On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:01:15 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> Just a short note as it seems some confusion arises lately:
>>
>> Ciaran McCreesh is not a Gentoo dev and his words don't represent
>> the position of Gentoo development team.
>
>
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:39 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:10 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer
> > EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't
> > know them (for example, w
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 19:15 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> On 06/21/12 15:25, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
> >> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some m
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 11:27 +0200, Alec Warner escribió:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
> >> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> > Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked f
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:53:37 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Don't you see this way of handling things, with such and obscure way
> of getting things accepted for every EAPI is really hurting us?
What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
the problem is, how it will be solved
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
> the problem is
Part of enabling progress is to show a strong will to communicate,
with the goal of extracting common understanding from discussion.
In any project based on volunteer effort you must sho
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:53 +0200, Peter Stuge escribió:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
> > the problem is
>
> Part of enabling progress is to show a strong will to communicate,
> with the goal of extracting common understanding
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:24 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:53 +0200, Peter Stuge escribió:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what
> > > the problem is
> >
> > Part of enabling progress is to show a strong
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding
> (about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent
> issues like Tommy is suffering to get multilib stuff done), but I star
> to think Ciaran thinks
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:38:33 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:53:37 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Don't you see this way of handling things, with such and obscure way of
>> getting things accepted for every EAPI is really hurting us?
>
> What is hurting is people
Duncan posted on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 + as excerpted:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:38:33 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>
> 3) Given the above, it would be of /great/ benefit to your argument if
> either Zac or Brian (or preferably both) stepped up from time to time
> and said
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't
> endear you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject
> an argument simply because it comes from you.
Perhaps Gentoo should be doing mor
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding
> > (about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent
> > issues like Tommy is s
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't
>> endear you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject
>> an argument simpl
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:05:51 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml
>
> That shows how things can be done and how shouldn't be done, it's not
> casual that you are always involved in this kind of discussions,
Yes, because I'm p
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Making constructive suggestions instead of others that can be
> > easily interpreted as whims is the way to go.
>
> Uh huh, and that's what I've been doing the whole time when I've
> been asking for a patch for PMS, a GLEP etc.
..
> requests for a better description we'r
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote:
> WARN: postinst
> Please rebuild both libxcb and xcb-util if you are upgrading from version 1.6
>
I've read enough warnings like this (many packages use them) that it
occurred to me that perhaps there should be some better way of dealing
with this.
I rea
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:38:09 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> If you don't understand something of what thus far has been written,
> then why not ask specific questions to fill those gaps, and move on?
The multilib material isn't at the point where specific questions can be
asked. Brian's description o
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> bring this to the point where we can say something other than "huh?".
You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list
and asking for confirmation of your guess.
It sounds silly, but I realized that this actually happens all the
time offline - at least
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:40:02 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote:
> > WARN: postinst
> > Please rebuild both libxcb and xcb-util if you are upgrading from
> > version 1.6
> >
>
> I've read enough warnings like this (many packages use them) that it
> occurred to m
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > bring this to the point where we can say something other than
> > "huh?".
>
> You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list
> and asking for confirmation of your guess.
>
> It sounds silly, b
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:38:09 +0200
> Peter Stuge wrote:
> > If you don't understand something of what thus far has been written,
> > then why not ask specific questions to fill those gaps, and move on?
>
> The multilib material isn
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200
> Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > bring this to the point where we can say something other than
> > > "huh?".
> >
> > You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:11:28 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Looks like you have now opted to use Brian's comment as a kind of
> "shield" of similar and discuss only about multilib, even when this
> thread was more general and we were talking to the problems shown in
> recent discussions (from forcing
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:16:13 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> What we *also* need is to document this requirements to let people
> present that work directly instead of losing days figuring out what is
> needed or what not
The requirement is that the PMS team needs to be able to understand the
proposal
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 13:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:11:28 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Looks like you have now opted to use Brian's comment as a kind of
> > "shield" of similar and discuss only about multilib, even when this
> > thread was more general and we
Le dimanche 10 juin 2012 à 21:55 +0200, Sebastian Pipping a écrit :
> On 06/10/2012 05:54 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > For libraries, if possible, try splitting gtk2 and gtk3 support into
> > different slots (see net-libs/webkit-gtk for an example; the gtk2-based
> > versions have -r2xx revi
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:53:47 +0200
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le dimanche 10 juin 2012 à 21:55 +0200, Sebastian Pipping a écrit :
> > On 06/10/2012 05:54 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > > For libraries, if possible, try splitting gtk2 and gtk3 support
> > > into different slots (see net-li
Le lundi 11 juin 2012 à 19:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:41:37 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > No, your goal is to provide a distribution. Gentoo has repeatedly
> > > shot itself in the foot, leg, groin etc by favouring short-term
> > > hacks over a well thought out
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:02:41 +0200
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is,
> > and if you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then
> > not implementing it at all until you have suitable features.
