2010-11-29 08:39:46 Sebastian Pipping napisał(a):
> On 11/28/10 19:04, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > You probably broke generation of stages :) .
> > (I have restored a minimal version of eselect_python_update() in python
> > overlay.)
>
> Could you elaborate on that, please? Ho
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
> Python, so
> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
But we still upgrade from 2.7 to 2.7.1 automatically, right?
Cheers
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis writes:
> 2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a):
> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
> Python, so
> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
Sorry, but on one of my ~x86 systems the insta
On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis writes:
>
>> 2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a):
>> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
>> Python, so
>> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
On 29/11/10 10:36, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote:
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis writes:
>>
>>> 2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a):
>>> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
>>> Python, so
>>> python-2.7.1.eb
On 11/29/10 09:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> There will probably be no active version of Python set.
You had two weeks to come up with this.
Please find my on IRC to team up on an agreed fix.
Sebastian
On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
> Python, so
> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
The ebuilds you just added for 2.7.1 and 3.1.3 do contain
eselect_python_update()
On 11/29/10 10:07, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
>> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
>> Python, so
>> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
>
> But we still up
On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote:
> Sorry, but on one of my ~x86 systems the installation of python-2.7.1
> DID update the active python version to 2.7. Worse than that, now
> python-updater is running it is removing all of the
> usr/lib/python-2.6/site-packages/ files and for multi-version a
Hi,
Sebastian Pipping :
> On 11/29/10 09:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > There will probably be no active version of Python set.
>
> You had two weeks to come up with this.
>
> Please find my on IRC to team up on an agreed fix.
$ eselect python --help
Manage Python symlinks
On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
>
> USE_PYTHON="2.6 2.7 3.1"
>
> into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that's the versions you want.
Is that documented anywhere? I couldn't find it easily on gentoo.org in
the docs.
Paweł
signature.asc
On 11/29/10 13:10, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> $ eselect python --help
> Manage Python symlinks
> Usage: eselect python
>
> [...]
> updateSwitch to the most recent CPython interpreter
> --if-unsetDo not override existing implementation
> --ignore SLOT
On 11/29/10 13:24, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
>>
>> USE_PYTHON="2.6 2.7 3.1"
>>
>> into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that's the versions you want.
>
> Is that documented anywhere? I couldn't find it ea
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:38:11PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 11/29/10 13:24, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> >> Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
> >>
> >> USE_PYTHON="2.6 2.7 3.1"
> >>
> >> into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that
On 11/29/10 1:42 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> *sigh*, Planet is not a place to inform users about these things. How
> about a -dev-announce or even better a news item.
IMHO a news item is not much better. All users who install later than
some date will not see the news item (by design).
USE_PYTHO
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:24:40 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> > Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
> >
> > USE_PYTHON="2.6 2.7 3.1"
> >
> > into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that's the versions you want.
>
> Is that documented anywher
Hi,
Sebastian Pipping :
> On 11/29/10 13:10, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > $ eselect python --help
> > Manage Python symlinks
> > Usage: eselect python
> >
> > [...]
> > updateSwitch to the most recent CPython
> > interpreter --if-unsetDo not override exist
On 11/29/10 13:42, Markos Chandras wrote:
> *sigh*, Planet is not a place to inform users about these things. How
> about a -dev-announce or even better a news item. Do you expect
> everyone to read planet or ML? News item is such a wonderful feature. Please
> please please use it.
I did not inven
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:43:40PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
> > Python, so
> > python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
>
> Th
2010-11-29 12:43 Sebastian Pipping napisał(a):
> On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
>> Python, so
>> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
>
> The ebuilds you just adde
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:47:36PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2010-11-29 12:43 Sebastian Pipping napisał(a):
> > On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> >> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
> >> Python, so
>
On 11/29/10 16:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Revbump otherwise get ready for a series of bug reports from frustrated
> users
I don't think this case qualifies for a revbump.
The set of files produced is the same. The new revision offers nothing
new to anyone having installed the previous revision.
