Le 29/12/2009 14:43, Henry Gebhardt a écrit :
> 4) add a USE-flag, say "devel", that, when enabled, allows
> compiling programs against the package. x11-libs/libXtst would
> have an RDEPEND like this:
> RDEPEND="devel? x11-libs/inputproto"
This doesn't solve anything. It will just annoy users as t
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Then there was no need to waste everyone's time with a backhanded
> comment about the X11 herd. And we can all get on with our lives.
>
>From your perspective it might've looked like a backhanded comment,
but I know that scarabeus and lxna
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:31:44 +0100
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 28/12/2009 22:04, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
> > wrote:
> >> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just
>
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
> lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
>> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
>
> If they are genuine bugs, then th
2009/12/28 Doug Goldstein :
> Why not provide some actual meat and potatoes here instead of a
> useless e-mail with bug numbers and some stupid attempt at humor at
> the expense of the x11 herd?
That hostility was totally uncalled for. Please try to remain civil.
Cheers,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo L
Le 28/12/2009 23:53, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> Interesting, eventually somebody gave me a detailed and technical
> explanation without [bla bla snip]. Thanks Rémi.
> Yes, I agree with you that the best (and the one I would go for, too)
> solution is adding support to a new *DEPEND, perhaps one th
On Monday 28 December 2009 21:04:01 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> To me you are saying that DEPEND would work just fine. No?
Setting the proto as DEPEND for the library wouldn't work because a user could
install the library, remove every DEPEND-only package and legitimately expect
the library to cont
Interesting, eventually somebody gave me a detailed and technical
explanation without [bla bla snip]. Thanks Rémi.
Yes, I agree with you that the best (and the one I would go for, too)
solution is adding support to a new *DEPEND, perhaps one that could
"host" build-deps only. It looks weird that ot
Le 28/12/2009 22:04, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
> wrote:
>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>>
>> They're not just build
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Gokdeniz Karadag wrote:
>
> X preprocesses some files at each startup(using the C preprocessor(cpp) via
> xrdb configuration tool) Strange but true.
>
> Macros defined by these .h files might be used during this configuration.
That's the missing bit! Thanks for t
On 12/28/2009 11:47 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
>>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:54:42 +0100 (CET)
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> In any case, I think that this situation should be addressed, and
> perhaps a comment from PMS might help.
The PMS side is that we know that the current three DEPEND variables
are nowhere near enough, and there are proposals for fi
Fabio Erculiani demis ki::
> How comes,
> this is the list of files owned by xproto:
>
> /usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxext.h
> /usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxproto.h
> /usr/share/doc/dmxproto-2.2.2/ChangeLog.bz2
> /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/dmxproto.pc
> /usr/include/X11/DECkeysym.h
.
>
> How ca
In any case, I think that this situation should be addressed, and perhaps a
comment from PMS might help.
Regards,
--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
dependencies? Just wondering.
They're not just build dependencies
On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>
> They're not just build dependencies. They're required to use the library in
> a
> cer
Sorry, some more bits here:
AFAIK, Portage considers DEPEND when used as "source-based package manager"
(and emerge --depclean stuff) while it ignores them when binpkgs come into play.
So, (I ask Zac to correct me), putting x11-protos to DEPEND doesn't really change much for 99% of
Portage users
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>
> They're not just build dependencies. They're required to use the library in a
On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
> dependencies? Just wondering.
They're not just build dependencies. They're required to use the library in a
certain way, namely to compile other programs against it. As
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Rémi Cardona wrote:
RESOLVED -> WONTFIX
Others and myself have spent considerable time making those deps the way
they are because :
1) upstream packaging is a bit uncommon
2) ebuild deps don't fit with upstream deps
3) a few embedded devs told me they wiped
Le 28/12/2009 10:10, lx...@gentoo.org a écrit :
> List of Gentoo bugs:
> 298616
> 298618
> 298620
> 298621
> 298623
> 298624
> 298626
> 298627
> 298629
> 298631
> 298633
> 298634
> 298636
> 298638
> 298640
> 298642
> 298644
> 298645
> 298646
> 298648
> 298649
> 298653
> 298654
> 298656
> 298657
> 2
On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and
> close all my bugs if you ack).
>
Filing bugs first and then opening discussion here doesn't make sense.
It
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Xdbe.h is part of libXext:
>
> Xdbe.h:#include
>
> x11-libs/libXext (/usr/include/X11/extensions/Xdbe.h)
>
> Where dbe.h is coming from xextproto:
>
> x11-proto/xextproto (/usr/include/X11/extensions/dbe.h)
>
> As such, xextproto should b
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
> lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
>> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
>
> If they are genuine bugs, then th
On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against
> all the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing
> to x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually
I discussed this a few weeks ago with some devs on IRC and the general
answer was, file bugs.
I filed bugs. About the rest, I decline any comment. Have fun.
--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
If they are genuine bugs, then there isn't anything to discuss.
> List of Gentoo bugs:
Tracker bu
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> [...snip...]
Samuli I know, but actually Zac told me that as of now RDEPENDs are
not considered that way. I knew that you were going to comment here
(hence why I posted), maybe it's a good time to clear out our mind and
eventually decide h
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:10 AM, wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against all
> the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing to
> x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here (actually I
> don
29 matches
Mail list logo
