Re: [gentoo-dev] Xfce 4.10 in Portage (and a bit of warning about me being partly "devaway")

2012-04-29 Thread James Broadhead
On 29 April 2012 12:00, Samuli Suominen wrote: > I've just included Xfce 4.10 final in Portage. > > Sorry for delay, but I was literally mugged at the middle of day. I was > having backpains before due to my scoliosis and this guy kicked me to spot > where it hurts. I'm in process of recovering. D

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

2012-03-30 Thread James Broadhead
On 30 March 2012 14:25, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 03/30/2012 04:00 PM, Axel wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I would like to wish you all a happy birthday, 10 years already since >> first release (Gentoo 1.0)! Here is a little thing [1] we made to >> celebrate it. Recipe: two layers of Génoise (for eac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Let's redesign the entire filesystem! [was newsitem: unmasking udev-181]

2012-03-13 Thread James Broadhead
On 13 March 2012 14:41, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > Am Montag, 12. März 2012, 21:22:26 schrieb Joshua Kinard: > [...] >> After all, /usr was originally for user data, not system data, >> until someone cooked up /home (I don't know the full exact history here, so >> feel free to correct me). > > IIRC

Re: [gentoo-dev] Let's redesign the entire filesystem! [was newsitem: unmasking udev-181]

2012-03-13 Thread James Broadhead
On 13 March 2012 01:22, Joshua Kinard wrote: > We should be working to getting rid of /usr and bring it all back into /, > then create temporary /usr symlinks to point programs in the right > direction.  After all, /usr was originally for user data, not system data, > until someone cooked up /home

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

2012-03-12 Thread James Broadhead
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Can somebody present a real ( or even theoretical ) problem that could > arise from having the EAPI in the filename that isn't some abstract > hand-waving? > > Not trying to be a troll here, but really, I still haven't seen any. This isn't a real-wo

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

2012-03-12 Thread James Broadhead
On 12 March 2012 21:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote: > >> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments >> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

2012-03-12 Thread James Broadhead
On 12 March 2012 20:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:49:22 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> > That's already not the way things work, since different version >> > strings can be equal versions (and it's illegal to do this), >> > so it's not relevant to the discussion. >> >> Thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread James Broadhead
On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a > different name. I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better approach than semi- or repeat parsing, but I prefer preserving the .ebuild extension, and think

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

2012-02-24 Thread James Broadhead
On 24 February 2012 17:56, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved > lib: > > # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' > # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' > > I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command: > > #

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Application name in metadata.xml

2012-02-12 Thread James Broadhead
On 12 February 2012 21:34, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 22:22 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >> And AFAICS there's no 'nwn' in SRC_URI so it's just pointless to >> abbreviate the name like that in our ebuild name. > > "nwn" is the name of the game's main executable and the stand

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread James Broadhead
On 4 December 2011 06:51, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:50:00 +0100 > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > >> Subject says it all. More and more bug attachments appear that have >> been generated with non-English locales, and it's a nuisance for both >> bug reporters and bug wranglers to request/pr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linking Stage, building a ebuild

2011-12-02 Thread James Broadhead
On 2 December 2011 03:22, Willian Vale da Rocha wrote: > I'm writing a ebuild for GNU Radio, just to learn how to write and i doesn't > found any where(or i was looking for wrong) how to define a LDFLAGS for the > linking stage. GNU Radio need this because they use their library. > If i don't expl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due ricmm retirement

2011-11-22 Thread James Broadhead
On 22 November 2011 20:31, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: Due ricmm retirement the following packages need a new maintai

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

2011-11-21 Thread James Broadhead
On 21 November 2011 08:41, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > > I wrote a script, > < > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/arch-tools.git;a=blob;f=stabilization-candidates.py;hb=HEAD > >, > that scans the tree for packages that could be easily stabilized (all > deps stable, no bugs). > > I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rotating oversized ChangeLog files (was: Old changelogs / eclass dir)

2011-11-03 Thread James Broadhead
On Nov 3, 2011 10:25 a.m., "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 09:09:19 Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Maybe we should keep old changelogs in a separate directory to decrease > > ebuilddir pollution? > > Not sure about that. Thank you for this infusion of practicality. Ho

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Candidates for global USE flags

2011-10-02 Thread James Broadhead
On 2 October 2011 03:57, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:19:26 +0300 > Samuli Suominen wrote: > >> >    17   tools >> >     9   utils >> >> tools, and utils, what's the difference? perhaps pick one and unify them >> into global USE flag > > Saying what?  "Install optional tools or utili

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Candidates for global USE flags

2011-09-27 Thread James Broadhead
On 27 September 2011 10:33, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Ulrich Mueller posted on Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:37:38 +0200 as excerpted: > >>    29   webkit > > I've run into problems with this one, and think it should be split.  At > minimum, there's qt-webkit and webkit-gtk.  As a kde user I wan