>
> Sorry to make this old t
There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis users.
Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 14:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:02:41 +0200
> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is,
> > > and if you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then
> > > not implementing
Forgot to mention that, at least for webkit, this is really a case for
slots usage as this is the same software, built for another toolkit.
This applies to a couple other ebuilds in this gtk2/gtk3 discussion, but
admittedly not all of them.
We have at least three cases that Alexandre summed up:
*
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:33:47 +0200
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Well the problem is simple, we need to ship webkit with gtk2 and gtk3
> support. This is needed because gentoo has gtk2 based desktop/apps and
> because we want to ship gnome3 for example.
>
> Cool thing is that webkit supports bei
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
>
> Aside from being abusive, this screws things u
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
>> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
>> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
>> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gem
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
> >
> > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with
> > the same PV but different PVR have different slots?
> >
> > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200
On L, 2012-06-23 at 15:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
> > >
> > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with
> > > the same PV but different PVR have diff
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 14:40 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
>
> I'd like to know why using USE flags until a nicer solution is
> available
> is sufficiently terrible that it warrants a hackaround.
remember qt3/qt4, gtk/gtk2. We want to avoid repeating these "mistakes"
hence the guidelines al
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
> > >
> > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with
> > > the same PV but different PVR have
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:19:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 23:54:21 -0400
> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > For libraries, if possible, try splitting gtk2 and gtk3 support into
> > different slots (see net-libs/webkit-gtk for an example; the
> > gtk2-based versions have -r2x
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:51:01 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could
> understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution.
It's simple: abusing versions and slots invalidates what is otherwise
sensible logic. Thus in the long term
On 23.06.2012 15:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
>
> Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludi
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 16:45:09 +0200
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 14:40 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> > I'd like to know why using USE flags until a nicer solution is
> > available
> > is sufficiently terrible that it warrants a hackaround.
>
> remember qt3/qt4, gtk
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for
> > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's
> > a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest
> > version of that package, even
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin wrote:
> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
> others? Probably you better should.
Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" is.
> A
On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
>
> Aside from being abusive,
No, it solves a real problem.
> th
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> Justin wrote:
>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
>> others? Probably you better should.
>
> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
> knowing what versi
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
Justin wrote:
> On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> > Justin wrote:
> >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
> >> others? Probably you better should.
> >
> > Uh huh, and I think we
On 23.06.2012 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
> Justin wrote:
>> On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
>>> Justin wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
others? Probably y
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> Justin wrote:
>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
>> others? Probably you better should.
>
> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
> knowin
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 17:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
> Justin wrote:
> > On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> > > Justin wrote:
> > >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request f
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are
> doing.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1
"This means that counting goes as follows: 1.0 (initial version),
1.0-r1, 1.0-r2, etc."
It'
On 24 June 2012 05:16, Alec Warner wrote:
>>
>> That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so
>> there's no need to repeat it here.
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html#slot-d
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it
> with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have
been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700
> Alec Warner wrote:
>> I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are
>> doing.
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1
>
> "This means that count
Hi,
A number of package using cmake and qmake currently do something like this:
LANGS="en de fr"
for x in ${LANGS}; do
IUSE="${IUSE} linguas_${x}"
done
This is ugly, so for some time the loop has been included in qt4-r2, and
I'd also like to add it to cmake-utils.
As far as I can see
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:35:36 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> I don't think portage has the behavior that paludis does, so most
> users are not likely to experience this particular problem. You know
> as well as I that the marking isn't necessarily trivial.
But this time it is trivial. That's the point
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it
> > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
>
> Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with d
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
> > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
> > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to
> > bring in a newer GCC and so on.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 03:37:59 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> --- cmake-utils.eclass
> +++ cmake-utils.eclass
> @@ -20,0 +21,29 @@
> +# @ECLASS-VARIABLE: LANGS
Please prefix.
