On Do, 2016-10-13 at 15:53 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7.
>
> Rationale:
> 1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one
> third of them appears to be wrong (e.g., should be replaced by
> dolib.
All,
After _many_ essential and necessary years of service the Gentoo
Documentation Project (GDP) has fulfilled its purpose[1][2] and is in
the process of being phased out.
As a platform, the wiki has enabled every Gentoo developer (not just
those in the Documentation team) and many in the commun
On 10/07/2016 04:56 PM, Matthew Marchese wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thought I'd send a RFC out to you all to get a little feedback before I
> make any changes to this since I didn't originally start the project. If
> no one responds with a good reason why NOT to make the changes I
> purpose, I will proc
On Friday, October 14, 2016 5:24:02 PM JST, Matthew Marchese wrote:
All,
After _many_ essential and necessary years of service the Gentoo
Documentation Project (GDP) has fulfilled its purpose[1][2] and is in
the process of being phased out.
As a platform, the wiki has enabled every Gentoo devel
On 10/14/2016 01:24 AM, Matthew Marchese wrote:
> All,
>
> After _many_ essential and necessary years of service the Gentoo
> Documentation Project (GDP) has fulfilled its purpose[1][2] and is in
> the process of being phased out.
>
> As a platform, the wiki has enabled every Gentoo developer (no
On 10/13/2016 10:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 13/10/16 10:13 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez
>> mailto:cyklon...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> >
>> > This would actually be another reas
On 14/10/16 10:22 AM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 10:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 13/10/16 10:13 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez
>>> mailto:cyklon...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On 10/14/2016 03:12 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 01:24 AM, Matthew Marchese wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> After _many_ essential and necessary years of service the Gentoo
>> Documentation Project (GDP) has fulfilled its purpose[1][2] and is in
>> the process of being phased out.
>>
>> As a pla
Not sure where this would go, likely in the PMS presently 3.1.2 package names,
or some subsection.
https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-210003.1.2
I have looked for other documents on this topic and have not found any.
Specifically on any requirement or specification of file names. I
On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Problem
> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo
> sy
On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Problem
> > 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it
> > is
> > not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
> > com
On 14/10/16 01:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> Problem
>>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it
>>> is
>>> not clear if that is an
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> Problem
> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages.
> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made
On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:36:20 PM EDT Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS.
> This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy
> issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds
> whatever they like.
I was
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:36:20 PM EDT Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS.
>> This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy
>> issue. Other repos/distros should be
On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 04:56 PM, Matthew Marchese wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thought I'd send a RFC out to you all to get a little feedback before I
>> make any changes to this since I didn't originally start the project. If
>> no one responds with a good reason w
On Friday, October 14, 2016 8:15:35 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > The devmanual has the same info as in the PMS including on the suffix
> > https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-33.2
>
> That section is about version suffixes (like _beta or _rc), not about
> package names.
I a
Our bug queue has 84 bugs!
If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs.
To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5
Thanks!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:05:43PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
*snip*
> If a package is src_install only, no
> src_compile, it should be required to have a -bin suffix, or -gbin if self
> made.
I disagree with this.
Remember that src_compile could be in an eclass or the package could
On Friday, October 14, 2016 4:00:53 PM EDT William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:05:43PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> > If a package is src_install only, no
> > src_compile, it should be required to have a -bin suffix, or -gbin if self
> > made.
> I disagree wit
On Friday, October 14, 2016 4:00:53 PM EDT William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Remember that src_compile could be in an eclass or the package could be
> using the default src_compile for the EAPI.
FYI, the main Java eclasses, ant and simple, have default src_compile. I have
lots of Java ebuilds without suc
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:34:44PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote:
> > Not sure what we're going to do about video. Upload them to our
> > YouTube account and/or Archive.org for hosting?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Matthew
> >
> YouTube would be good .. do we
On 15/10/16 00:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:34:44PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote:
>>> Not sure what we're going to do about video. Upload them to our
>>> YouTube account and/or Archive.org for hosting?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
On 15/10/16 01:15, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 15/10/16 00:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:34:44PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>> On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote:
Not sure what we're going to do about video. Upload them to our
YouTube account and/or Arch
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:05:43 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or
> similar requirement, maybe in the PMS. Many already follow the -bin suffix
> now.
> I just do not believe it is a requirement anywhere. Which if
On 10/14/2016 05:15 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 15/10/16 00:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:34:44PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>> On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote:
Not sure what we're going to do about video. Upload them to our
YouTube account and/or
26 matches
Mail list logo
