On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:30:32 +0100
Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Torsten Veller :
> > Can we please move the mips profiles from "dev" to "exp" in
> > profiles/profiles.desc?
>
> Based on the current feedback I'll change it not earlier than friday
> next week if nobody objects.
Did you get feedback
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:18:39 +0100
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I'm surprised that there is no keyword in Gentoo's bugzilla [1] to mark
> bugs for bugday. Is there a good reason why such a keyword does not
> exist? Would it be hard to set up?
I would use it. I honestly didn't know we still did
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:52:55 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 08:27 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Members of Gentoo Python Project have agreed to deprecate the following
> > functions
> > in EAPI <=2:
> > - python_version()
> > - python_mod_exists()
> > - pyth
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:09:49 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 3.3.2010 11.23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > 2010/3/3 Tomáš Chvátal :
> Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current policy. If
> you want to do it, you should discuss about changing policy.
> >>>
> >>> ?!
> >>>
> Dne 3.3.2010 12:32, Joshua Saddler napsal(a):
> > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:35:10 +0200
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >
> >> # Samuli Suominen (03 Mar 2010)
> >> # Masked for QA, security
> >> #
> >> # Internal copies of vuln. zlib, jpeg, speex and likely
> >> # others
> >> #
> >> # http://bugs.ge
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:55:41 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 02:40 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Is this actually documented anywhere? Or is this another of our
> > "this-is-policy-because-everyone-knows-it's-policy" policies? I know there
> > was a te
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:08:06 +0100
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> So now that we have a new category "dev-vcs" we need to move suitable
> stuff over there. Moving packages is complex and error prone:
> This mail tries to guide you through and summarize the process, please
> read on.
>
> [stuff]
Al
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:43:00 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
> >> I think removal of functions is a special case of "Adding and
> >> Updating Eclasses" and we already have a policy for this.
>
> > Removing functions needs a migration plan. For examp
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:12:36 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Because there is so little benefit from removing old functions. What is
> so bad about having them grouped at the bottom of the file inside a
> deprecated section?
Because then people use them. Don't ask me why. I have things I deprecate
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:37:28 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 5 March 2010 12:24, Zac Medico wrote:
> > It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look
> > like this:
> >
> > || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
> >>=dev-lang/python-3 )
> >
> > If you
# Ryan Hill (05 March 2010)
# No release since 2004, succeeded by nicotine+
# Removal April 5, 2010 - bug #307971
net-p2p/pysoulseek
--
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:11:47 -0500
Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Has QA given their blessing to this?
>
> Absolutely not. Its actually the opposite. Until 90+% of the tree just
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized. The
> stable tree should all Just Work together. Stabi
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:09:28 +
David Leverton wrote:
> On Saturday 06 March 2010 15:26:10 Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> > Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for
> > candidates and another for confirmed bugs.
>
> This sounds like the sort of thing Bugzilla's "flags
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:41:59 -0500
Mark Loeser wrote:
> As Mike said, for ones with maintainers, don't touch them unless you
> have explicit permission. We have maintainers for a reason, and if you
> don't know the intricacies of the package, you shouldn't be touching it.
> You should know how i
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2721
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
> > consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for
> > everyone.
>
> Abandoned packages do not belo
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:07:41 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developers
> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't
> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team
> comprised of multiple
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:21:13 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> You misunderstood what I meant. The action I am talking about is
> reopening the bug. Any developer who notices that a bug should be
> reopened should reopen it so it gets noticed.
Sorry, my mistake.
--
fonts,
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:12:49 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we
> have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both
> users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive
> feedback on this new project i
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:13:07 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 April 2010 21:51, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already exists?
>
> Because some devs request things like this:
>
> > can we can lock certain pages down to dev
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 21:37:46 +
Sylvain Alain wrote:
>
> The official wiki can be use by powerusers who want to write some pretty good
> doc.
