Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Michał Górny
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: > On 09/14/2012 05:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400 > > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: > > > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciara

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Sergei Trofimovich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > In my opinion, the text "# @DESCRIPTION" in an eclass is more than > enough for readability, and setting DESCRIPTION only serves to > contaminate the environment. The is especially true for the following > eclasses that set the DESCRIPTION from the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

2012-09-15 Thread Kent Fredric
On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring wrote: >> All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and >> populate *DEPEND , and the underlying guts could be done in >> practically any language without requiring PM specific >> implementations. > > You've got it inverted; if any auto

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Kent Fredric
On 15 September 2012 08:51, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > ozzie eclass # grep 'DESCRIPTION="Based on the ' *.eclass > cannadic.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass" > confutils.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass" > embassy.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS ecla

[gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Duncan
Kent Fredric posted on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:52:16 +1200 as excerpted: > If the usecase for this is "Sometimes people will want to write an > ebuild and not provide a description at all, and don't care that its not > useful", > then it shoudn't be supported by a nasty hack in the parent eclass, > Po

[gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Duncan
Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 as excerpted: > If anyone wants to explain to me why that DESCRIPTION line is so > critical that it must exist yet not important enough to put something > worthwhile in I'm all ears. Until that point I'll probably keep bringing >

[gentoo-dev] tla.eclass

2012-09-15 Thread Ulrich Mueller
Not used by any ebuild in the tree, and dev-util/tla was removed four years ago. Remove? Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Zac Medico
On 09/15/2012 08:06 AM, Duncan wrote: > Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 as > excerpted: > >> If anyone wants to explain to me why that DESCRIPTION line is so >> critical that it must exist yet not important enough to put something >> worthwhile in I'm all ears.

Re: [gentoo-dev] tla.eclass

2012-09-15 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:44:06 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Not used by any ebuild in the tree, and dev-util/tla was removed four > years ago. > > Remove? Yes, please. However, it should be moved to Sunrise; there's one ebuild using it there. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Desc

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/15/2012 03:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: > >> On 09/14/2012 05:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400 >>> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

2012-09-15 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:06:01PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring wrote: > >> All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and > >> populate *DEPEND , and the underlying guts could be done in > >> practically any language without requiring P

Re: [gentoo-dev] doheader function for EAPI 5?

2012-09-15 Thread Zac Medico
On 08/31/2012 01:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Hi all, > > A new "doheader" (and "newheader") helper function is on our list of > possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just > copy the code from doconfd or doenvd. > > However, this function was suggested in Bug 21310 [1] w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

2012-09-15 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:33:18 -0700 Brian Harring wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:06:01PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring > > wrote: > > >> All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and > > >> populate *DEPEND , and the underlying g

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog profiles.desc

2012-09-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 11 September 2012 14:06:30 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:11 + (UTC) Mike Frysinger wrote: > > vapier 12/08/28 00:23:11 > > > > Modified: ChangeLog profiles.desc > > Log: > > add new s390x profile #345421 > > [...] > > > @@ -152,7 +153,7 @

[gentoo-dev] example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies

2012-09-15 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:03:36AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:33:18 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: > > To demonstrate the gain of this, we basically take the existing > > tree's deps, and re-render it into a unified DEPENDENCIES form. > > But in order to do this, we first

Re: [gentoo-dev] example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies

2012-09-15 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 15/09/2012 18:20, Brian Harring wrote: > Herds, if you want to see what your pkgs would look like, look at > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies-example/herds/ . Ruby team could make use of a dep:test and automatic conversion of that :P -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flam

[gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

2012-09-15 Thread Duncan
Zac Medico posted on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:01:49 -0700 as excerpted: > I've gone ahead and removed them. I can't imagine that it will break > anything. After the change, all of the ebuilds still have non-empty > DESCRIPTION metadata. "And there was much rejoicing in gentoo-land!" =:^) -- Duncan -