Re: [GNUnet-developers] gentoo, last tweaks and questions

[David Barksdale]

On April 10, 2016 1:57:36 PM CDT, Nils Gillmann <address@hidden> wrote:
>Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 04/10/2016 02:04 PM, ng0 wrote:
>>> Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> This should have been self-fixing if you ran './bootstrap' to
>generate
>>>> configure. Next time you see this (kind of) message, just re-run
>>>> ./bootstrap.
>>> 
>>> Hm, I think I need to revisit how this is done by my packages, to
>>> exclude this behavior which might lead to a 'die' in the build
>>> process.
>>
>> Well, 'bootstrap' is only needed if/when building from Subversion.
>Once
>> there is a release, this is no longer required.
>
>I have talked with lynX, and also gnunet devs afterwards, and
>I'll fix packages to svn numbers now as users will get a better
>impression with current release other than 0.10.1. When the next
>release candidate comes out I can include it in gentoo, but there
>shouldn't be much difference between release candidate and the
>time it was released (svn-number), or am I wrong?
>
>My personal experience of 0.10.1 vs 37011 and checkouts before
>that was drastically different, 0.10.1 has problems which are no
>longer existent in later numbers.
>
>I'll call SVN number 37011 gnunet-{gtk-}0.10.2_rc2 in gentoo.
>Maybe i can communicate the same with guix, we'll see. if I can't
>i'll still manage to express it somewhere.
>
>Moving to eapi 6 is almost done, so I am positive that I can
>introduce gnunet,gnurl,gnunet-gtk next week to bugzilla gentoo
>and become maintainer for it.
>
>Guix changes rely on bug-womb and somebody responding there currently.
>
>>> Especially on gentoo, where moving gnunet from eapi 5 to the new
>>> eapi 6 gets hard and needs an entirely new build structure in the
>>> ebuild file.
>>> 
>>>> However, I also should have just pushed the latest POTFILES.in
>manually.
>>>>  So fixed in SVN 37009.
>>>>
>>>> -Christian
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Would you (or someone else) know if there are tested to be
>>> unsupported (non functional) plattforms of GNUnet?
>>> Gentoo can support those to build on:
>>> alpha
>>> amd64
>>> arm
>>> arm 64
>>> hppa
>>> ia64
>>> mips
>>> ppc
>>> ppc64
>>> sh
>>> sparc
>>> x86
>>> x86-fbsd
>>> amd64-linux
>>> ia64-linux
>>> x86-linux
>>> 
>>> It would help for the later testings team to have some input
>>> which ones to exclude, I can only test a limited set on the
>>> hardware I have here.
>>
>> It should work on all of them, even though I don't know what "sh" is
>and
>> we've never had a "mips" or "alpha". We do test on amd, arm, ppc,
>sparc
>> and x86 (32 and 64-bit).
>
>Thanks!
>I don't know what "sh" is supposed to be either. People will
>figure out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH