On 21 August 2013 23:03, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 15.08.2013 12:12, Pacho Ramos пишет:
>> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>>
>> Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual
>> blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something
15.08.2013 12:12, Pacho Ramos пишет:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>
> Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual
> blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something
> because of "lack of documentation" :S)
>
>
An
14.08.2013 23:34, hasufell пишет:
> PMS is a waste of time, we should drop it until people are able to
> maintain it properly. They are obviously not.
No, it is not. If we have no clear implementation-agnostic background
about how things should work, then we will be screwed for no good
reason, sor
On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 21:42:35 Michael Palimaka wrote:
| Now that portage-2.2 is in ~arch, we should now be able to add sets to
| the tree.
|
| How should we go about doing this? In some overlays, the repository root
| has sets/{foo,bar,etc} and sets.conf which might look like this:
|
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:04:47 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Wouldn't be much easy to try to get sets support approved for the next
> eapi? (eapi6 I think). Once we get the usual problems, we can complain
> but, who knows, maybe (as it's already implemented in a PM) it doesn't
> take so long to get app
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:12:31 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> > > I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
> > > yet(when we updated it for EAPI chan
Dnia 2013-08-15, o godz. 10:04:47
Pacho Ramos napisał(a):
> El jue, 15-08-2013 a las 07:42 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> > I'm quite surprised that you attack hasufell now for his valid opinion
> > that PMS is not well maintained and does not reflect reality adequately.
> >
>
> Wouldn't be m
Dnia 2013-08-15, o godz. 11:10:31
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > I don't fully understand why things (like in_iuse from
> > eutils.eclass) are missing from PMS.
>
> How should this feature have made it into PMS by now? AFAICS, you've
> first pro
Dnia 2013-08-15, o godz. 11:09:50
Tom Wijsman napisał(a):
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:10:02 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 23:53 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> > [...]
> > > Well, it should reflect reality.
> > >
> > > PMS is still broken as much as it does not reflec
On 08/15/2013 03:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 00:42, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
> And their lack of time (to be polite)
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 23:53 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> [...]
>> Well, it should reflect reality.
>>
>> PMS is still broken as much as it does not reflect the state of portage
>> before PMS was written, and we've had to patch it up a fe
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I don't fully understand why things (like in_iuse from
> eutils.eclass) are missing from PMS.
How should this feature have made it into PMS by now? AFAICS, you've
first proposed it in the following posting, two days after EAPI 5 was
approved:
http:/
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:10:02 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 23:53 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> [...]
> > Well, it should reflect reality.
> >
> > PMS is still broken as much as it does not reflect the state of
> > portage before PMS was written, and we've had to patch it
El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
> > I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
> > yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It
> > is one of the long-standing
El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 23:53 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
[...]
> Well, it should reflect reality.
>
> PMS is still broken as much as it does not reflect the state of portage
> before PMS was written, and we've had to patch it up a few times to make
> it coherent, plus it is still lacking half
El jue, 15-08-2013 a las 07:42 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
> >>
> >>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
> >>>
On 15 August 2013 00:42, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
>>>
And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
progress in gentoo.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 02:54:46 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 02:48 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >
> >> Multiple cases like mandating bash 3.2 that we don't even have in
> >> tree anymore,
> >
> > There is =app-shells/bash-3.2_p51 in the Portage t
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:50:16 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Because if you want to allow multiple package managers as an option,
>
> If - but why would we do that?
To give our users choice.
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml
http://www.gentoo.o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/15/2013 02:48 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
>> Multiple cases like mandating bash 3.2 that we don't even have in
>> tree anymore,
>
> There is =app-shells/bash-3.2_p51 in the Portage tree.
>
Fun facts: It is in unstable branch.
So while I write e
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:42:21 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
> >>
> >>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
> >>> prog
On 08/15/2013 04:56 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 21:41, hasufell wrote:
>> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
>>>
And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
progress in gentoo.
>>>
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
>>>
And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
progress in
On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
>>
>>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
>>> progress in gentoo.
>>
>> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gento
Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:56:09
Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:50:56 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> > On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > >> Sergey Popov wro
On 14 August 2013 21:41, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
>>
>>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
>>> progress in gentoo.
>>
>> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo devel
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:41:02 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> Why don't you respond to my technical points then? PMS is blocking
> progress, again, because it does not reflect reality.
>
> I don't even see a reason why we should keep up that effort.
PMS reflects the most recent Council vote on "what's al
On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
>
>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
>> progress in gentoo.
>
> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works
You certainly are not an a
I've always found those class = something.that.is.clearly.portage.specific
lines a bit of a bummer, since they're very tied to the internal
functioning of portage and not a generic standard for how things should be
defined.
Before we add sets to the tree, maybe there should be some discussion abou
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:16:18 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> My understanding is that the cvs tree should be PMS compatible and
> since 'sets' are not part of PMS that means that it would be wise not
> to use them yet.
> It is unfortunate that nobody seems to have realized that all these
> years th
On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
>
>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
>> progress in gentoo.
>
> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works
You certainly are not an
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote:
> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general
> progress in gentoo.
Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works
>>>
>>> You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that
>>> question...
