[gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[Mike Frysinger]

in the spirit of moving to generic names, i plan on changing over all 
references to 'virtual/glibc' to 'virtual/libc' in a bit

this has been discussed before, i'm just sending out a heads up that it'll 
actually be happening, so when you get errors about virtual/glibc with 
repoman, `cvs up` !
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[Ned Ludd]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 20:12, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> in the spirit of moving to generic names, i plan on changing over all 
> references to 'virtual/glibc' to 'virtual/libc' in a bit
> 
> this has been discussed before, i'm just sending out a heads up that it'll 
> actually be happening, so when you get errors about virtual/glibc with 
> repoman, `cvs up` !

Hey I just updated my cvs tree and did a quick search and found 3026
.ebuilds still have references to virtual/glibc ( See attached
virtual_glibc.txt.gz )
Is there any reason to hold off on updating all the portage metadata for
this that you/we/others can think of other than it being time consuming?

> -mike
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer

[-- Attachment #1.2: virtual_glibc.txt.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 24404 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 307 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 27 June 2004 08:34 am, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Hey I just updated my cvs tree and did a quick search and found 3026
> .ebuilds still have references to virtual/glibc

i know, i've just been busy with other things ... when i stop in and have time 
i update it ;)
it's not a critical task that needs to be atomically so i havent aimed for 
that ;)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[Jeremy Huddleston]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1654 bytes --]

Well, right now, there are no references to virtual/glibc in any .ebuild
other than glibc:

(02:44:24 Fri Jul 02 2004 jeremy@cid x86_64)
/mnt/raid0/gentoo/gentoo-x86 $ grep -R 'virtual/glibc' *-* | cut -f1 -d:
| sort | uniq | grep ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.2.5-r9.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.1-r5.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.2-r10.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.2-r2.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.2-r9.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3.20040420.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20031210.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117-r1.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040207.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040420.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040529.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.4.20040605-r1.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.4.20040605.ebuild
sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.4.20040619.ebuild

Should we deliver the final blow to virtual/glibc now?  I believe it
should be safe to remove the reference from the profiles' virtuals file
then the glibc ebuild... 

or should we leave it in for a little while longer to let users get
their overlays fixed?

On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 12:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 27 June 2004 08:34 am, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Hey I just updated my cvs tree and did a quick search and found 3026
> > .ebuilds still have references to virtual/glibc
> 
> i know, i've just been busy with other things ... when i stop in and have time 
> i update it ;)
> it's not a critical task that needs to be atomically so i havent aimed for 
> that ;)
> -mike
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 02 July 2004 05:52 am, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> Well, right now, there are no references to virtual/glibc in any .ebuild
> other than glibc:

awesome ... seems other devs stepped up to finish everything off ... thanks 
guys
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 05:52, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> Well, right now, there are no references to virtual/glibc in any .ebuild
> other than glibc:
> 
> (02:44:24 Fri Jul 02 2004 jeremy@cid x86_64)
> /mnt/raid0/gentoo/gentoo-x86 $ grep -R 'virtual/glibc' *-* | cut -f1 -d:
> | sort | uniq | grep ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.2.5-r9.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.1-r5.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.2-r10.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.2-r2.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.2-r9.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3.20040420.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20031210.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117-r1.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040207.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040420.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040529.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.4.20040605-r1.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.4.20040605.ebuild
> sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.3.4.20040619.ebuild
> 
> Should we deliver the final blow to virtual/glibc now?  I believe it
> should be safe to remove the reference from the profiles' virtuals file
> then the glibc ebuild... 
> 
> or should we leave it in for a little while longer to let users get
> their overlays fixed?

I think it would be a good idea to leave around for a little while,
simply to prevent any breakage that we might see.  It isn't hurting
anything being in the tree, so waiting a couple weeks won't harm
anything.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/glibc -> virtual/libc

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 02 July 2004 08:50 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I think it would be a good idea to leave around for a little while,
> simply to prevent any breakage that we might see.  It isn't hurting
> anything being in the tree, so waiting a couple weeks won't harm
> anything.

i think it should stay in until portage-2.0.51 goes stable just to be sure
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list