On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:44:05 -0500
Matt Turner wrote:
> matts...@sempron /usr/portage $ egrep -l 'IUSE=.*minimal' `find -name
> '*.ebuild'`
>
> ^ shows lots of ebuilds with IUSE="minimal". Instead of having a
> minimal use flag for these packages, shouldn't we have, possibly
> local, use flags f
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> Alistair Bush wrote:
>
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
>
> Users unmasking toolchain packages ne
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:44:05 -0500
Matt Turner wrote:
> matts...@sempron /usr/portage $ egrep -l 'IUSE=.*minimal' `find -name
> '*.ebuild'`
>
> ^ shows lots of ebuilds with IUSE="minimal". Instead of having a
> minimal use flag for these packages, shouldn't we have, possibly
> local, use flags fo
В Вск, 21/11/2010 в 01:47 -0600, Ryan Hill пишет:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> Alistair Bush wrote:
>
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
>
> Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be
Hi there,
The official policy for live ebuilds is the following one:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html
I don't quite agree with this policy and I guess most of you don't agree
either looking at the number of live ebuilds/package.mask entries.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:11:53PM +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> The official policy for live ebuilds is the following one:
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html
>
> I don't quite agree with this policy and I guess most of you
Il giorno dom, 21/11/2010 alle 13.11 +, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
>
> My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking
> them via package.mask
The reason why many of them are in p.mask is usually because _I_ added
them there as they didn't mask with KEYWORDS="", and sim
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:29:10PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 21/11/2010 alle 13.11 +, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
> >
> > My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking
> > them via package.mask
>
> The reason why many of them are in p.mask is us
Diego,
On 11/21/10 15:29, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> The reason why many of them are in p.mask is usually because _I_ added
> them there as they didn't mask with KEYWORDS="", and simply dropping
> keywords would have users angry.
Why does KEYWORDS="" on live ebuilds make users angry?
Where can
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:47:57 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> Alistair Bush wrote:
>
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
>
> Users unmasking toolchain packages need to
On 11/21/10 08:47, Ryan Hill wrote:
> toolchain revbumps are expensive
How expansive? More than a rebuild of GCC itself?
Best,
Sebastian
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Diego,
>
>
> On 11/21/10 15:29, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > The reason why many of them are in p.mask is usually because _I_ added
> > them there as they didn't mask with KEYWORDS="", and simply dropping
> > keywords would hav
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +0200
Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> > Alistair Bush wrote:
> >
> > > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> > > >
> > > > Why not?
> > >
> > > Yeah why
On 11/21/2010 08:49 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +0200
Alex Alexander wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
Alistair Bush wrote:
We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
Why not?
Yeah why not?
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:00:03PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:11:53 +
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> > Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
> > they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
>
> Isn't that the point?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:59:25 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> > Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention
> > to what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people
> > who know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain
> > revbumps are expensive a
On Saturday, November 20, 2010 21:57:21 Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend
> > > everyone who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now a
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:11:53 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
> they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use
live ebuilds. I'd
On 11/21/10 17:27, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Where can I find the rest of this thread?
> Ehh, maybe on gentoo archives?
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_4934999b1188cf3ecc53fea784054afb.xml
>
> Is that what you are asking for?
In a way, yes, thanks. Should have thought of looking ther
On 11/21/10 20:30, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Actually not. Users are already familiar with the - concept so there
>> is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to find out
>> corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it makes no
>> sense to me. Actually the majority o
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:30:15PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> > > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to
> > > use
> > > live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :)
> > >
> > > But yes, if I had
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:34:10 + as excerpted:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:44:05 -0500
> Matt Turner wrote:
>> matts...@sempron /usr/portage $ egrep -l 'IUSE=.*minimal' `find -name
>> '*.ebuild'`
>>
>> ^ shows lots of ebuilds with IUSE="minimal". Instead of having a
>> mini
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use
> > live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :)
> >
> > But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over
> > package.mask. In fact
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:51:04 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> The suggestion as I read it is to have, for instance, a "vim-minimal"
> flag (IOW, one per package), the idea being to prevent someone from
> sticking minimal in their global USE flags and having all sorts of
> stuff "
Ryan Hill posted on Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:30:15 -0600 as excerpted:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not
>> > to use live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :)
>> >
>> Actually not. Users ar
Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:57:50 -0500 as excerpted:
> well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the
> masked package, but once it was unmasked, we revbump it just once at
> that point.
User-side ++
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 09:22:24PM +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:30:15PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> >
> > > > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to
> > > > use
> > > >
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Markos Chandras wrote:
> If the majority of the devs ( at least of those who participate to
> this thread ) is positive, then I will commit a patch to devmanual
> and possibly migrate the cvs&svn sources pages into a single one.
Just for the record, I'm not in favour of
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:10:32PM +, Duncan wrote:
> As a user who regularly uses certain live ebuilds (and contrasting SP),
> strongly agreed. If the double-masking is confusing them, they're better
> off sticking with standard versioned ebuilds as they're demonstrably not
> up to dealing
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:10:32PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Ryan Hill posted on Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:30:15 -0600 as excerpted:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> >
> >> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not
> >> > to use live ebuil
Il giorno dom, 21/11/2010 alle 16.22 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
>
> Why does KEYWORDS="" on live ebuilds make users angry?
Before I started tinderboxing we had a number of live ebuilds in tree –
and I don't mean simply "fetch the given rev out of svn", but real,
- type live ebuilds
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2010-11-21 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-tex/mpm 2010-11-16 09:08:19 fauli
media-gfx/gimp-lqr-plugin 2010-11-18 12:50:44 phajdan.jr
Additions:
net
Hi there,
* Almost every time* when I try to update packages to the latest snapshot,
it would failed by these errors or those errors,
I have to say that's really too too bad. Isn't this a big problem of the
Portage that users have to hack it every time?
* Gentoo is a system with great freedom, but
On 11/21/2010 05:27 PM, Delian Xu wrote:
> For example,
> Sometime when you install or update a package, it would failed by 'masked'
> reasons and you have to deal with the failure
> (Though you can use a auto-unmask tool here). However, users would hope
> the Portage / emerge system give an opt
On Sunday 21 November 2010 19:47:34 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > If the majority of the devs ( at least of those who participate to
> > this thread ) is positive, then I will commit a patch to devmanual
> > and possibly migrate the cvs&svn sources pa
is emerging sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1-r1 enough?
thanks!
-alessandro-
Here i am, A young man,
A crashing computer program,
Here is a pen, write out my name.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 14:14, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:57:50 -0500 as excerpted:
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> Also, for an ebuild with empty KEYWORDS, repoman will not indicate
>> any problems with dependencies.
> by default with a p.mask it doesnt either.
Yes, but it has an option to enable it, whereas there isn't such an
option for empty KEYWORDS.
U
37 matches
Mail list logo
