On 04/26/2012 11:48 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 11:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote:
>>> On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful
feature, as soon as possibl
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:21:36 +0200
> Corentin Chary wrote:
>
>> Second solution:
>> github http://cloud.github.com/downloads
>> github-bad-uris -http://github.com/downloads/
> -https://github.com/downloads/
>>
>> The good thing with the first
On 04/27/12 00:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
* two new files in profile directories supported, package.use.stable.mask and
package.use.stable.force
* syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
* meaning is identical
Hi,
I'd like to add attached license to portage/licenses/. Any objections?
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
yEd
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:23, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:00:04 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> Er, some of my teenage systems run desktops just fine here, thanks. And
>> one of them is just nine years old right now but still doesn't support
>> SSE2 (merely SSE[1]).
>
> I knew I'd
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:03:54 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> * two new files in profile directories supported,
> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.f
This license would go to EULA group. Is this correct?
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
>> * two new files in profile directories supported,
>> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
>> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
>> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force,
>> except that the resulting
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:06:38 +0200
Corentin Chary wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:21:36 +0200
> > Corentin Chary wrote:
> >
> >> Second solution:
> >> github http://cloud.github.com/downloads
> >> github-bad-uris -http://github.com/down
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:19:04 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:06:45 -0300
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:15:34 -0400
> > Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Christian Ruppert
> > > wrote:
> > > > I haven't followed the prev. conv
Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:30:32 +0200 as excerpted:
> This license would go to EULA group. Is this correct?
That appears to be correct to me, yes.
No distribution allowed. You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
correct?
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTM
Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
> No distribution allowed. You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
> correct?
Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
>>> * two new files in profile directories supported,
>>> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
>>> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
>>> * meaning is identical to
Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:41:21 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 04/26/2012 03:08 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:21:02 -0700 as excerpted:
>>> Also, don't forget to consider the possibility of interference between
>>> FEATURES=userpatch and epatch_user (applyi
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:15:35 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:41:21 -0700 as excerpted:
>
> > On 04/26/2012 03:08 PM, Duncan wrote:
> >> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:21:02 -0700 as excerpted:
> >>> Also, don't forget to consid
Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:45:36 +0200 as excerpted:
> Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
>> No distribution allowed. You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
>> correct?
>
> Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.
That works. RES
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:15:35 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> In ordered to make it globally available, it cannot simply be an
> EAPI-5 thing, it must apply to all current ebuilds whether they (or
> an inherited eclass) call epatch_user or not. Which means that
> conflict with th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/04/12 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful feature,
> as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
>
> * two new files in profile directories supporte
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
> Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
>> No distribution allowed. You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
>> correct?
>
> Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.
>
I don't see much point in using
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:26:07PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:45:36 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
> >> No distribution allowed. You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
> >> correct?
> >
> > Wh
William Hubbs posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:34:05 -0500 as excerpted:
> Restrict=fetch is used when a user has to go to a web site and register
> or accept a license on the web site before they download the file the
> way I understand it.
Thanks. I thought restrict=fetch was for when a website a
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> I agree that the ~arch ebuilds should be tested in the same
> configuration in which they will end up in arch. However in this case,
> the possible configurations for arch are a subset of those in ~arch, so
> the testing covers
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Tho FWIW I think restrict=fetch applies to stuff like cd/dvd-based game
> data as well, where the agreement is on the cd not a website, but still
> requires specific click-thru.
I think the real determiner should almost alway
On 04/27/2012 06:49 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
* two new files in profile directories supported,
package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
* syntax is identical to package.use.mas
Excerpts from William Hubbs's message of 2012-04-27 16:34:05 +0200:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:26:07PM +, Duncan wrote:
> > Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:45:36 +0200 as
> > excerpted:
> >
> > > Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
> > >> No distribu
> I'd like to add attached license to portage/licenses/. Any objections?
Because there seem to be no objection wrt license itself, I've just
committed it. I'll wait with adding ebuild until we get some consensus
wrt RESTRICT=fetch/mirror.
