Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 21:34:10
Alexandre Rostovtsev napisał(a):
> On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 22:56 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic deps
> > are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're using
> > half-working implementa
On 07/24/2014 02:22 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> gentoo-x86 has been converted to use virtual/libgudev. big thanks to
> _AxS_ who helped me to
> get it finally done.
>
> that means we will be removing compability USE flags "gudev
> introspection" from virtual/udev
> tomorrow'ish (only waiting fo
El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 23:56 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
> Useless triggers are the problem; why are the rev bumps needed, why are
> dependencies forgotten, ...? Sounds like a developer work flow issue...
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499852
>
There are lots of cases of up
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:15:01 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> ...but by introducing all the additional complications Ian has
>> mentioned. More precisely: What happens if new dependencies are
>> introduced which are not satisfied?
>
El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 00:06 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
> > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
> > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
> > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the
> > installed files (for example, -r
El mié, 23-07-2014 a las 14:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
> > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
> > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and
On 25/07/14 11:07, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 07/24/2014 02:22 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> gentoo-x86 has been converted to use virtual/libgudev. big thanks to
>> _AxS_ who helped me to
>> get it finally done.
>>
>> that means we will be removing compability USE flags "gudev
>> introspection"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would be
>> asking for trouble, imo.
>
> This entire sub thread reads like a dynam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 05:38 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 25/07/14 11:07, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> On 07/24/2014 02:22 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> gentoo-x86 has been converted to use virtual/libgudev. big
>>> thanks to _AxS_ who helped me to get it
Ian Stakenvicius:
> Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited)
> profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make
> whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. So
> realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work out a
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:09:55 +
hasufell wrote:
> Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps
> support (or similar) should:
> * write a PMS patch and get it merged
> * join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of
> yelling at them
That's not really helpfu
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread
> - a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
Wrong. The reason everything is such a mess at the moment is precisely
because we've accumulated so much "good en
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 10:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
>> wrote:
>
>>> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would
>>> be asking for trouble
Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:09:55 +
> hasufell wrote:
>> Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps
>> support (or similar) should:
>> * write a PMS patch and get it merged
>> * join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of
>> yelling at them
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:58 +
hasufell wrote:
> > That's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be
> > fixed. Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an
> > idea on how to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they
> > understand why it's wrong...
>
> I
Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:58 +
> hasufell wrote:
>>> That's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be
>>> fixed. Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an
>>> idea on how to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they
>>> understand why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 17:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The reason everything is such a mess at the moment is precisely
> because we've accumulated so much "good enough" and "not thinking
> your cunning plan all the way through" that nothing is actually
> corre
> > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
> > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
> > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the
> > installed files (for example, -r1.1)
> >
> > But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "tech
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
>>> Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: -
>>> One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) - The
>>> other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 01:36 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
- One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) -
The other one wo
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread
>> - a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
>
> Wrong. The reason everything is such a mess at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey all.. So, putting aside for now how much of a mess this would be
to implement in the virtuals' ebuilds themselves, what do people think
of changing the virtuals so that they contain an entry in IUSE for
each provider that can satisfy it?
The id
I guess that would solve some of the issues we've had with virtuals in
the past. I support the idea, however, I'm not sure of the technical
consequences it might have.
I would leave the REQUIRED_USE out. It's a hassle to write, and if an
user decides to set multiple use flags on such a virtual, wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 03:04 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> I guess that would solve some of the issues we've had with virtuals
> in the past. I support the idea, however, I'm not sure of the
> technical consequences it might have.
>
> I would leave the REQUIRED_USE
Hello
With last gnome maintained packages stabilization round I noticed some
pending stabilizations/keywordings for really a long time waiting for
ppc* teams. For example:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470768 -> it's waiting for more
than a year and it's blocking from dropping old versio
On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to
do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and
drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished
in a week by other developers willing to help
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:47 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> This is something that should only be done on a case-by-case basis, as
> needed -- for instance, with virtual/krb5 only one provider can be
> installed at a time as they block eachother.
>
> We could leave it up to portage to error on
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200
Luis Ressel wrote:
> Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the blocker deps or the
> REQUIRED_USE would be more helpful for Portage, but generally I think
> that the REQUIRED_USE error message is quite hard to understand for
> unexperienced users -- much
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 03:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200 Luis Ressel
> wrote:
>> Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the blocker deps or
>> the REQUIRED_USE would be more helpful for Portage, but generally
>> I thi
El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to
> > do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and
> > drop stable for most of the rest. This b
El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 20:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200
> Luis Ressel wrote:
> > Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the blocker deps or the
> > REQUIRED_USE would be more helpful for Portage, but generally I think
> > that the REQUIRED_USE er
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 03:51 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 20:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200 Luis Ressel
>> wrote:
>>> Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the blocker deps
>>> or the REQU
On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to
do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and
drop stable
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to
>
El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:54 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
> On 25/07/14 03:51 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 20:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200 Luis Ressel
> >> wrote:
> >>> Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the bl
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:12:53 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Ah, ok, I was wondering why REQUIRED_USE was implemented then :/, I
> guess it was for simplifying ebuilds?
It was a historical mistake: originally we were going to use
pkg_pretend for this. But claims were made that this would break some
my
Dnia 2014-07-25, o godz. 14:49:44
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
> +REQUIRED_USE="heimdal? ( !mit-krb5 )
> + mit-krb5? ( !heimdal )"
Did you mean:
REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( heimdal mit-krb5 )"
?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 04:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-07-25, o godz. 14:49:44 Ian Stakenvicius
> napisał(a):
>
>> +REQUIRED_USE="heimdal? ( !mit-krb5 ) + mit-krb5? (
>> !heimdal )"
>
> Did you mean:
>
> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( heimdal mit-krb5 )
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 04:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:54 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
>> On 25/07/14 03:51 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 20:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh
>>> escribió:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 2
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 25/07/14 03:51 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 20:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200 Luis Ressel
> >> wrote:
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:13:18 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> REQUIRED_USE came first, pkg_pretend came later, iirc. In theory,
> REQUIRED_USE could have made a nice interactive way to resolve use
> conflicts, it just never did.
Nope. pkg_pretend came first, and had an implemented and user-tested
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:23:23 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> I think this could get complicated really quick though.
> For example, if I have an ebuild with three use flags,
> flag1/flag2/flag3 with the requirement that one and only one of them
> must be set, unless bash has an xor operator I don't k
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:25:57PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:23:23 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > I think this could get complicated really quick though.
> > For example, if I have an ebuild with three use flags,
> > flag1/flag2/flag3 with the requirement that one an
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:46:07 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:25:57PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:23:23 -0500
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > I think this could get complicated really quick though.
> > > For example, if I have an ebuild with thre
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:14:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 09:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:21:00 +1000
> > Michael Palimaka wrote:
> >
> >> What a great way to kill the distro.
> >>
> >> I can already heat my house with the number of unnecessary rebuilds
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:44:34 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> How long have dynamic-deps been around? Since EAPI-0? Because if
> so, that interpretation must be incorrect, since EAPI-0 was defined
> as portage behavior at the time, and AFAIK, no EAPI since then has
> been appro
On Wednesday 23 July 2014 01:06:15 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300
>
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> > > And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps
> > > don't work at all on binpkgs since the Package
Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 26 Jul 2014 00:09:58 +0200 as excerpted:
> EAPI specifies what PMs need to conform to, not the other way around;
> EAPI-0 may very well be derived from Portage, that doesn't make such
> side features that have not been specified in EAPI-0 a part of EAPI-0.
Not being aro
48 matches
Mail list logo
