Created attachment 372332 [details] dnsmasq-2.69_pre11.ebuild This version fixes various bugs but more importantly adds DNSSEC support. I haven't actually tested building with static because I don't want to waste power rebuilding gmp and nettle. It should work though, all I get are "cannot find" errors.
Created attachment 372334 [details] metadata.xml
Created attachment 372336 [details, diff] dnsmasq-2.69_pre11.ebuild.patch
Created attachment 372442 [details] dnsmasq-2.69_pre11.ebuild fix deps
Created attachment 372444 [details, diff] dnsmasq-2.69_pre11.ebuild.patch
No changes on the build side from test11.
Created attachment 373382 [details] dnsmasq-2.69_rc1.ebuild
Created attachment 373384 [details, diff] dnsmasq-2.69_rc1.ebuild.patch
Created attachment 373430 [details] dnsmasq-9999.ebuild
Created attachment 373432 [details, diff] dnsmasq-9999.ebuild.patch
I just realised that the DEPENDs don't actually require dnssec. Hold for fixes.
Created attachment 373530 [details] dnsmasq-2.69_rc4.ebuild
Created attachment 373532 [details, diff] dnsmasq-2.69_rc1.ebuild.patch
Well I would drop the 9999 logic since we don't have a 9999 in the tree. Also, it's probably better to use REQUIRED_USE for the dnssec/static logic rather than an ewarn, since that is sort of what REQUIRED_USE is for.
(In reply to Patrick McLean from comment #13) > Well I would drop the 9999 logic since we don't have a 9999 in the tree. I was suggesting adding one. > Also, it's probably better to use REQUIRED_USE for the dnssec/static logic > rather than an ewarn, since that is sort of what REQUIRED_USE is for. I selected this option because of the second principle that REQUIRED_USE should be avoided when possible and the user's intentions can be reasonably accurately deduced. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/index.html#conflicting-use-flags
(In reply to Alex Xu (Hello71) from comment #14) > (In reply to Patrick McLean from comment #13) > > Well I would drop the 9999 logic since we don't have a 9999 in the tree. > > I was suggesting adding one. > > > Also, it's probably better to use REQUIRED_USE for the dnssec/static logic > > rather than an ewarn, since that is sort of what REQUIRED_USE is for. > > I selected this option because of the second principle that REQUIRED_USE > should be avoided when possible and the user's intentions can be reasonably > accurately deduced. > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/index. > html#conflicting-use-flags s/when possible and//
rc4 released unannounced, no build changes.
2.69 released, no major changes (except SRC_URI obviously).
*dnsmasq-2.69 (10 Apr 2014) 10 Apr 2014; Patrick McLean <chutzpah@gentoo.org> +dnsmasq-2.69.ebuild, metadata.xml: Version bump, added support for DNSSEC (Bug #504154). Initial ebuild changes contributed by Alex Xu.