> +# @DEFAULT_UNSET
> +# @DESCRIPTION:
> +# In case your application provides various translations, use this
> variable
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the r
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat
> > > > "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:56:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> > > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being
> > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200.
>
> Did you look at SONAME?
Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly explain
how t
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being
> > > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200.
> >
> > Did you look at SONAME?
>
>
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:40:50 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:33:47 +0200
> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Well the problem is simple, we need to ship webkit with gtk2 and
> > gtk3 support. This is needed because gentoo has gtk2 based
> > desktop/apps and because we want t
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now
> > > > being used for something that is exactl
On Saturday 23 June 2012 13:37:59 Michael Palimaka wrote:
> +for x in ${LANGS}; do
> + IUSE+=" linguas_${x}"
> +done
if you don't want to make it into an array:
IUSE+=" $(printf 'linguas_%s ' ${LANGS})"
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:26:01 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > You could just have gtk2 and gtk3 use flags in the ebuild, use
> > REQUIRED_USE to ensure that at least one is enabled, and build
> > things twice in the ebuild if necessary.
>
> Ah, so because a few paludis users may be building an addit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/11/2012 07:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> No, your goal is to provide a distribution. Gentoo has repeatedly
> shot itself in the foot, leg, groin etc by favouring short-term
> hacks over a well thought out, validated, self-enforcing design.
> Ri
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:22:37 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > That's just it, though -- this no
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
>> > Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer h
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better"
> > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version
> > than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness
> > happens allows manglers to
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
> Alex Alexander wrote:
>> > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better"
>> > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version
>> > than 1.1-r300. Indicating package
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
> recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
> slot defined in the world file.
That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
> Alex Alexander wrote:
>> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
>> recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
>> slot defined in the world file
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:27:03 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
> > Alex Alexander wrote:
> >> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the
> >> most recent slot and/or version should
Guys,
that was a test. I didn't expect it to write "You will get this message once a
day until you've dealt with these" so don't take it too serious. I'm sorry about
that but i just saw that *a lot* of bugs have been changed from CONFIRMED to
IN_PROGRESS..
sorry.. but *that* is more than just wro
On 06/23/12 at 09:37PM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Guys,
>
> that was a test. I didn't expect it to write "You will get this message once a
> day until you've dealt with these" so don't take it too serious. I'm sorry
> about
> that but i just saw that *a lot* of bugs have been changed from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/23/2012 09:59 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Again: Don't take it too serious, if it helps to remind you that's
> fine but ignore anything else.
It'd be cool to exclude STABLEREQs, but I support the reminder
characteristic.
- --
Gentoo Dev
ht
On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> dependency
> > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
>
> No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis
> installs the newest versio
Michael Weber schrieb:
> On 06/23/2012 09:59 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> Again: Don't take it too serious, if it helps to remind you that's
>> fine but ignore anything else.
>
> It'd be cool to exclude STABLEREQs, but I support the reminder
> characteristic.
I think STABLEREQs should not be t
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
Marien Zwart wrote:
> On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> > dependency
> > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
> >
> > No, it's that if a user reque
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
>
> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3
> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2
> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a
> newer GCC and so
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:12:29 -0400 as excerpted:
> You can't fix it by beating people up.
Volunteers do it on their own terms... or don't do it. The outliers can
be moderated to some degree and thankfully the list isn't what it once
was, but get too strict and people simply
On 06/16/2012 02:56 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Meanwhile, one coming solution to this, in portage 2.2 anyway, is sets.
> Since I've been working with kde4 since it was overlay-only and sets-
> only, no meta-packages, I've been using sets for quite awhile and it's
> now entirely integrated into how I wo
On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
>>> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
>>> d
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM, hasufell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/11/2012 07:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> No, your goal is to provide a distribution. Gentoo has repeatedly
>> shot itself in the foot, leg, groin etc by favouring short-term
>> hacks ove
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:40:50 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:33:47 +0200
>> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> > Well the problem is simple, we need to ship webkit with gtk2 and
>> > gtk3 support. This is needed becau
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 14:40 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
>>
>> I'd like to know why using USE flags until a nicer solution is
>> available
>> is sufficiently terrible that it warrants a hackaround.
>
> remember qt3/qt4, gtk/gtk
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:56:58 viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> Meeting with bug: #409471 suggested that some ebuilds could benefit from
> expanding -march=native to the actual flags the compiler use.
i can't really see how. if packages can't handle certain flags, then fix
those.
so NAK on adding
93 matches
Mail list logo
