Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Adding potentially questionable license AcePerl-Indemnity

On 4/23/20 3:31 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Kent Fredric wrote: > >> I've just discovered dev-perl/Ace has some fun questionable licensing >> which includes a lovely indemnity clause, which had previously gone >> unnoticed, and it stipulates additional requests for

Re: ext4 readdir performance - was Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

> On Oct 23, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > On 10/22/19 2:51 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> >>> On 2019/10/21 18:42, Richard Yao wrote: >>> >>> If we consider the access frequency, it might actually not be that >

ext4 readdir performance - was Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

On 10/22/19 2:51 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: > Hi All, > > > On 2019/10/21 18:42, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> If we consider the access frequency, it might actually not be that >> bad. Consider a simple example with 500 files and two directory >> buckets. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 19:24 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: >>> On 10/18/2019 09:41, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hi, everybody. >>> >>> It is my pleasure to announce that yesterday (EU) evening we've switched >>> to a new distfile mirror

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

> On Oct 19, 2019, at 4:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 15:26 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Richard Yao wrote: >>> >>>  >>>>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

> On Oct 18, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > >  >>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 15:53 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 9:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>&

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

> On Oct 19, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 21:09 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 15:53 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>>&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

> On Oct 18, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 15:53 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>>>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 9:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>>> Hi, everybody. >>>>> It is my pleasure to announce that yest

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

> On Oct 18, 2019, at 9:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everybody. > > It is my pleasure to announce that yesterday (EU) evening we've switched > to a new distfile mirror layout. Users will be switching to the new > layout either as they upgrade Portage to 2.3.77 or -- if they upgraded

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding 'GPL-2-only', 'GPL-3-only' etc. license variants for better auditing

> On Sep 21, 2019, at 12:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having > the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's > 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'. > > > GNU Licenses currently don't carry an upgrade clause --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing ~x86-fbsd?

> On Jan 27, 2019, at 1:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm going to keep this short. Gentoo/FreeBSD is on life support for > quite some time already. The little work happening around it is all > focused on amd64. I'm not aware of any developer running ~x86-fbsd > at this point,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ standard in ebuilds

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov > wrote: > > I'd prefer to wait another replies on the list for the main theme of this e- > mail, but this problem also affects C (so, as **c**flags and C standards), so > solution shoudn't be c++ specific, imho. You would think that,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:54:57 -0400 > Richard Yao wrote: > >>>> My read of this is that the warning occurs regardless of optimization >>>> level, but it could somehow be improved by o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 15-09-2018 00:07:12 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps, if one persists on going this route, only do this for platforms >>> that upstream supports, such that arches which will suffer from this >>> (typically ppc, sparc, ...)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 09/14/2018 03:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote: >>> >>> No one has answered the question: what do you do when a stable package >>> breaks because of a new warning? >>> >>> .

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> On 09/14/2018 01:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Wouldn't the flip side of this be demonstrating that this has actually >> caused issues? If following upstream discovers no bugs and also >> causes no issues, why not leave it to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On 09/13/2018 07:36 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > >> On Sep 12, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: >> >>> On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> There is also the case where we want these warnings to block >>> installation, because t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On 09/13/2018 12:03 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 13-09-2018 07:36:09 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 12, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: >>> >>>> On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> There is also the cas

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On 09/14/2018 12:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:34 AM Sergei Trofimovich wrote: >> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:44:38 +0300 >> Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> >> I'm personally in favour of not allowing -Werror >> to be in build system unconditionally. >> >> Maintainer is free to

[gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14.09.2018 at 0:44 user Richard Yao wrote: >> This is a really odd design decision by the GCC developers. With other >> compilers, the separation between front end and backend

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 11:35 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:44 PM Richard Yao wrote: >>> On Sep 13, 2018, at 7:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:13 PM Richard Yao wrote: >>>>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 7:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:13 PM Richard Yao wrote: >>> On Sep 13, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >>> >>>> On 13-09-2018 07:36:09 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>> >>&

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > >> On 13-09-2018 07:36:09 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> >>>> On Sep 12, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wro

Re: [gentoo-dev] acceptable alternatives to -Werror, was: Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: > > Rich Freeman schrieb: >>> Requirements: >>> >>> * Do not fail to build/install when a warning is encountered >> On a particularly critical package like a filesystem, wouldn't we want >> to still fail to install when a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > >> On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wrote: >> There is also the case where we want these warnings to block >> installation, because the risk of there being a problem is too great. > > I really disagree with that. So many devs have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Sep 12, 2018, at 4:28 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> If a package really ought to have >> -Werror due to a very good reason and is properly maintained to support it, >> then there is nothing wrong with inventing a USE flag to give users the >> option of enforcing that. > > There is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > > >>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/10/18 11:21 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>>> On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> On 9/10/18 11:21 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >>> It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free >>> from the beginning across

