Hi Arthur,
thanks for taking the time to write this mail.
On 25/06/2024 19.33, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
x86
Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should
be stable arch anymore.
I have the impression as well. The time to drop stable keywords for x86
p
Am 26.06.24 um 09:38 schrieb Florian Schmaus:
Hi Arthur,
thanks for taking the time to write this mail.
On 25/06/2024 19.33, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
x86
Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should
be stable arch anymore.
I have the impression as we
Eli Schwartz writes:
> There is a bug in how gtk 3 and gtk 4 are built against by other
> packages. GTK supports optionally enabling X and wayland support -- when
> you do so, the ABI of GTK changes.
The series looks good to me, but I'd like leio to ack it before we merge
it.
It's not ideal, of
Eli Schwartz writes:
> Many packages perform automagic dependencies on gdk's backend
> implementations by checking if the macro is defined and then using the
> code it unlocks, rather than having a buildsystem option such as
> -Dwayland=true.
>
Doesn't gtk3 need this too? Also, could we have an u
Part of https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/37281
From c88eee66089333fbcee6377b5f580e70a4ec2a8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Ammerlaan
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 22:18:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] kernel-build.eclass: identify dist-kernels, and warn users
Many, many, new users at some point
> As you all know, Gentoo supports many various arches, in various degrees
> (stable, dev, exp). Let me explain those 3 statuses fast:
>
> * stable arch - meaning we have stable profile for this arch, and stable
> keywords across base-system + varying degree of seriousness. We stable
> stuff after
Part of: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/37292
This series builds on the previous patch: "kernel-build.eclass: identify
dist-kernels, and warn users"
Effectively, the change amounts to harmonizing the way ebuilds/eclasses
using "dist-kernel_reinstall_initramfs" re-install the dist-kerne
From 53f844361df57d480480b5e0ab0f35d2788ebf6a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Ammerlaan
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:08:49 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mount-boot.eclass: check for ESP as well as /boot, split
eclass
This eclass is used by when the dist-kernel has to re-installed.
Depending on the
From c4c5ef732670f8b23f20b1215af49cdceacd28a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Ammerlaan
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:12:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] kernel-install.eclass: move mount-boot check to
dist-kernel-utils.eclass
ebuilds and eclasses using dist-kernel_reinstall_initramfs should also
ha
From 3c5267472fb72223336063007173157a5de3f0cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Ammerlaan
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:15:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] linux-mod-r1.eclass: check /boot if we are re-installing
dist-kernel
Previous commit already adds the check when we call
dist-kernel_reinstall_ini
From 45a34aecafa64a666976e3d3d7944f8c8ff1e058 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Ammerlaan
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:32:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] sys-kernel/linux-firmware: complain less when /boot is not
mounted
when using dist-kernel we can correct the problem and then
emerge --config ...
From c5cf62a41038e344312d8758a4ba232fcd726053 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Ammerlaan
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:36:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] sys-firmware/intel-microcode: complain less when /boot
is not
mounted
When using dist-kernel users can correct the problem and then
emerge --con
> alpha
>
> Exp arch, with nearly (or maybe already) full correct dep-tree. matoro
> did a lot of great work here, so I think we should promote it to dev
> arch, so dep-tree remains unbroken. We dekeyworded a lot of stuff,
> cleaned it up, so a nice "completion bonus".
>
> =
> riscv
>
> Dev arch. I don't have much info on it, but I heard some mess with
> riscv32 and riscv64, so maybe time to split it? I leave it to riscv arch
> team, which works quite well, but I'll be happy to open discussion for it.
riscv is something new and growing, but for now
> > ia64
> >
> > Dev 64-bit arch. Kernel dropped support, glibc dropped support, devbox
> > died - days are short before full exp status or full removal of arch.
>
> Yeah, no interest in ia64, sorry. I'd like it to just go.
This is probably unavoidable given that our devbox and
Hi all,
As a 32bit user on many arches I'll try to answer Flow's question below.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 07:38, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> Hi Arthur,
>
> thanks for taking the time to write this mail.
>
> On 25/06/2024 19.33, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> > x86
> >
> > Stable 32-bit a
On 2024-06-26 16:29, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> ia64
>
> Dev 64-bit arch. Kernel dropped support, glibc dropped support, devbox
> died - days are short before full exp status or full removal of arch.
Yeah, no interest in ia64, sorry. I'd like it to just go.
This is probably
> 32-bit arches
>
> This includes stable arches x86, arm, ppc, sparc32, dev arches s390, and
> maybe more. Those are in much worse situation, with a mess on various
> fronts, some of them super hard to continue support. For example
> qtwebengine is less and less likely to manage
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan wrote:
> +# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 6 7 8
AFAICS, no EAPI 6 ebuild inherits mount-boot, so EAPI 6 could be
dropped?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Andrew Nowa Ammerlaan wrote:
> --- a/eclass/dist-kernel-utils.eclass
> +++ b/eclass/dist-kernel-utils.eclass
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ case ${EAPI} in
> *) die "${ECLASS}: EAPI ${EAPI:-0} not supported" ;;
> esac
>
> -inherit toolchain-funcs
> +inherit mount-boot-util
On 6/26/24 5:03 AM, Sam James wrote:
> Eli Schwartz writes:
>
>> Many packages perform automagic dependencies on gdk's backend
>> implementations by checking if the macro is defined and then using the
>> code it unlocks, rather than having a buildsystem option such as
>> -Dwayland=true.
>>
> Does
Eli Schwartz writes:
> On 6/26/24 5:03 AM, Sam James wrote:
>> Eli Schwartz writes:
>>
>>> Many packages perform automagic dependencies on gdk's backend
>>> implementations by checking if the macro is defined and then using the
>>> code it unlocks, rather than having a buildsystem option such a
22 matches
Mail list logo