>
> A lot of powerusers can write excellent doc on the gentoo forum right now, so
> they don't need to by Gentoo Dev to right excellent stuff.
>
> I
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Hello!
>
> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
> collisions, etc e
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:26:46 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> > question but there's a difference of opinion
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:41:34 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 01:38 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > You ignored my point about this being completely moot once we start using
> > flags in bugzilla for arch teams. We'll have to change the policy then
>
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:13:41 +0200
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Petteri Räty :
> > I don't think later is valid resolution. If there's a valid bug it
> > just means it's never looked at again. If the bug is not valid then a
> > different resolution should be used. So what do you think about
> > d
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:03:10 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> BTW, gcc seems to do some stage output comparing in its bootstrap
> process. Is that all absolute code correctness, or is there some
> performance benchmarking there that could benefit from this as well?
It's all c
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without
> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the diff
> in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent
> stuff too.
I think it's a g
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
> > through cvs? No thanks. I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
> > sp
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:01:17 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing. But enforcing it
> > through
> > cvs is never going to fly. Just use common sense.
>
> Sure it will;
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:40:07 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> After a consensus is reached, I'm going to file a bug for infra for
> necessary changes in bugzilla configuration.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/213514
--
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-p
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:12:46 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> * media-sound/wavegain - ${LDFLAGS} before ${CFLAGS}, '-o' after sources,
> defines after '-o',
Just curious why you're pointing out the ordering of options. As far as I
know it doesn't matter (except some LDFLAGS where you can go -
On Mon, 31 May 2010 20:11:22 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:12:46 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > * media-sound/wavegain - ${LDFLAGS} before ${CFLAGS}, '-o' after sources,
> > defines after '-o',
>
> Just curious why you&#
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 02:00:02 +0200
Torsten Veller wrote:
> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2010/2011 are now open for the next
> two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2010).
I'd like to nominate betelgeuse, calchan, and ssuominen (no way you're getting
out of here that easy).
--
fonts,
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:11:45 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> What do you think about doing the following change in
> /usr/portage/profiles/targets/developer/make.defaults:
>
> replace "test" with "test-fail-continue" to make it just less
> frustrating (we still have a lot of test failures)
>
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:47:54 +0400
Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Сбт, 05/06/2010 в 02:00 +0200, Torsten Veller пишет:
> > Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2010/2011 are now open for the next
> > two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2010).
> >
> > All nominations must be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing l
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:02:50 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> I see more and more calls for either 1) "fixing the test suite", as if
> that is suddenly not an UPSTREAM issue but the ebuilds' maintainers'
> When instead a test suite should do a SKIP but erroneously does a FAIL,
> then RESTRICT=test i
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:25:32 +
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> What is the consensus on if the metadata.xml specifies that it will add
> CFLAGS? Surely it is not as black/white as the global suggests..?
>
> local:debug:app-portage/eix: Build with CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS for debugging
> support; not recommend
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:53:19 +0200 (CEST)
Vaeth wrote:
> (Sorry that this mail does not contain the proper "References:";
> I am not a regular reader of this list and therefore cannot "reply").
>
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > USE flags should not affect
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:44:17 +0200 (CEST)
Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Upstream is free to use whatever CFLAGS they see fit, as long as the
> > user has the option of disabling them. This is simply done by appending
> > the user's CFLAGS to those of the buil
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:04:10 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 07/01/2010 11:00 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >[...]
> > The way to control compiler flags in Gentoo is CFLAGS.
>
> That is true. However, there's a problem; you can control package
> options of individual
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:29:44 +0200 (CEST)
Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > If your build system sets -ffast-math or -fstrict-aliasing
> > then the user can disable this by setting -fno-fast-math
> > or -fno-strict-aliasing in their CFLAGS.
>
> Just because s
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
> that are using OpenRC then?
> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I
> am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least.
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:56:52 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> YFYI: yet another of my ebuilds kicked-down.
