hey all, > > our installation handbook is right now something of a mess (in particular > regarding partitioning, bootloader, gpt/uefi, ...) > > I'm hereby volunteering to clean things up. But - I'll go the brutal way: > > * Legacy boo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should NATTkA reject keywordreqs for packages with -arch (-*) keywords?

2020-05-06 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 03:41 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2020-05-06 00:52, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Tue, 05 May 2020 22:19:59 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > WDYT? > > > > Play it safe. -* is frequently used for binary packages where an > > arch > > will simply either work or it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding potentially questionable license AcePerl-Indemnity

2020-05-06 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:32:41 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: Ugh. I just discovered this approach is in use in multiple packages. https://metacpan.org/source/LDS/AcePerl-1.92/DISCLAIMER.txt https://metacpan.org/source/LDS/Bio-SamTools-1.00/DISCLAIMER https://metacpan.org/source/AVULLO/Bio-DB-HTS-3.01