>>
>>
On 14 August 2013 21:13, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:03:38 +0200
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> > Using the conventional view of what a "set" is,
>>
>> But what kind of view would that be, a mathematical set, a set from a
>> prior discussion or a completely different set? I assume th
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:03:38 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Using the conventional view of what a "set" is,
>
> But what kind of view would that be, a mathematical set, a set from a
> prior discussion or a completely different set? I assume the first
> one.
The rather outdated GLEP 21 says they're
On 08/14/2013 10:07 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:59:37 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>>> You're fundamentally misunderstanding how PMS and Gentoo development
>>> works.
>>
>> I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding. I think gentoo should
>> stop supporting downstreams IF su
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:59:37 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> > You're fundamentally misunderstanding how PMS and Gentoo development
> > works.
>
> I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding. I think gentoo should
> stop supporting downstreams IF supporting them means blocking
> progress.
What's this
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:28:02 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> [.. SNIP ..]
Thank you.
> > > In order for sets to be added to the tree, we need a spec, we need
> > > to decide where sets are allowed (package.mask?), and we need an
> > > implementation.
> >
> > Sets in package.mask sounds unrelia
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/14/2013 09:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Using the conventional view of what a "set" is, the point is to
>> allow you to mask, say, kde7 using a single line, and then define
>> w
On 08/14/2013 09:51 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:34:51 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>> On 08/14/2013 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17
>>> Sergey Popov napisał(a):
>>>
14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:53:26 +0200
Michael Weber wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 09:51 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works should
> > be added to the new developer quiz, so we can be sure people
> > unders
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/14/2013 09:51 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works should
> be added to the new developer quiz, so we can be sure people
> understand the appropriate ways of making changes and where the
> pow
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:34:51 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17
> > Sergey Popov napisał(a):
> >
> >> 14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
> >>> wrote: Right now, howe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/14/2013 09:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Using the conventional view of what a "set" is, the point is to
> allow you to mask, say, kde7 using a single line, and then define
> what kde7 is using a set. Then the user can unmask kde7 without
> h
On 08/14/2013 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17
> Sergey Popov napisał(a):
>
>> 14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет:
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
>>> wrote:
>>> Right now, however,
>>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how th
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:57:57 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:09:40 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Er, look at the first post in the thread:
>
> That was about the repository, not about the PMS; the question was
> whether we need to respect the PMS
Ask yourself this: if it
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:09:40 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Er, look at the first post in the thread:
That was about the repository, not about the PMS; the question was
whether we need to respect the PMS and why it misses this _feature_,
for which no proposed specification exists afaik, so I don
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:54:40 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:56:09 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > > > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > > > > Sergey Popov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why it was not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> The discussion at stake here is "Can we add sets to the tree? If so,
> should everyone be able to do that free or by prior discussion?" and I
> don't think that any reply to this whole sub thread benefits anyone.
So, I already added my two ce
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:58:01 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:53:09 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> > On 08/14/2013 11:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:56 +0800
> > > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > >
> > > > So fix PMS to reflect reality. Again.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:56:09 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > > > Sergey Popov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation
> > > > > flaws? Or maybe
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:59:28 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Uhm. Look at the class line.
> >
> > https://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/kde.git;a=blob;f=sets.conf;h=1f4c4263f48e5360606c1acc97fbab64b03541b7;hb=HEAD
>
> ... a static identifier.
>
> I would usually call that a constant. No
On 14 August 2013 16:59, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 11:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:50:36 +0800
>> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>> On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 10
On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It
is one of th
On 08/14/2013 11:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:50:36 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
>>> Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 201
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:53:09 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 11:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:56 +0800
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
> > wrote: Righ
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:50:56 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> >> Sergey Popov wrote:
> >>> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:50:36 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> >>> Sergey Popov wrote:
> I
On 08/14/2013 11:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:56 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote: Right now, however,
> it might be useful if only to get a sense for ho
On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
>>> Sergey Popov wrote:
I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
y
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:56 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
> >>> wrote: Right now, however,
> >>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being
> >>> used, trade ideas, etc.
>
> >
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> >> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
> >> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question
On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
>>> wrote:
>>> Right now, however,
>>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being used,
>>> trade ideas, etc.
> No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow
On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
>> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It
>> is one of the long-standing feature of quite exp
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It
> is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental 2.2_alpha
> branch, that should finally come
14.08.2013 17:02, Michał Górny пишет:
> Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17
> Sergey Popov napisał(a):
>
>> 14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет:
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
>>> wrote:
>>> Right now, however,
>>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're
Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17
Sergey Popov napisał(a):
> 14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
> > wrote:
> > Right now, however,
> > it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being used,
> > trade ideas, etc.
>
> Well,
14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
> Right now, however,
> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being used,
> trade ideas, etc.
Well, we can use sets as replacement for metapackages(for example,
qt-meta, leechcr
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Should everyone be free to add sets at will, or should each addition be
> discussed first, similar to adding new global USE flags?
While I don't want to deter people from creating them, it probably
wouldn't hurt to at least do a little bi
Now that portage-2.2 is in ~arch, we should now be able to add sets to
the tree.
How should we go about doing this? In some overlays, the repository root
has sets/{foo,bar,etc} and sets.conf which might look like this:
[gentoo sets]
class = portage.sets.files.StaticFileSet
multiset = true
dir
69 matches
Mail list logo