>
> It's an improved version of procmail, which automatically creates
> missing maildir directories.
Upstream first (TM).
--
fonts, gcc-porting,
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:34:37 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:30:42AM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> > The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from
> > eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council
> > should set common rules
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:19:09 + (UTC)
"Markos Chandras (hwoarang)" wrote:
> hwoarang10/07/11 21:19:09
>
> Modified: make.defaults
> Log:
> log eqawarn messages
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.7 profiles/targets/developer/make.defaults
>
Commits to p
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:53:07 -0500
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 02:50 PM, Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) wrote:
> > -LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"
> > +LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 ${LDFLAGS}"
>
> My existing, custom, entry for LDFLAGS breaks with this change. Not nice.
>
> %% grep LDFLAGS /etc/make.conf
> LDFLAGS
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:23:03 +0200
Matti Bickel wrote:
> On 07/17/2010 09:58 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
> > since there's no dev-lang/php-5.1* version in the tree anymore, this
> > eclass is useless. It will be removed on 17th August 2010.
>
> I've just been told by scarabeus that eclass removal is
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:41:12 +0200
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I like that one better.
>
>
> Both proposals leave a question open to me, though:
> Do I understand correctly that I could integrate the in-profile value with
>
> LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} foo bar"
>
> in /etc/make.conf? Maybe that's
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:36:17 -0500
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 11:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > Since the QA trigger in portage is based on --hash-style=gnu,
> > you'd have to make that the default as well to find a package
> > ignoring LDFLAGS...
>
> Put that in the dev profile(s) t
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:39:01 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>
> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even respect
> LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS, we will
> probably find yet more packages
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:02:35 -0400
Jonathan Callen wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 01:26 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > We default to --hash-style=both everywhere which already covers it.
>
> No it does not, for two reasons: one, the portage QA check is run only
> if LDFLAGS actually c
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 10:57:34 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> I suggest making the dev profiles just pull in a binutils version that
> automatically enables the support (excluding profiles where binutils is
> not used).
Cutting off a portion of binutils versions in the tree to developers
does not see
Just a heads up - we're going to be dropping wxGTK and wxpython 2.6 sometime
in the near-ish future. If you have packages still depending on these
versions, please migrate them to 2.8 and drop versions using 2.6. If your
package doesn't work with 2.8 then it probably hasn't seen a release in the
# Ryan Hill (12 Aug 2010)
# Mask for removal 20100912
# No maintainer, dead upstream (last release 2004), needs wxGTK-2.6.
# Bug #332559
media-gfx/zphoto
--
fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgetsto keep us
# Ryan Hill (12 Aug 2010)
# Mask for removal 20100912
# Dead upstream (last release 2006), broken, needs wxGTK-2.6.
# Bug #330585
app-crypt/wxchecksums
--
fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgetsto keep us
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:11:42 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Could someone guide me to add --hash-style=gnu to default/linux/amd64/dev
> profile? I don't want to break anything
The thing is, you can't right now. :D LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
have to do something like
--- targets/develop
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:43:35 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> The thing is, you can't right now. :D LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
> have to do something like
>
> --- targets/developer/make.defaults 26 Jul 2010 19:15:05 - 1.9
> +++ targets/developer/ma
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:14:28 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> that's crap. fix the package or at least work around it:
> LDFLAGS=`echo ${LDFLAGS}`
>
> we shouldnt be forced to add random hacks throughout the tree because
> of one or two random broken packages
Yes, I meant don't commit it until so
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:35:56 +0200
Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> > > the LDFLAGS.
> >
> > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:00:38 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails
> > you
> > can use...
> As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to do it since they
> follow all the bug progress after all. So according to you
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:39:59 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:32, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > After a discussion on IRC, a few of us were considering the value of
> > adding suggestions on handling of bugs in Bugzilla from a developer (and
> > editbugs user) perspective.
