On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:55:16 +0200
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le samedi 08 septembre 2012 à 20:29 +0200, Michał Górny a écrit :
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 10:37:49 -0700
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >
> > > i'm surprised this hasn't happened already. currently at 18 users
> > > (and i'm adding
> test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are only
> needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively ephemeral
> build/run time depends that go away once testing is completed.
Does that mean that USE=test is going away somehow?
Also, could you please stop spreading FUD wit
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are only
> > needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively ephemeral
> > build/run time depends that go away once testing is completed.
>
> Does that mean that USE=
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 02:35:42PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:45:22AM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>
> > > Almost all affected packages can be bumped straight to 4 anyway and
> > > so use the improved syntax.
>
> toolchain_src_compile: EAPI=0: count: 38
>
> I'm not
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
>> Also, could you please stop spreading FUD with your examples?
> It's not FUD; it's rendered deps, and a demonstration of how they
> collapse down naturally on their own regardless
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:48:16AM +0200, hasufell wrote:
> I am unsure if that does or could solve the problem why GLEP 62 was
> created, meaning... would enabling the "foo" useflag after the package
> has been emerged trigger a remerge in the following example?
>
> DEPENDENCIES="
> dep:run
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:24:26 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are
> > > only needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively
> > > ephemeral build/run time depends tha
Il 18/09/2012 11:38, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
Which is longer than the original.;-)
Ulrich
RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 app-arch/xz-utils"
DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig"
DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
app-arch/xz-utils" dep:build?(v
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:04:51AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> A potential dev-libs/dep package
I assume this is a hypothetical package; if this is something out of
your personal eapi/repo, please state so.
> might have valid use case for USE flags related to USE_EXPAND=
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, vivo75@gmail com wrote:
> Il 18/09/2012 11:38, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
>> Which is longer than the original.;-)
> RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 app-arch/xz-utils"
> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig"
> DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:47:42AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:24:26 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > > test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are
> > > > only needed for when th
Use bugzilla's search for 'mediatomb' and you will find multiple counts
of build failures the media-video@ herd is simply not capable of
handling due to lack of resources (manpower)
So if nobody steps up, I've CCd treecleaners at bug 423991, the package
shall be removed
- Samuli
On 18/09/12 13:44, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Use bugzilla's search for 'mediatomb' and you will find multiple counts
of build failures the media-video@ herd is simply not capable of
handling due to lack of resources (manpower)
So if nobody steps up, I've CCd treecleaners at bug 423991, the package
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Use bugzilla's search for 'mediatomb' and you will find multiple counts of
> build failures the media-video@ herd is simply not capable of handling due
> to lack of resources (manpower)
>
> So if nobody steps up, I've CCd treecleaners at bu
On 18/09/12 13:55, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Use bugzilla's search for 'mediatomb' and you will find multiple counts of
build failures the media-video@ herd is simply not capable of handling due
to lack of resources (manpower)
So if nobody steps
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38:50AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> >> Also, could you please stop spreading FUD with your examples?
>
> > It's not FUD; it's rendered deps, and a
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
>>
>> > """
>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
>> > app-arch/xz-utils"
>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
>> > virtual/pkgconfig"
>> > """
>>
>> > becomes the follow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/09/12 07:49 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Or, using your example:
>>
>> :build,run? (
>>
>>
>> ruby:targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 ) ruby:targets_ree18? (
>> dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 ) ) :run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )
>>
Just a minor poin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/09/12 12:05 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:39:49PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> There's also the issue of what negations do at the top level...
>
> Yeah, I did skimp on that one; technically speaking, negations
> are
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:28:07 -0400
"G.Wolfe Woodbury" wrote:
> Gentoo Bugzill # 435334 submitted and all available information
> attached.
That is indeed what a bug tracker is for. This mailing list is not.
jer
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how
> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going
> to help us. They fit just fine into build-time dependencies right now.
