Ryan Hill wrote:
> It's best to keep the number of external packages needed to build the
> toolchain to a bare minimum. Anything that isn't a hard requirement should
> be a USE flag. We also need to be able to bootstrap without a C++ compiler,
> which one of graphite's dependencies (PPL) needs.
Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2009, 23:55 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
> > Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage already
> > > handles it right).
> >
> >
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:55:22 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> > That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to
> > propose it for EAPI 4 if you want that.
>
> Why is that (seriously curious, not disagreeing)? Portage has
> supported this for quite a while now. Does the current PMS disa
Ciaran McCreesh googlemail.com> writes:
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
> Tomáš Chvátal gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage already
> > handles it right).
>
> That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to propose
> it for
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:50:26 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
> > Tomáš Chvátal gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage
> > > already handles it right).
> >
> > That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. Yo
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> To avoid collision with the current package.mask I'd prefer
> package.mask.d/ for the directory. Also makes the transition easy since
> we can generate package.mask out of the files in package.mask.d/.
>
I completely agree with this. A scrip
On Thursday 13 of August 2009 12:35:43 Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2009, 23:55 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100
> >
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
> > >
> > > Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > > > Also we should allow t
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> An ebuild for manServer is in the pipeline, currently waiting for the
> next reply from upstream.
manServer ebuild here, new 1.08 release from upstream
http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlay-sping.git;a=tree;f=app-text/manserver
Sebastian
Ciaran McCreesh googlemail.com> writes:
>
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:50:26 + (UTC)
> Mark Bateman soon.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
> > > Tomáš Chvátal gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage
> > > > already handles it r
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:32:56 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman wrote:
> > It is not the business of PMS to enforce undocumented features that
> > Portage supports only by accident and that aren't used in the tree.
>
> PMS doesn't depict just what portage should do, just what ebuild's in
> the main tree ar
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Now, it is my time to say goodbye ( but not forever ) . I am *forced* to join
> the greek army from 16/8/2009 until May 2010. So I wont be active during this
> period. When I come back, I expect a more shiny Gentoo which will provide
> great experiences to our users.
>
Ciaran McCreesh googlemail.com> writes:
> PMS documents what ebuilds may or may not rely upon from the package
> manager. PMS, like the Portage document, says that package.mask is a
> file.
And main tree ebuild can rely on that. There are no directory-based
package.mask in the main portage tree
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:06:04 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman wrote:
> > And it shouldn't be until it's gone through the proper process to
> > become a documented, controlled feature rather than an accident
> > people are exploiting.
> >
> > Seriously, this isn't difficult to do. I get the impression peo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:50:26 + (UTC)
> Mark Bateman wrote:
>> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
>> > Tomáš Chvátal gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage
>> > > already handles it right).
>> >
>> > That's a seperate
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:22:16 +0100
Steven J Long wrote:
> > PMS accurately reflects the Portage documentation and the commit
> > message that introduced the feature -- it's purely for use
> > in /etc/portage/, which is beyond the scope of PMS.
> >
> If it's pre-EAPI it's part of EAPI '0'. That you
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 13:13:27 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Do we still need it? It appears to be very unmaintained. And if there's
> 3rd party tools that still need it, I wouldn't count them qualifying.
>
> Suggestion: cvs remove -f
it's been deprecated for pretty much ever (it was known to be
profiles/obsolete will be gone inside ~24 hours from posting this mail
thanks, Samuli
This week is my last for SoC this summer, so unless I do something
groundbreaking tomorrow, this will be my last status report. I was
hoping to be able to show off a working server with Ingenue running on
it by this time, but I'm still waiting for all the difficulties with
getting a root-access se
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:27:26 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > It's best to keep the number of external packages needed to build the
> > toolchain to a bare minimum. Anything that isn't a hard requirement should
> > be a USE flag. We also need to be able to bootstrap without a
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:29:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:55:22 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to
> > > propose it for EAPI 4 if you want that.
> >
> > Why is that (seriously curious, not disagreeing)? Portag
20 matches
Mail list logo
