On 07/13/2012 04:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 05:58:25AM +, Duncan wrote
They're seriously thinking about (and may be planning on) removing
that option from the kernel entirely, to keep people configuring
their first kernels from getting themselves in trouble, but of
On 07/04/2012 07:58 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Maxim Kammerer m...@dee.su wrote:
The KBUILD_OUTPUT / O= option seems like the best solution to me
(especially so as I build three kernel images from a single sources
tree), and it works well, except that it sometimes
On 07/02/2012 10:54 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
hu? yes, as already pointed out, uname is not reliable when
cross-compiling. You should use CHOST, and then you get tc-arch-kernel.
See freebsd-lib ebuild for how it is handled.
A.
In that case, it should be 'local arch=$(tc-arch-kernel)'.
On 07/02/2012 02:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2012 13:37:53 Richard Yao wrote:
On 07/02/2012 10:54 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
hu? yes, as already pointed out, uname is not reliable when
cross-compiling. You should use CHOST, and then you get tc-arch-kernel.
See freebsd-lib
I want to add freebsd_get_cpuarch() to freebsd.eclass. This will give us
a platform-independent way of generating MACHINE_CPUARCH, which will
make building FreeBSD components on other platforms (i.e. Linux and
Prefix) easier.
--- freebsd.eclass.old 2012-07-01 19:15:56.157277000 -0400
+++
There is a small error in this. It should be 's/return/echo/'.
On 07/01/2012 07:48 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
I want to add freebsd_get_cpuarch() to freebsd.eclass. This will give us
a platform-independent way of generating MACHINE_CPUARCH, which will
make building FreeBSD components on other
On 06/29/2012 02:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
It does copy all of the images to /boot so that the grub shell can be
used to install an MBR image. grub:2 no longer has an interactive
shell and grub2-install must be used.
On 06/29/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a
special BIOS Boot Partition in order
On 06/29/2012 05:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/29/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote
On 06/25/2012 12:15 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
An official release of grub-2.00 should be coming pretty soon. I would
like to keyword this for ~amd64 and ~x86 shortly after it hits the tree.
I don't do much work on base system packages, so I would like some
advice on how to make this as smooth as
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
POSIX Shell compliance
So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon
On 06/21/2012 04:08 AM, Duncan wrote:
Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:16:23 -0400 as excerpted:
3. How does getting a x86 system to boot differ from getting a MIPS
system or ARM system to boot? Does it only work because the vendors made
it work or is x86 fundamentally harder?
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/21/2012 11:00 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about
floppy drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa
devices, pci devices and pci express drives, etcetera, because
those
On 06/21/2012 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Roy Bamford wrote:
So when you build a dud kernel and flash your BIOS with it, and we
all build the odd dud, your motherboard is bricked.
Any firmware modification has potential to
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
POSIX Shell compliance
So far as I know, every PM relies heavily
On 06/22/2012 01:02 AM, Duncan wrote:
Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:33:22 -0400 as excerpted:
A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about floppy
drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa devices, pci
devices and pci express drives, etcetera
On 06/22/2012 01:10 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/22/2012 01:02 AM, Duncan wrote:
Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:33:22 -0400 as excerpted:
A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about floppy
drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa devices, pci
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is
implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a
user does
On 06/20/2012 04:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a
great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not want
On 06/20/2012 04:39 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Multilib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 05:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:05:55 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric
description
that this is
infeasible:
On 06/20/2012 04:13 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't
going to be able to get a user to replace their BIOS, nor should you
ever want to. You are not going to be able to keep up with the
hundreds, if not thousands
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that UEFI Secure
Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is implemented in the UEFI
firmware and if we replace the firmware, Secure Boot issues disappear. With
that in mind, I believe we can solve the Secure Boot problem
On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but
their development process is slow and their approach seems to make the
boot process more complicated than it needs
On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
In theory, the kernel could be modified to only execute signed binaries
and portage could be modified to produce signed binaries. The user could
build a system that required everything to be signed with the private
key of his choice. A hardened
On 05/29/12 04:43, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
I'm using usersync since a long time, how about add it too?
This is also a good idea. I second it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 05/29/12 18:11, Zac Medico wrote:
On 05/29/2012 02:47 PM, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
On 29 May 2012 12:46, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
How about introducing e.g. FEATURES=nouserpriv, and make the current
userpriv behavior the default?
rootpriv instead of nouserpriv?
What's
On 05/07/12 21:40, Steven J Long wrote:
The future of GNOME is as a Linux based OS. It is harmful to pretend
that you are writing the OS core to work on any number of different
kernels, user space subsystem combinations, and core libraries..
