[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] db-use.eclass: Drop support for EAPI 5 and 6

The last consumers have been dropped from the gentoo repo. Signed-off-by: James Le Cuirot --- eclass/db-use.eclass | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/db-use.eclass b/eclass/db-use.eclass index 55e72286fda4..3e5d6f63fa2e 100644 --- a/eclass/db-use.eclass

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] db-use.eclass: Use ESYSROOT rather than EPREFIX where appropriate

EPREFIX would be appropriate for values used at runtime. db_findver and db_libname check for the presence of files or directories at build time. db_includedir returns a header directory, which would almost certainly only be used at build time. Signed-off-by: James Le Cuirot --- eclass/db-use.e

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] dev-libs/apr-util: Don't prefix db_includedir with SYSROOT

The function will do it for you now, although with ESYSROOT rather than SYSROOT, which was incorrect. Signed-off-by: James Le Cuirot --- dev-libs/apr-util/apr-util-1.6.1-r10.ebuild | 2 +- dev-libs/apr-util/apr-util-1.6.1-r8.ebuild | 2 +- dev-libs/apr-util/apr-util-1.6.1-r9.ebuild | 2 +- 3 f

Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with

Hi, On 12/12/2022 06.52, Robin H. Johnson wrote: Please do file a bug tracking this proposal, and reference the discussion thread. On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: What I'd like to do is to bump the limits.conf we ship with pam to following * hard nproc 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with

> On 12 Dec 2022, at 21:55, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > > Hi, > > On 12/12/2022 06.52, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> Please do file a bug tracking this proposal, and reference the >> discussion thread. >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: >>> What I'd like to do is to

Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with

On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote: It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing lists. I tend to keep an eye on PAM bugs because I maintained pambase. Bugs are the primary method of discussing changes to packages. You really came strong on this one. I did explain w

Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with

> On 12 Dec 2022, at 22:26, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > > On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote: >> It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing lists. >> I tend to keep an eye on PAM >> bugs because I maintained pambase. >> Bugs are the primary method of discussing change

Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:26:32PM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote: > > It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing > > lists. I tend to keep an eye on PAM > > bugs because I maintained pambase. > > > > Bugs are the primary method of

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] llvm.eclass: Remove EAPI 6

Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- eclass/llvm.eclass | 43 --- eclass/tests/llvm.sh | 7 --- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/llvm.eclass b/eclass/llvm.eclass index 7657de4bc5a2..b4347163face 100644 --- a/eclass/ll

Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with

On 13.12.2022 0.26, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote: >> It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing >> lists. I tend to keep an eye on PAM >> bugs because I maintained pambase. >> >> Bugs are the primary method of discussing changes to package