On 10/17/2016 01:21 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:20:42 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>
>> Part of the idea everyone is missing is time... It takes time to go look at
>> information a package metadata.xml If the package is coming in as a
>> dependency. Instead of ju
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:43:40 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> No its a PMS requirement as you said not visual as I was saying...
PMS doesn't cover multiple repository stuff in much detail. We didn't
want to mandate Portage's historical weird overlay behaviour, so it
doesn't really specify
On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:34:15 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:03:02 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
> > >
> > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > > On Mond
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:03:02 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 17 O
On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
> > >
> > > Portage shows the repo it comes from because it is
On 10/14/2016 1:36 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
>> Problem
>> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages.
>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
>> not clear if tha
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > > > Th
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:09:52 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> does that even make sense when the blob or helper utility is only used by
> that package?
Makes it more useful in vetting and deploying security concerns.
pgpWmx3Rs8P_O.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:37:28 AM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree
> > >
On 10/17/2016 11:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
NO more.
On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > > There's a lot of "but what if you care!??!" things, perhaps this may be
> > > an import
On 10/17/2016 01:43 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> There is also no particular policy that I am aware of for ensuring
> packages are designed to be built from source first and foremost.
If all you're looking for is something to cite, then binary packages run
afoul of most of our existing QA and
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> "Gentoo usually builds its packages from source. Exceptionally,
>> a binary package can be provided instead (e.g., if upstream doesn't
>> provide a source) or in addition. Such packages
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > There's a lot of "but what if you care!??!" things, perhaps this may be
> > an important one to you, but some people care a lot about LICENSE and
> > some peopl
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:32:30 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being
> > > unable to test with one and the other co-installed?
> >
> > Did you see the
On Monday, October 17, 2016 11:01:40 AM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 17/10/16 10:54 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> > There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided
> > optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build
> > process, last I checked...but that
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:32:30 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being
> > unable to test with one and the other co-installed?
>
> Did you see the comment where portage has this function now?
I don't actually know what he'
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:39:25 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>
> > PROPERTIES="binary:upstream"
> >
> > or
> >
> > PROPERTIES="binary:gentoo"
> >
> > Assuming the right tooling, this allows a way to "canonically" define
> > what the type of binary is, and allow people to make whatever ch
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
>
> > On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
> >> NO more.
>
> > I don't see what problem you are trying t
On 17/10/16 10:54 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided
> optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build
> process,
> last I checked...but that was a few years ago.
>
Mozilla project has a dev that's supportin
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
>
>> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
>>> NO more.
>
>> I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo
On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:52:52 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
> >>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed
On Monday, October 17, 2016 3:13:32 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 15:09, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 10/17/2016 04:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> Even if we have a list, what next? There are reasons why they are not
> >> packaged from source, and that will not change.
On Monday, October 17, 2016 3:52:52 PM EDT Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> Off the top of my head I'm only aware of libreoffice-bin myself (and
> then it is a clear alternative to libreoffice if wanting the source),
> providing this as a binary is a convenience to end-users not wanting to
> spend
On 17/10/16 15:09, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 04:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> Even if we have a list, what next? There are reasons why they are not
>> packaged
>> from source, and that will not change. Good to be aware, but without any
>> sort
>> of plan or means to
On 17/10/16 14:52, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with
On 10/17/2016 04:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Even if we have a list, what next? There are reasons why they are not
> packaged
> from source, and that will not change. Good to be aware, but without any sort
> of plan or means to address. Not sure it will matter.
The list would be help
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:52:24 AM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > >> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
> > >> equivalent, the name of the f
On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
>>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
>>> for distinction."
>> Essentially what I would like to see in
On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
> >> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
> >> for distinction."
> >
> > Essentially
On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
>> for distinction."
> Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not
> address
> the pr
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:40:57 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:37:28 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
> > >
> > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > >
On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:20:19 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
> > On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
> >> NO more.
> >
> > I don't see what problem you are trying to
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:46:12 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:41:13 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. NO more.
>
> It would be far better to simply have a PROPERTIES field in ebuilds or
> somesuc
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:29:15 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides
> > a
> > direct technical benefit you cannot achieve with a USE flag.