On 11/29/10 16:47, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> It wasn't any mistake. Please actually read that code:
>
> eselect_python_update() {
> if [[ -z "$(eselect python show --python${PV%%.*})" ]]; then
> eselect python update --python${PV%%.*}
> fi
> }
>
> "${P
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:20:00PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 11/29/10 16:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Revbump otherwise get ready for a series of bug reports from frustrated
> > users
>
> I don't think this case qualifies for a revbump.
> The set of files produced is the same. The ne
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:47:36PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
>> It wasn't any mistake. Please actually read that code:
>>
>> eselect_python_update() {
>> if [[ -z "$(eselect python show --python${PV%%.*})" ]]; then
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> > Revbump otherwise get ready for a series of bug reports from frustrated
>> > users
>>
>> I don't think this case qualifies for a revbump.
>> [...]
> The behavior of the package has changed though. Do not expect anyone
> who uses ~testing to
On 11/29/10 17:31, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
> until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
> action:
>
> eselect python update --python2
>
> So unless you had updated your python-2.6 during the last two days,
On 11/29/2010 08:43 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 11/29/10 17:31, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
>> until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
>> action:
>>
>> eselect python update --python2
>>
>> So unless y
Ulrich Mueller writes:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Alex Alexander wrote:
>
> I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
> until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
> action:
But as python-2.7 is installed into a new slot, python-2.6.x is kept, so
pyt
Ulrich Mueller writes:
> I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
> until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
> action:
But python-2.7 is installed in a new slot and python-2.6.x is not
removed. So. surely python-2.6.6-r1's pkg_postrm() should not
# Michael Sterrett (29 Nov 2010)
# No upstream, no real gameplay, crashes (bug #347199)
# Masked for removal on 20101229
games-sports/race
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Graham Murray wrote:
>> I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
>> until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
>> action:
> But python-2.7 is installed in a new slot and python-2.6.x is not
> removed. So. surely python-2.6.
Ulrich Mueller writes:
> But could pkg_postrm() of python-3.1.2-r4 have caused the update?
> It essentially executed the following code:
Yes, that is what is doing it. I am in the middle of an emerge -uD world
and I ran 'eselect python list' after 2.7.1 had been emerged and it
still showed 2.6 a
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:36:45PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Graham Murray wrote:
>
> >> I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
> >> until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
> >> action:
>
> > But python-2.7 is ins
Which basically means, it's time to simplify the eclass and start thinking how
the abi details could be handled language-independent by portage.
On Monday 29 November 2010 19:54:11 Graham Murray wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller writes:
>
> > But could pkg_postrm() of python-3.1.2-r4 have caused the upd
# Michael Sterrett (29 Nov 2010)
# Non-games-team addition that is too painful to maintain.
# Masked for removal on 20101229
games-simulation/secondlife-bin
On 11/29/10 18:33, Zac Medico wrote:
> You could also cancel it out, by checking the state in pkg_preinst and
> saving it in an environment variable so that you can restore it in
> pkg_postinst.
Could you show a mockup of that?
I'm not really sure how that would work.
Would it work for pkg_postrm
Howdy,
I'm trying to fix the clapack ebuild so it links against _c_blas, not blas.
(Which, as soon as it works, will remove the fortran dependency for e.g.
digikam...)
I have a 99.99% working ebuild [*]. It generates a perfectly fine libclapack,
with one small problem: the libclapack is missi
Il giorno lun, 29/11/2010 alle 22.57 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel ha
scritto:
>
> I have a personal suspicion, namely that libcblas.so is (on my
> system)
> actually (symlinked to) libgslcblas.so.0, and that maybe cmake reacts
> because
> the library filename is not equal its SONAME. Does this make
On 11/29/2010 01:14 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 11/29/10 18:33, Zac Medico wrote:
>> You could also cancel it out, by checking the state in pkg_preinst and
>> saving it in an environment variable so that you can restore it in
>> pkg_postinst.
>
> Could you show a mockup of that?
> I'm not re
40 matches
Mail list logo