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On 04/27/2012 07:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:15:35 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In ordered to make it globally available, it cannot simply be an
>> EAPI-5 thing, it must apply to all current ebuilds whether they (or
>> an inherited eclass) call ep
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:41:35 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > In order to make it globally available, you put it in EAPI 5, and
> > make the package mangler die at pretend time if the user has patches
> > specified for a package that isn't EAPI 5.
>
> Or, have repoman assert that src_prepare contains
On 04/27/2012 08:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:41:35 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> In order to make it globally available, you put it in EAPI 5, and
>>> make the package mangler die at pretend time if the user has patches
>>> specified for a package that isn't EAPI 5.
>>
>
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:55:49 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> I suppose that we could do it both ways. The repoman check would be
> for people who want a practical approach that doesn't require all
> ebuilds to be converted to EAPI 5, and your strict die approach would
> be for people who want strictness
On 04/27/2012 09:00 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:55:49 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> I suppose that we could do it both ways. The repoman check would be
>> for people who want a practical approach that doesn't require all
>> ebuilds to be converted to EAPI 5, and your strict
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:08:06 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > But there's no way the repoman check is going to give anything like
> > reliable answers if you're involving eclasses...
>
> Okay, so people who need "reliable answers" can go with your strict
> approach. Meanwhile, it's relatively easy to
On 04/27/2012 09:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:08:06 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> But there's no way the repoman check is going to give anything like
>>> reliable answers if you're involving eclasses...
>>
>> Okay, so people who need "reliable answers" can go with your st
On 27/04/12 17:15, Duncan wrote:
Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:41:21 -0700 as excerpted:
Having the package manager interact with an eclass function like
epatch_user is ugly, and it's unnecessary since we can pull all of the
pieces into the package manager in EAPI 5. Any eclasses that
On 04/27/2012 07:20 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> We could finally decide it'll be a Portage internal feature, and modify
> epatch_user() to export some Portage-specific indication that user
> patches were applied.
Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a feature,
I think it's wo
Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote
access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if
it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default
(commented out) definition of the serial consoles is a bit more.. modern.
The current definitio
On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:
Hi all,
Gentoostats[0] is a GSoC 2011 project to collect package statistics from gentoo
machines. Please check it out. Bug reports and feature suggestions are welcome.
To submit your stats, use the app-portage/gentoostats ebuild from betagarden
overlay[1].
[0
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
>
> And this is probably the case when user has to accept a license on the
> website. This is URL for zip archive of yEd-3.9.1:
>
> http://www.yworks.com/en/products_download.php?file=yEd-3.9.1.zip
>
> It directs to website with license
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:29:54AM -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote
> access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if
> it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default
> (commented out) defi
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 17:26:48 schrieb Zac Medico:
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but what would happen when the newest
> > version of a package is marked stable? The masked USE flags would
> > become unavailable for everyone?
>
> In order to be practical, I guess we'd have to add a con
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 13:35:21 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> >> * two new files in profile directories supported,
> >> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
> >> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
> >> * meaning is
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
> Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
> feature, I think it's worth the wait roll it into EAPI 5 and have a
> clean solution that doesn't rely on package manager interaction with
> eclasses. If we quickly draft an EAPI 5 spec,
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 16:31:10 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
> > Where this would (have been|be) useful: * we had for a long time
> > different revisions of subversion with/without kde useflag *
> > cups-1.4 had the infamous libusb backend triggered by USE=usb *
> > cups-1.5 has optional systemd
On 27/04/12 20:38, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
And this is probably the case when user has to accept a license on the
website. This is URL for zip archive of yEd-3.9.1:
http://www.yworks.com/en/products_download.php?file=yEd-3.9.1.zip
It
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 11:30:57 schrieb Michael Haubenwallner:
> On 04/27/12 00:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
> > * two new files in profile directories supported, package.use.stable.mask
> > and package.use.stable.force
> > * synt
On 04/27/2012 11:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
>> feature, I think it's worth the wait roll it into EAPI 5 and have a
>> clean solution that doesn't rely on package manager interaction
On 04/27/2012 07:29 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote
> access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if
> it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default
> (commented out) definition of the seri
On 04/27/12 at 10:29AM -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote
> access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if
> it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default
> (commented out) definition of th
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
>> feature, I think it's worth the wait roll it into EAPI 5 and have a
>> clean solution that doesn't rely on package manager in
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Gentoostats[0] is a GSoC 2011 project to collect package statistics from
>> gentoo
>> machines. Please check it out. Bug reports and feature suggestions are
>> welcome.