Kernels just aren't that interesting. Linux isn't
On 05/04/12 21:33, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
base libaries of the Linux
On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
base libaries of the Linux stack.
I was under the impression that in order for there to be a Linux stack,
the Linux tree
On 04/29/12 19:29, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 29/04/12 15:11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg-
config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable a
On 04/23/12 06:16, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I don't really think this is necessary, but some people seem to.
Looks fine?
- Samuli
What is the plan for platforms that are not supported by libturbo?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Thanks everyone for your extremely useful tips. I seem to have it
working now. The problem is that ZFS does memory allocations when asked
to write things.
A makeshift solution is to do `echo 524288
/proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes`. A more permanent fix will take more time
to produce, but at least I
I am running Gentoo on ZFS using the kernel modules from sys-kernel/spl
and sys-fs/zfs. If I put swap on ZFS, the kernel appears to deadlock
when it tries to use it. I am having trouble getting a backtrace.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could debug this?
signature.asc
Description:
I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying
Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo
Linux. naota wrote an improvement that would be useful to send upstream.
However, the GPL-2 license poses a problem according to conversations
that I had in #gentoo-dev.
On 03/30/12 13:34, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:34:26 -0400
Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu wrote:
I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying
Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo
Linux. naota wrote an improvement that would
On 03/30/12 13:52, Richard Yao wrote:
I want sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod to be BSD-2 licensed, but I do not expect
the version that enters the portage tree to be BSD-2 licensed unless
people clarify that it is okay to license ebuilds under something other
than the GPL-2.
To clarify, I would like
On 03/30/12 14:00, Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
The improvement is to the ebuild itself. It is a variable containing a
list of directories upon which the module's build system depends.
I spoke to naota and he doesn't have any problem sending
On 03/30/12 14:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I fail to understand what the license of the ebuild has to do with the
license of the package itself.
It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
separate. This has to do with the license of the ebuild itself.
FreeBSD Ports
On 03/30/12 15:12, Rich Freeman wrote:
If there are specific pains associated with not being able to submit
patches upstream or such, please do point them out and I'm sure we'll
consider what can be done to accommodate this. However, if this
really is a one-off situation then we're probably
On 03/30/12 16:19, Alec Warner wrote:
I doubt you can get the content re-licensed under a different
license. You may be able to convince folks to add an additional
license (|| (GPL-2 BSD-2)). That way Gentoo keeps its GPL-2 and
freebsd can have the code as BSD-2.
Dual-licensing is fine by me.
On 03/30/12 17:15, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Maybe it's time for Gentoo-2.0?
I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we
declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I think
claiming 2.0 would be merited, if only for the attention it would draw
at Phoronix.
On 03/28/12 10:24, Kent Fredric wrote:
Just use categories from repos?
/usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
/usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
/usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/zlib-3.4.tar.bz2
/usr/portage/distfiles/zomg-soft/zomgawesomesoft-5.3.1.tar.xz
(from
On 03/28/12 10:42, Richard Yao wrote:
On 03/28/12 10:24, Kent Fredric wrote:
Just use categories from repos?
/usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
/usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
/usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/zlib-3.4.tar.bz2
/usr/portage/distfiles/zomg-soft
On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
since everyone has an SSD now.
Yeah, right.
On 03/27/12 15:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
On 03/27/2012 03:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs
willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
this is not the license used by the BSD project:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
In particular, the FreeBSD license removes the third clause and appends
The views and conclusions contained in the software
On 03/28/12 20:27, Richard Yao wrote:
Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
this is not the license used by the BSD project:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
In particular, the FreeBSD license removes the third clause and appends
On 03/28/12 21:28, Tim Harder wrote:
On 2012-03-28 Wed 17:31, Richard Yao wrote:
Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
this is not the license used by the BSD project:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
In particular, the FreeBSD license
On 03/27/12 14:34, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on
*before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished
installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the
advantages of a separate /usr/portage.
On 03/27/12 15:13, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
specific objections were.
IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
chatting with another developer who
On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for use in
other contexts without permission of the author.
Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 03/21/12 10:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
use in other contexts without permission of the author.
Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts
On 03/21/12 11:14, Justin wrote:
On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
use in other contexts without permission of the author.
Portage could
On 03/17/12 15:43, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 18 March 2012 08:33, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
So you run set FEATURES=test to run a package's test suite during
keywording. Later, you emerge -vuNDa ... and portage wants to reemerge
that package with USE=-test.
Can't we avoid this
Take your pick:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:01:19PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 03/15/12 22:43, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0400
On 03/15/12 08:40, Joshua Kinard wrote:
I already looked in the tree and nothing really stands out as a suitable
replacement for /dev management. mdev might, but it's part of busybox and
not standalone as far as I know (at least, we don't have an independent
package for it).
