[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: USE flags in virtuals, to allow a specific provider to be determined

2014-07-26 Thread Jonathan Callen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/25/2014 05:23 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > 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 +01

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Taahir Ahmed
It seems like a simple before/after comparison of active useflags and the text of the src_* functions (skipping build and install if they are completely identical) should catch the majority of unnecessary rebuilds. On 25 July 2014 13:36 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K.

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Taahir Ahmed
My apologies for the top-reply. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Martin Vaeth
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >> > * Overlays >> Not an issue: Exactly the information of that ebuild >> which *would* be used if you reemerge contains >> the relevant data. > > The association between an installed package and "the ebuild it came > from" doesn't work correctly when overlays around. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:36:27 + (UTC) Martin Vaeth wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> > * Overlays > >> Not an issue: Exactly the information of that ebuild > >> which *would* be used if you reemerge contains > >> the relevant data. > > > > The association between an installed package and "t

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:36:31 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:12:07 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/26/2014 07:59 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > 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:

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 07/27/2014 05:21 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:12:07 +1000 > Michael Palimaka wrote: > >> On 07/26/2014 07:59 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> 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 20

Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status

2014-07-26 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote: El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos: I guess we will need to wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status

2014-07-26 Thread Pacho Ramos
El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 16:29 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: > On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: > >> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-26 Thread Kent Fredric
On 27 July 2014 02:12, Martin Vaeth wrote: > > Do not forget modification of eclasses which then require mass bumps! I'm curious what the -r1.1 technique would do here. I mean, wouldn't that mean you have 2 ebuilds that are identical except for the '.1' simply due to the eclass change? That's

<    1   2