>
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:53:22 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Pacho Ramos posted on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:05:34 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > El mié, 08-09-2010 a las 01:44 +0400, dev-ran...@mail.ru escribió:
> >> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 09:30:34PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> >
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:10:51 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> > +
> > +*hachoir-parser-1.3.4 (10 Sep 2010)
> > +
> > + 10 Sep 2010; Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> > + -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild, +hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild:
> > + Version bump.
> >
>
> Deleting an older version is rele
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:59:25 +1200
Alistair Bush wrote:
> There should be nothing stopping a user from running a mixed arch/~arch
> system. Those problems just point to our dependency information not being
> recorded correctly. It might be understandable that this info can be
> incredibly
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:02:00 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> From discussion on IRC, it seems, like there are different options, so i
> would like to clarify this
> policy:
>
> The test USE flag is (i am only talking about portage now, since i am most
> familar with it) an
> internal flag, which
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:42:02 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Controling the test USE flag alone without the test FEATURE is useless, since
> it wont run the
> src_test phase.
...then don't do that? :P
> And being able to disable the test USE flag with FEATURES=test will result in
> missing deps o
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:34:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
> > >
> > > while you're here, i'd change to:
> > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}
> >
> > Why
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:42:56 +0300
Alex Alexander wrote:
> This is a matter of perspective. To you it might look like torture and
> pay-back, but for the guys doing it it could be "making sure he
> follows all the guidelines".
By nitpicking his commit messages? So far that's the only thing anyo
# Ryan Hill (19 Sep 2010)
# Mask for removal 20101019 (bug #304621).
# Use font-cronyx-cyrillic instead.
media-fonts/cronyx-fonts
--
fonts, gcc-porting, we hold our breath, we spin around the world
toolchain, wxwidgetsyou and me cling to the outside of the earth
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:49:29 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> # Ryan Hill (19 Sep 2010)
> # Mask for removal 20101019 (bug #304621).
> # Use font-cronyx-cyrillic instead.
> media-fonts/cronyx-fonts
>
Turns out font-cronyx-cyrillic isn't a suitable replacement. Reverted.
--
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:43:28 +0200
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1]
> this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if
> nobody can actually come up with a good reason not to, I'm going to ask
> Zac tomorrow to re-
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:25:38 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Something I forgot to ask before: are the 'always overflow' warnings new
> > w/ GCC 4.5 / glibc 2.12? If they're new w/ 4.5 then we don't have a
> > problem.
>
> the fortify warnings typically come from glibc, not gcc. i dont believ
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:47:38 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Пнд, 27/09/2010 в 11:37 +, Dirkjan Ochtman (djc) пишет:
> >> src_compile() {
> >> use static && sed -i -e '/^LIBS/s/LIBS = /LIBS = -static /' Makefile
> >>
> >> e
We'll be unmasking GCC 4.5 soon. I was planning on this weekend but next
weekend is more likely. If you have open bugs on the tracker, please take a
look at them now.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=296658&hide_resolved=1
Thanks.
--
fonts, gcc-porting, we hold ou
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:52:42 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> The meaning is identical in all those cases, and I think the number of
> packages may have hit the threshold for a global flag.
>
> <...>
>
> If we'd make system-sqlite a global USE flag, I'd suggest a description
> like "Use the sy
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:44:39 +0200
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > src_prepare() {
> > sed -i "/^OCAMLOPTFLAGS/s/$/ -ccopt \"\$(CFLAGS)
> > \$(LDFLAGS)\"/" Makefile }
>
> Make this sed line die, just in case.
Is your intention to die if it stops matching anything? sed won't throw an
error
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:00:00 -0500
Matt Turner wrote:
> Should we target package versions that aren't stabilized on other
> architectures yet, so that we'll have an extended testing period
> before they'll come up for stabilization? That is, can I plan to make
> gcc-4.5.1 or something the first r
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:37:51 -0500
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:00:00 -0500
> > Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> >> Should we target package versions that aren't stabilized on other
> >&
I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
patches added recently (see ChangeLog).