Busybox is
On 03/15/12 08:34, Joshua Kinard wrote:
On 03/14/2012 19:27, Richard Yao wrote:
On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote:
2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device?
unionfs is still a work in progress, some systems can't do that yet.
That sounds like something
On 03/15/12 22:43, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:41, Greg KH wrote:
There's always mudev if you don't want to run udev, good luck with that.
Got a link? We don't have anything matching in the tree, and Google turns
up
On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers
quantumsumm...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite
nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails,
On 03/14/12 16:55, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/14/2012 01:03 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
I do not have a separate /usr partition, however I agree with Joshua
Kinard's stance regarding the /usr move. The point of having a separate
/usr was to enable UNIX to exceed the space constraints that a 1.5MB
On 03/14/12 17:04, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:57:52PM +, David Leverton wrote:
Would anyone else like to continue with their own favourite
separate-/usr reason?
Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more
On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:39:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
With that said, I have a few questions:
1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all?
It has been pointed out before, why constantly repeat ourselves.
Simple. No one has documented
:)
greg k-h
I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:
On 03/14/12 17:05, Richard Yao wrote:
In the meantime, it should be possible to create a global usr USE flag
that enables/disables gen_usr_ldscript. It would
On 03/14/12 19:44, Greg KH wrote:
Now, to get back to what I said before, I'm done with this thread, it's
going nowhere, and it seems I'm just making it worse, my apologies. For
penance, I'll adopt the next abandoned package someone throws at me, any
suggestions?
Bug #360513 needs work.
On 03/14/12 20:36, David Leverton wrote:
On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
/usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
On 03/14/12 21:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu wrote:
I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:
Then go ahead and make it happen. If as you say no dev
On 03/14/12 21:06, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/14/2012 05:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
On 03/14/12 20:36, David Leverton wrote:
On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
Clearly something must have changed in udev 181
On 03/12/12 11:57, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus
These must be maintained indefinitely to provide an upgrade path for
older Gentoo Linux installations. It is rare, but people do upgrade
old installs from time to time. Without some EAPI=1 packages, there is
no path for people to use to upgrade.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Pacho Ramos
I am not a developer yet, but I would like to suggest some idea possibilities:
Minix port of Gentoo
Illumos port of Gentoo
LLVM/Clang System Compiler Support
ICC System Compiler Support (probably easier than LLVM/Clang)
Port of Gentoo/FreeBSD to amd64 (or other architectures)
Gentoo/FreeBSD KVM
Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of people who are
most likely to not be running Gentoo. There are a bazillion problems
with btrfs as
Why would btrfs be inferior to ZFS on multiple disks? I can't see how
its architecture would do any worse, and the planned features are
superior to ZFS (which isn't to say that ZFS can't improve either).
ZFS uses ARC as its page replacement algorithm, which is superior to
the LRU page
That isn't my understanding as far as raidz reshaping goes. You can
create raidz's and add them to a zpool. You can add individual
drives/partitions to zpools. You can remove any of these from a zpool
at any time and have it move data into other storage areas. However,
you can't reshape a
Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
kernel modules are only available in the form of ebuilds right
now, but they your data should be safe unless you go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Have you tried ZFS? The kernel modules are in the portage tree and I
am maintaining a FAQ regarding the status of Gentoo ZFS support at github:
https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ
Data stored on ZFS is generally safe unless you go out
We had a chat about this in #gentoo-dev the other night. I might come
up with a solution as part of the ZFS stuff that I am doing, but it
won't happen for at least a month.
With that said, it doesn't look like GRUB is the only blocker:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=gcc-4.6
On Mon, Feb
to find the bug.
Yours truly,
Richard Yao
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are
preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6
I took a look at the problem cited in your bug report. I suggest
compiling sys-boot/grub with CFLAGS=-O0 -ggdb3, attaching gdb to
grub-install and then watching what happens in the debugger. If you
compare runs with a GCC 4.5.3 built stage2 and a GCC 4.6.2 built
stage2, you should be able to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would like to write an ebuild for some software that is CeDILL-1.1
licensed, but the license is not in the portage tree. The CeDILL-2
license is in the portage tree.
I had a chat with robbat in #gentoo-dev on freenode about importing this
license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would like to clarify that this is the CeCILL-1.1 license and the
license in tree is CeCILL-2.
On 02/14/12 03:14, Richard Yao wrote:
I would like to write an ebuild for some software that is CeDILL-1.1
licensed, but the license
201 - 285 of 285 matches
Mail list logo