It would enable us to consid
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how
>> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going
>> to help us. They fit just fine into bu
On 9/18/12 7:07 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how
>> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going
>> to help us. They fit just fine into build-time depende
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
>
>>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
>>>
>>> > """
>>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
>>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
>>> > app-arch/xz-utils"
>>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
>>>
On 09/18/2012 03:35 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, vivo75@gmail com wrote:
>
>> Il 18/09/2012 11:38, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto:
>>> Which is longer than the original.;-)
>
>> RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 app-arch/xz-utils"
>> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} vir
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This
> is what I would like to do for the
On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
>> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
>> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
> >> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${R
On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
it's
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:18:31 +
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> >>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
> >>>
> >>> > """
> >>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
> >>> > >=app-arch
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> >>> Zac Medico wrote:
> Also, if
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
> discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.
Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 09/18/2012 01:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:2
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
> > discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.
>
> Perhaps you should read the GLEP th
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact
> > > problem discussed which is solved by this sy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/09/12 04:11 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200 Michał Górny
> wrote:
>> So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact
>> problem discussed which is solved by this syntax other than
>> cosmetics.
>
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:27:17 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > So far, I'm not sure if there was a
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > > Zac Medico wrote:
> > >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAP
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > > > Zac Medico wr
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:53:55 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > > Zac Medico wrote:
> > > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCrees
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND
> since they introduce conflicts?
You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency resolution
works: currently, cycles consisting purely of RDEPENDs are ignorabl
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND
> > since they introduce conflicts?
>
> You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency
> reso
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND
> > > since they introduce conflicts?
> >
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > But didn't we already point out that
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
>
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> 1) 746 hits in the tree for COMMON_DEPEND; that's 2%, and the usages
> I'm aware of have been for literally, what it sounds like- depends
> that are both DEPEND and RDEPEND.
CDEPEND is pretty common as well. I could 466 files with CDEPEND.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:53:09AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:19 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
> > Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:3
Le mardi 18 septembre 2012 à 10:05 +0200, Michał Górny a écrit :
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:55:16 +0200
> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>
> > Le samedi 08 septembre 2012 à 20:29 +0200, Michał Górny a écrit :
> > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 10:37:49 -0700
> > > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >
> > > > i'm surp
On 18/09/2012 16:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Let me just say that as a user, concerning this technology aggregate, I
> really don't care, it has to "just work" :). Now if you gather enough
> momentum to split this flag and make other people on this list agree
> with you, I'll be just fine wi
On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the
>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would
>> outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing v
On 19 September 2012 04:40, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:27:17 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
>> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
>> > > Micha
On 16 September 2012 21:15, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:39:22PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Thanks. I have given it a quick overview for the qt herd. I still
>> don't see what using DEPENDENCIES adds to what we do now with separate
>> *DEPEND variables. I see no convincing
On Monday 17 September 2012 08:22:50 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:06:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2012 11:01:00 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > also, you are missing some bug # for the 'broken deps' part.
> > > packages that have gained broken deps when th
On Monday 17 September 2012 10:57:50 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> net-misc/wget/wget-1.14.ebuild: ~amd64-fbsd(default/bsd/fbsd/amd64/9.0)
> ['sys-apps/util-linux']
>
> bumped by you, earlier, probably when you made your local change.
> util-_linux_
except it isn't linux specific. if you follow upstre
On Sunday 16 September 2012 22:41:14 Brian Harring wrote:
> Sans the implementation details, anyone got complaints with the
> intent?
sounds like no, so i'll probably pound something out once i finish perf :p
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
were you going to post an updated version for merging ?
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the
>>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Matt Turner wrote:
> From the other thread ("example conversion of gentoo-x86 current
> deps to unified dependencies"):
[Sorry, I've missed this one in the other thread, so replying here.]
>> 4) It is not exherbo's DEPENDENCIES. Meaning it is not label based.
>> Meanin
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> From the other thread ("example conversion of gentoo-x86 current
>> deps to unified dependencies"):
>
> [Sorry, I've missed this one in the other thread, so replying here.]
>
>>> 4) It is no
60 matches
Mail list logo