As always, bugs in packages should be assigned to that package's maintainer.
Bugs in GCC should be assi
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
> > who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some
> &
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
Alistair Bush wrote:
> > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to
what's going on behind the scenes. They're
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +0200
Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> > Alistair Bush wrote:
> >
> > > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> &
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:59:25 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> > Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention
> > to what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people
> > who know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain
> > revbumps are expensive a
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:11:53 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
> they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use
live ebuilds. I'd
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use
> > live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :)
> >
> > But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over
> > package.mask. In fact
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:32:30 -0800
spinugio wrote:
> is emerging sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1-r1 enough?
Yep.
--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.orgEFFD 38
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:36:15 +
Graham Murray wrote:
> Mike Frysinger writes:
>
> > well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the
> > masked
> > package, but once it was unmasked, we revbump it just once at that point.
Gotcha.
> Is there somewhere which tells use
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:25:21 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le vendredi 03 décembre 2010 à 21:54 +0100, Cyprien Nicolas a écrit :
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 21:25, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > Please also find in these patches a proposal of a waf-utils eclass in
> > > order to put wa
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:29:45 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 03/12/2010 alle 19.46 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto:
> >
> > This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.
>
> Or resume the idea to simply provide a separate variable
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:57:58 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Among all CPU extensions USE flags you'll find:
>
> 3dnow
> 3dnowext
> mmx
> mmxext
> sse
> sse2
> sse3
> sse4
> sse4a
> sse5
> ssse3
>
> I probably missed a few, there.
sse4.1, sse4.2, avx
sse5 was a draft, it was never implemented.
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:01:16 +
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I agree that this could be better. To me, most of the problems with
> this are due to users not knowing which of these should be set for
> their particular CPU.
>
> Inste
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:09:08 -0500
ross smith wrote:
> Perhaps something along the lines of: If CPU_FLAGS is empty or not defined,
> set flags based on the -march and -mtune variables. If CPU_FLAGS is set,
> respect what has been set there and ignore the other logic for defaults.
-march flags
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:01:13 -0400
"Sergio D. Rodríguez Inclan" wrote:
> El 12/12/2010 02:46 a.m., Ryan Hill escribió:
> > I think the fewer sources of magic USE flags the better. Maybe we could
> > document how to figure out what instruction sets a processor sup
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:13:08 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> I've been reading this thread, but I don't understand why we need to
> worry about this since the newer versions of gcc can figure it out
> automatically
> by using -march=native?
Absolutely, -march=native should be used if you aren't us
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:25:04 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> So would anyone be especially opposed to making "best leftmost" an
> explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at least for
> the >= / < case)?
I already thought that was the case, so +1 from me.
--
fonts, gcc-porting
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:02:32 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Opinions?
I don't mind a warning, but I'll tell you right now there is no way I'm
using anything other than EAPI 0 for toolchain packages. Mike might
disagree but I don't think anyone feels like rewriting and auditing
toolchain.eclass f
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 00:08:34 -0500
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, January 01, 2011 23:09:11 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that
> > even on recompile, older library versions could be linked in even
> > on recompile.
>
> you'll need to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:19 + (UTC)
"Markos Chandras (hwoarang)" wrote:
> hwoarang11/01/12 20:19:19
>
> Modified: ChangeLog
> Added:chm2pdf-0.9.1-r1.ebuild
> Log:
> Make it depend on dev-libs/chmlib[examples]. Bug #351321
a) sorry for causing this bu
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:49:38 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> People seem to have started using blockers with package moves recently.
> For example, if cat/a is being moved to cat/b, people have started
> putting !cat/a as a dependency in cat/b. This is bad, for two reasons.
It's bad for a couple
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:20:27 -0600
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main tree
> and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for both, like
> tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/. In the same vein, there's no good reason
> I can think
701 - 800 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
