Luca Barbato wrote:
> Daniel Drake wrote:
>> 2.6.25 was released today, gentoo-sources-2.6.25 is now in portage.
>>
>> As usual this will break some packages in the portage tree (ones that
>> include kernel code), the tracker for such issues is here:
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2181
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I'm rewording the PMS sections on dependencies to avoid permitting
| overly lax circular dependency resolution. Which of these wordings is
| accurate, given that usable means "has its RDEPENDs installed and
| usable"?
|
| 1. D
Hello!
I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...
flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-th
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Apr 2008
06:33:00 +0100:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:27:21 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My interpretation is pkg_* counts as runtime (I can imagine a package
>> wanting to run itself at
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
Hello!
I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...
Have we not learn't! I hardly think that revdep-rebuild is an obvious
solution to th
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
Hello!
I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...
flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/article
Alistair Bush wrote:
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we p
Luca Barbato kirjoitti:
Alistair Bush wrote:
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep
As those who _did_ ask me directly why I decided to do this did not
think it was worth mailing - as they didn't - I suppose I should chime
in now.
Leaving alone what Petteri already said, this was intended to be a
change on a series of single packages, the domino effect that happened I
didn't for
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò kirjoitti:
Probably the best thing would be to get a better tool than
revdep-rebuild to handle broken .la files, as revdep-rebuild forces a
timewasting rebuild, while a good fix could be just a sed -i -e
's:/usr/lib\(64\)\?/lib\(.*\).la:-l\2:' on all the .la files, inst
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You would have to fix the vdb too.
Which is the tricky part, and the reason why I didn't instruct anybody
to do the sed on my ChangeLogs.p
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.
--
Best regards, Wulf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
>
> Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.
his point was you should have asked him directly instead of starting a thread
on a mailing list to talk about him. doesnt seem terribly un
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through
> unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change.
>
> Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
> exceptions, of course) we should thin
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:53:27 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that at least for current EAPIs, RDEPEND simply cannot
> be depended upon during pkg_*inst without breaking things. I can't
> see a way around that.
But DEPEND can't either.
The point is, one of the two w
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:38:06 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Every package dependency in DEPEND is installed and usable before
> src_unpack starts, right? So is the question here whether or not they
> can be uninstalled right before pkg_{pre,post}inst starts?
If we're
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return to
> ~arch that way.
please dont leave it like this. revbump both packages in question minus
the .la removal portion. libtool script scuttling is independent of ver
17 matches
Mail list logo