> >
> > > I
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
>> NO more.
> I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo is a
> source-based distro .. any binaries are a last-resort or
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:41:13 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. NO more.
It would be far better to simply have a PROPERTIES field in ebuilds or somesuch:
PROPERTIES="binary:upstream"
or
PROPERTIES="binary:gentoo"
Assuming th
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides a
> direct technical benefit you cannot achieve with a USE flag.
>
> > If anything, I'd imagine if that case arose, it would manifest itself more
> > a
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:20:42 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> Part of the idea everyone is missing is time... It takes time to go look at
> information a package metadata.xml If the package is coming in as a
> dependency. Instead of just being able to visually look at the package name
>
On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:17:48 AM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems
>> to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in
>> this thread.
>> https://wiki.gentoo.o
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:37:28 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
> >
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to
>
On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:17:48 AM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems
> to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in
> this thread.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Antarus/Package_Tags
That is interestin
On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to
> > hopefully get less binaries that are from source.
> >
> > To start I just wan
On 17/10/16 08:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems
> to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in
> this thread.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Antarus/Package_Tags
>
> Ulrich
Looks rational to me .. blockers
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> Let's also add -c for C programs, and -cxx for C++ programs. -py for
> pure Python stuff, -cpy when stuff includes extensions compiled in
> C, -cxxpy extensions in C++. We should also have special -x86asm
> suffix for packages that rely on non-porta
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to
> hopefully get less binaries that are from source.
>
> To start I just wanted to see about a policy for -bin, the other stuff was
> just extra after
On 16/10/16 10:43 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:19:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> *IF* we were going to make use of upstream vs gentoo-generated binary
>> packages in the tree, they *WOULD* block one-another as they would
>> collide file-wise at least pa
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:19:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> *IF* we were going to make use of upstream vs gentoo-generated binary
> packages in the tree, they *WOULD* block one-another as they would
> collide file-wise at least partially if not completely. So there
> wouldn't be any te
On 16/10/16 06:30 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Saturday, October 15, 2016 4:10:51 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I get the intent, but I don't see it being likely we'd ever have
>> a real usecase for having both a -bin and a -gbin in tree together.
>
> You actually came up with o
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 4:10:51 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Yeah, I get the intent, but I don't see it being likely we'd ever have
> a real usecase for having both a -bin and a -gbin in tree together.
You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides a
direct tech
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 5:00:07 PM EDT Austin English wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 05:32 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 10/14/2016 07:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson
On 10/15/2016 05:32 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 07:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
Problem
2. There are binary packages that end in -bin,
On 10/14/2016 07:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> Problem
>>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it
>>> is
>>> not clear if that is
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:05:43 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or
> similar requirement, maybe in the PMS. Many already follow the -bin suffix
> now.
> I just do not believe it is a requirement anywhere. Which if
On Friday, October 14, 2016 4:00:53 PM EDT William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Remember that src_compile could be in an eclass or the package could be
> using the default src_compile for the EAPI.
FYI, the main Java eclasses, ant and simple, have default src_compile. I have
lots of Java ebuilds without suc
On Friday, October 14, 2016 4:00:53 PM EDT William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:05:43PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> > If a package is src_install only, no
> > src_compile, it should be required to have a -bin suffix, or -gbin if self
> > made.
> I disagree wit
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:05:43PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
*snip*
> If a package is src_install only, no
> src_compile, it should be required to have a -bin suffix, or -gbin if self
> made.
I disagree with this.
Remember that src_compile could be in an eclass or the package could
On Friday, October 14, 2016 8:15:35 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > The devmanual has the same info as in the PMS including on the suffix
> > https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-33.2
>
> That section is about version suffixes (like _beta or _rc), not about
> package names.
I a
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:36:20 PM EDT Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS.
>> This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy
>> issue. Other repos/distros should be
On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:36:20 PM EDT Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS.
> This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy
> issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds
> whatever they like.
I was
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> Problem
> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages.
> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made
On 14/10/16 01:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> Problem
>>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it
>>> is
>>> not clear if that is an
On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Problem
> > 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it
> > is
> > not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
> > com
On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Problem
> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo
> sy
64 matches
Mail list logo
