Re: [gentoo-dev] euses(1) Reimplementation

2020-07-08 Thread Fabian Groffen
Hi Ashley, Sounds like you've put some work into this. You could compare against `quse -D ` (from portage-utils) as well to get another point of measure. I don't know what you did measure euses against though, it seems fairly fast to me (env PORTDIR=`q -e PORTDIR` euses -v libressl), is there a

[gentoo-dev] euses(1) Reimplementation

2020-07-08 Thread Ashley Dixon
Hi, Gentoo-Dev. A while ago, I had a bit of a rant on Gentoo-User regarding the current issues with `app-portage/euses`. Specifically, the fact that it does not work on newer Gentoo-like systems which have moved away from PORTDIR and conform to the repos.conf/ syntax [1, 2, 3]. There ar

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread Mike Pagano
On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:57:57 PM EDT Max Magorsch wrote: > Hi all, > > I am glad to announce further progress at packages.gentoo.org (pgo in > the following). Compared to previous work during the last months, > which mostly addressed the back end, the new changes are rather > comprehensive. Th

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread David Seifert
On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 02:57 +, Max Magorsch wrote: > Hi all, > > I am glad to announce further progress at packages.gentoo.org (pgo in > the following). Compared to previous work during the last months, > which mostly addressed the back end, the new changes are rather > comprehensive. That's w

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 20:48:44 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > The "easy" workaround is to use `dev-perl/Gentoo-PerlMod-Version`, and > have it munch upstreams version into a "gentoo normalized version", and > then use that version for comparison. Actually, on that note, it *might* be of benefit to pe

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 09:40:17 +0100 Alexey Sokolov wrote: > Another comment, unrelated to the new features: RESTRICT="test? > (test)" probably shouldn't trigger the T symbol the same way as > RESTRICT="test" does. +1. This presently has bothered me, because it basically means with the roll-out o

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 02:57:57 + Max Magorsch wrote: > - all outdated packages (according to repology) Unfortunately for Perl, repology can't be taken verbatim. There's a really fun problem with Perl versions, so I'll link you to our writeup to explain it: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Proje

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread Alexey Sokolov
It's great, thanks! I was confused at first at two different buttons "Pull requests", one showing them inline, one going to github, and two different buttons "Bugs", one showing them inline, one going to bugzilla. Sources of data seem to be inconsistent: https://i.imgur.com/PM138E2.png Well, to b

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 02:57:57 + Max Magorsch wrote: > Additionally, there are new sites for all package maintainers, that is: > - Gentoo Projects (e.g. pyt...@gentoo.org) > - Gentoo Developers (e.g. la...@gentoo.org > - Proxied Maintainers (e.g. la...@the-cow.de) Some other thoughts her

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: packages.g.o: new features available

2020-07-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 02:57:57 + Max Magorsch wrote: > I am glad to announce further progress at packages.gentoo.org (pgo in > the following). Compared to previous work during the last months, > which mostly addressed the back end, the new changes are rather > comprehensive. That's why I am look