On 7/04/2013 04:22, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 6 April 2013 19:08, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
...
What are your thoughts?
Maybe it is time to setup a patch tracking system like Debian[1]?
Sometimes it is really hard to understand what patches are applied by
an ebuild (especially when all the
On 7/04/2013 16:53, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
On 06.04.2013 20:08, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
As far as I'm aware, we don't really have much of a patch maintenance
policy in Gentoo. There a few loose rules like «don't put awfully big
files into FILESDIR» or the common sense «use unified diff», but
On 7/04/2013 07:01, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:08:43PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
The above-listed policy will apply to the patches kept in the gx86 tree
(in FILESDIRs) and patch archives created by Gentoo developers. They
will not apply to the patch archives created upst
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:50:46 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Following the introduction of header wrapping in autotools-multilib,
> I'm submitting two patches: one providing a public API for it
> in multilib-build, and the other one using it in multilib-minimal. Both
> patches will be sent in reply to
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:36:36AM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 7/04/2013 07:01, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:08:43PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> The above-listed policy will apply to the patches kept in the gx86 tree
> >> (in FILESDIRs) and patch archives creat
All,
We have continued support for baselayout-1 to baselayout-2/OpenRc
migration for almost two years now, so I think it is about time we kill
this off.
Here is the news item I want to send out on 10 Apr.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
William
Title: baselayout-1.x deprecation final warn
On 07/04/13 03:36 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> According to Gentoo policy, the support for migration from baselayout-1
> to baselayout-2 could end on 28 Jun 2012, a year after OpenRc became
> stable.
"could end" sounds a bit awkward. Try "was slated to end" or perhaps
"could have ended".
Be more co
On 2013.04.07 20:36, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> We have continued support for baselayout-1 to baselayout-2/OpenRc
> migration for almost two years now, so I think it is about time we
> kill
> this off.
>
> Here is the news item I want to send out on 10 Apr.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
Notably, NetworkManager generates old-style net files.
On 07/04/13 04:13 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2013.04.07 20:36, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We have continued support for baselayout-1 to baselayout-2/OpenRc
>> migration for almost two years now, so I think it is about time we
>> kill
I will be adding these versions to the tree over the next few days,
initially masked. The 2.7 and 3.2 bumps should be nothing major, but
better safe then sorry. Please give them a try if you have time. We
should be able to unmask these pretty quickly.
One question for the community: Does anyone ha
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
> On 07/04/13 04:13 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2013.04.07 20:36, William Hubbs wrote:
> > If you do not upgrade your systems to openrc-0.11.8 before it leaves
> > the tree, you may need to reinstall them.
> >
> >
> > I think you mean
>
Hello All,
After recent changes in dev-lang/v8 and related ebuilds, the pax-mark call no
longer has a || die. This means that the resulting binaries may have PT_PAX,
XATTR_PAX, both or neither markings depending on kernel configuration,
filesystem and mount options.
I'd say that is not a good thi
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> After recent changes in dev-lang/v8 and related ebuilds, the pax-mark call no
> longer has a || die. This means that the resulting binaries may have PT_PAX,
> XATTR_PAX, both or neither markings depending on kerne
All,
here is the second draft. I am including updates from this thread as
well as a couple of my own.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
William
Title: baselayout-1.x deprecation final warning
Author: William Hubbs
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-04-10
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 04:06:40PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> That's why I said "may". I haven't attempted that migration manually, so
> I don't know how easy or difficult it would be. You may be able to do
> that, but you will be basically on your own to figure it out.
I did it on a really old
(apologies to those who got this twice - my MUA used a from address
that the list likely rejected instead of using the correct one which I
actually did select - Google needs to fix their GMail Android app)
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> We have continued support for base
On 04/07/2013 05:20 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
Hello All,
After recent changes in dev-lang/v8 and related ebuilds, the pax-mark call no
longer has a || die. This means that the resulting binaries may have PT_PAX,
XATTR_PAX, both
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:08:41 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> I can try to get the user.pax on tmpfs patch into the Linux tree. At
> the very least, we can get it into gentoo-sources.
What does this patch do? I haven't been following this discussion;
also, please CC ker...@gentoo.org when you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/04/13 10:33 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:18:22 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Revbump -- very important in this case, as the slot-operator dep
>> (iirc) does not take effect to allow sub-slot-triggered until
>
On 04/07/2013 07:01 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:08:41 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
I can try to get the user.pax on tmpfs patch into the Linux tree. At
the very least, we can get it into gentoo-sources.
What does this patch do? I haven't been following this discussion;
a
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2013-04-07 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
kde-misc/print-manager 2013-04-01 14:00:36
kensington
dev-python/pyutp2013-04-07 09:08:13
ssu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/04/13 11:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I concurr. Plus it was decided a couple of months back that everyone
should revbump or version bump when migrating to EAPI5 (if not all
future EAPIs).
The main issue, as I recall, with libpng system u
Dear Mike,
Mike Gilbert writes:
> This seems like a good opportunity to add slot operator deps and
> remove some prefix workarounds. We can keep an old ebuild around to
> facilitate upgrades if we need to.
What kind of prefix workaround are you referring to?
This reminds me that Prefix team is
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:14 PM, heroxbd wrote:
> Dear Mike,
>
> Mike Gilbert writes:
>
>> This seems like a good opportunity to add slot operator deps and
>> remove some prefix workarounds. We can keep an old ebuild around to
>> facilitate upgrades if we need to.
>
> What kind of prefix workaroun
24 matches
Mail list logo