>>
>> To subm
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:01:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> > Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
> > feature, I think it's worth the wait roll it into EAPI 5 and have a
> > clean solution that doesn't rely on package man
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Didn't the user already accept the license by putting it in ACCEPT_LICENSE?
> If not, portage will not download it.
>
Well, I'd argue that it is impossible to "accept a license" in the
first place. It is possible to agree to a contract
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/27/2012 11:26 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> In order to be practical, I guess we'd have to add a constraint
> which says that if KEYWORDS contains the stable variant of a
> particular keyword, then it should also be considered to implicitly
> contain
On 04/27/2012 11:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:01:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>>> Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
>>> feature, I think it's worth the wait roll it into EAPI 5 and have a
>
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:01:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Since we've managed to survive up to this point without such a
> > feature, I think it's worth the wait roll it into EAPI 5 and have a
> > clean solution that doesn't rely on package manager interaction with
> > eclasses. If we quickly d
On 04/27/2012 12:25 PM, Jonathan Callen wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 11:26 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> In order to be practical, I guess we'd have to add a constraint
>> which says that if KEYWORDS contains the stable variant of a
>> particular keyword, then it should also be considered to implicitly
>> con
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Did I get it right, you are thinking about a special EAPI only for
>> user patches? I'd say that the feature is not important enough to
>> justify that.
> Didn't we have a few other cheap things lined up?
Yes we do, and IMHO it would make much
Zac Medico wrote:
So, here's a description of the whole algorithm that I'd use:
> [snip]
I think the following is equivalent, but simpler and more general since
it doesn't have to mention details like ** and friends that aren't
currently in PMS, and doesn't assume that the rule for handling K
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:43:06 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> >> Did I get it right, you are thinking about a special EAPI only for
> >> user patches? I'd say that the feature is not important enough to
> >> justify that.
>
> > Didn't we have a
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:58:24 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include
> anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of
> candidates for EAPI 5?
Let's continue this on the PMS list.
* user patches
* EAPI parsing
* the things t
We have had a talk about yEd on #gentoo-dev which is worth attaching
here:
<@ulm> aidecoe: I suspect that yEd is in violation of the GPL :/
<@ulm> their package zip file includes JavaHelp classes but no source code
for them
<@ulm> and I also don't see it at their site
<@ulm> neither do th
On 04/27/2012 12:57 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> So, here's a description of the whole algorithm that I'd use:
>> [snip]
>
> I think the following is equivalent, but simpler and more general since
> it doesn't have to mention details like ** and friends that aren't
> currently
Zac Medico wrote:
> Steven J Long wrote:
>> It seems there's two major cases, with autotools or without. In either
>> case, epatch_user should be called after Gentoo patches have been
>> applied.
>>
>> Why not make epatch_user set a variable to indicate that patches have
>> been applied, and only
On 04/28/12 01:29, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote
> access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if
> it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default
> (commented out) definition of the serial co
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2012 02:26:19 Steven J Long wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > Paul Varner wrote:
>> >> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> >> > Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced
>> >> > by USE flags in metadata.xml for several years now.
>>
Nikos Chantziaras posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:55:12 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 27/04/12 17:15, Duncan wrote:
>> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:41:21 -0700 as excerpted:
>>> Having the package manager interact with an eclass function like
>>> epatch_user is ugly, and it's unnecessary sinc
66 matches
Mail list logo
