From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S0wgn-000484-7N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:04:05 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 21143E0FC8 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A36E0C08 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:55:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.128.4.19] (unknown [79.170.210.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hkbst) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BCE4643ED for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F478A50.5010708@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:02:08 +0100 From: Marijn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120213 Thunderbird/10.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Lisp mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-lisp] Finally, a fix for bug #335418, now what? References: <20120221210242.GD4377@gemini.falor> <4F44ECFA.5070303@gentoo.org> <20120222155632.GA4338@gemini.falor> <4F46035F.5010201@gentoo.org> <20120223175057.GA3896@gemini.falor> In-Reply-To: <20120223175057.GA3896@gemini.falor> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a8a157b1-5899-4215-9cae-b2a84a2ee10f X-Archives-Hash: 259ed755e99a6277e45c774d2be576b4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23-02-12 18:50, Erik Falor wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:14:07AM +0100, Marijn wrote: >> Hi Erik, >> >> I notice that the SRC_URI contains an explicit version. Ideally >> we shouldn't have to adjust it once 4.7.1 and 4.8.0 come out. >> Would ${PV} not accomplish that? > > ${PV} does accomplish that. Thank you for pointing this out. > >> I also notice that the ebuild still unsets some variables (A >> ARCH). I consider it a bug if this is necessary. Have you checked >> whether it is still necessary? If so what is the state of fixing >> portage so we don't need to do this unsetting? > > Unfortunately, this step is still necessary as those variables are > still in conflict with the Makefiles. > > I was not aware that there had been any discussion by the portage > devs about this issue. The only bug I could find is #127560 - is > that the effort you are talking about? Or are you suggesting that > we file a new bug? I thought there was a specific bug about chicken's use of A and that of portage conflicting, but I can't find it now. The Changelog isn't very helpful either. I did find bug 208535 about a similar problem with O which was resolved by fixing portage. I think a good way to move forward is probably to just open a new bug about this. >> Otherwise looks good. >> >> Marijn > > If you feel good about just the ${PV} fix, I'll check this in to > the overlay tonight. You should feel free to commit stuff even if it is has some issues; that's what we have the overlay for. The main tree is a different story, but for the overlay the bar is intentionally really low. That way people can cooperate and improve on each-other's work easily. Marijn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9HilAACgkQp/VmCx0OL2wzTgCfcUHrsRR+Y4cG324JabQW/mgg qIUAn2+KBVFE2nuUcnwdtAWP7d85ozzd =fhRo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----