genstef is still on devaway... The release format changes with eix-0.14.2 from .tar.bz2 to .tar.lzma Let me know if this change causes trouble on some architectures. (The current eix keywords are all contained in app-arch/lzma-utils, so I guess that it is not necessary to drop any keywords.) I suggest another change to the ebuild: Instead of relying on the new heuristic ./configure check of eix to determine the path to ebuild.sh, it is probably more the gentoo way to calculate this path within the ebuild (using e.g. multilib eclass) and to pass it to ./configure. A patch containing both changes follows...
Created attachment 169574 [details, diff] eix-0.14.2.ebuild patch for .tar.lzma format and passing ebuild.sh path to ./configure
genstef's devaway says it's ok to fix his packages, so I think I'll take on this version bump and try to get it committed this weekend. Keep the eix progress coming :)
(In reply to comment #2) > genstef's devaway says it's ok to fix his packages, so I think I'll take on > this version bump and try to get it committed this weekend. Keep the eix > progress coming :) > Why don't we just get a new eix proxy maintainer? genstef has been MIA for quite some time now.
(In reply to comment #1) > Created an attachment (id=169574) [edit] > eix-0.14.2.ebuild patch for .tar.lzma format and passing ebuild.sh path to > ./configure > (Sorry, for the spam here ;) You have to DEPEND on lzma-utils if the SRC_URI is a .lzma. lzma-utils is not part of the system set, so you cannot implicitly depend on it. (Just like zip's)
(In reply to comment #4) > lzma-utils is not part of the system set But sys-devel/m4 is part of the system set and it DEPENDs unconditionally on lzma-utils ;) I agree of course that a direct DEPEND is cleaner, perhaps even necessary for some architectures. I guess that it is not necessary to attach a further patch for this obvious modification...? (In reply to comment #3) > Why don't we just get a new eix proxy maintainer? > genstef has been MIA for quite some time now. Yes indeed, it is now surprisingly long that I heard from him last time: I hope that he is just busy and nothing serious has happened to him. If somebody wants to take over, it would be useful if he could also regularly upgrade eix on dev.gentooexperimental.org to the latest testing version: This is needed for update-eix-remote to function properly whenever a new eix version uses a new cachefile format, see e.g. bug 242516
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > lzma-utils is not part of the system set > > But sys-devel/m4 is part of the system set and it DEPENDs unconditionally > on lzma-utils ;) > I agree of course that a direct DEPEND is cleaner, perhaps even necessary > for some architectures. I guess that it is not necessary to attach a > further patch for this obvious modification...? Hmm, interesting proposal. > > (In reply to comment #3) > > Why don't we just get a new eix proxy maintainer? > > genstef has been MIA for quite some time now. > > Yes indeed, it is now surprisingly long that I heard from him last time: > I hope that he is just busy and nothing serious has happened to him. Me as well. > > If somebody wants to take over, it would be useful if he could > also regularly upgrade eix on dev.gentooexperimental.org to the latest > testing version: This is needed for update-eix-remote to function > properly whenever a new eix version uses a new cachefile format, > see e.g. bug 242516 I can do this if desired, I wish that genstef would respond. Do you this that he cares? I have an account on ge.org but don't have root access yet. I can ping bonsai about it.
(In reply to comment #6) > I can do this if desired, I wish that genstef would respond. Since he has clearly left the message that somebody else should take care about his packages (and in fact some of the other bugs concerning his packages are just without any reply) I guess that we need not write a further pm to him: It is strange to ask him whether he really meant what he said; particularly, since I suppose that he will not be able to read the mail anyway... > Do you this that he cares? Sorry, I do not understand this sentence. > I have an account on ge.org but don't have root access yet. I can > ping bonsai about it. I am afraid that root access is necessary: I remember one situation when an upgrade of eix due to an unforeseen bug produced a _huge_ file to download for update-eix-remote, so it was necessary to do the bugfix rather quickly... Actually, genstef mentioned that I could get access, but I rejected, since I supposed that the machine would be upgraded regularly anyway (of course, I did not understand at this time that this was done only by him and that he would leave for a longer period).
This bump has been committed, and I think it's a good idea for Jeremy to get the gentooexperimental account and proxy for you -- I bet genstef did not expect to be gone so long.