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: > > Fabian Groffen schrieb: >>> On 09-09-2018 11:22:41 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> -Werror has caught bugs that could have resulted in data loss in ZFS in the >>> past thanks to it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > Ühel kenal päeval, E, 10.09.2018 kell 22:56, kirjutas Kristian > Fiskerstrand: >>> On 9/10/18 10:51 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >>> Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not >>> built >>> this configuration. None of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > >> On 09-09-2018 11:22:41 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >> -Werror has caught bugs that could have resulted in data loss in ZFS in the >> past thanks to it being built in userspace as part of zdb. So it is usef

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > > >> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2018, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >> What I'm trying to do is to allow maintainers to keep -Werror if >> they really want to do this, understand what they are doing and >> have enough manpower to support this. > > Bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional re

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional re

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > Hi! > > Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal: > https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html#-werror-compiler-flag-not-removed > > I think this is wrong, see bugs 665464, 665538 for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support

On 08/22/2018 08:26 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: > Hi guys, > > For some time now, we've been shipping broken i486 stage3s that do not > run on pre-i686 hardware [1].  Due to a change in catalyst [2], we no > longer set CXXFLAGS in the default make.conf, so the x86 profiles' (imho > wrong/broken)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Experimental 2-step authentication support on dev.gentoo.org

> On Aug 9, 2018, at 4:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > Just a short notice: we've enabled experimental support for 2-step > authentication when logging in to woodpecker via SSH. For more details, > see [1]. Awesome. I had no idea that the hooks for this were in place. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

> On Aug 5, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:12 PM Richard Yao wrote: >> >> >> Prestige is good. We have prestige from our (myself and a few others) work >> in upstream ZFS and Gentoo is well respected there. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

> On Aug 5, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 1:01 PM Alec Warner wrote: >> >> >> Part of my frustration is that seemingly "anything open source related >> can be held in Gentoo" and I'm somewhat against that as I feel it >> dilutes the Gentoo mission. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

> On Aug 5, 2018, at 1:01 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Alec Warner wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Jonas Stein wrote: > >> On 2018-06-23 04:57, Marty E. Plummer wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 09:50:50PM -0500, Marty E. Plummer wrote: >>> So, as you may be aware I've been doing some work on moving bzip2 to an >>> autotools based build. Recently I've ran

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Marty E. Plummer >> wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> > W dniu pią, 22.06.2018 o godzinie 21∶50 -0500, użytkownik Marty E. >> > Plummer napisał: >> > > So,

[gentoo-dev] Cross compilation tracker bug

I have opened a tracker bug for cross compilation issues: https://bugs.gentoo.org/662714 Bugs on packages that fail to build with crossdev and patches for those bugs are more than welcome. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao wrote: >> >> Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree >> is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > W dniu śro, 11.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶11 -0400, użytkownik Richard Yao > napisał: >>>> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Y

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao wrote: >> >> On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to >> have on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints. > > It

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:25:20PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: >>>> On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>>>> On 10/07/18 21:09, Willia

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM Raymond Jennings wrote: >> >> I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout >> for awhile. >> > > I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: > On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: >> On

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v3 00/12] GLEP 63 update

> On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > Here's third version of the patches. I've incorporated the feedback > so far and reordered the patches (again) to restore their > degree-of-compatibility order. The full text is included below. > > > Michał Górny (12): >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making ebuilds that provide mkfs.* programs include kernel config checks for fcaps (or other xattrs)

On 06/29/2018 11:43 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > Hi, > > As suggested by Wojciech Myrda in bug 659486 [1], it would be helpful if > sys-fs/e2fsprogs would use the linux-info eclass to warn if the kernel > configuration doesn't include CONFIG_EXT4_FS_SECURITY=y when the user > has expressed a desire to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hostile takeover of our github mirror. Don't use ebuild from there until new warning!

> On Jun 28, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > >> On Jun 28, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) >> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> I just want to notify that an attacker has taken control of the Gentoo >> organiz

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hostile takeover of our github mirror. Don't use ebuild from there until new warning!

> On Jun 28, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) > wrote: > > Hi! > > I just want to notify that an attacker has taken control of the Gentoo > organization in Github and has among other things replaced the portage > and musl-dev trees with malicious versions of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.26 just went stable (on amd64)

> On Jun 2, 2018, at 3:47 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > As a heads-up, glibc-2.26 just went stable on amd64. > > If you still have open bugs, they now mutate from "doesn't build with > glibc-2.26" to "doesn't build, treecleaning candidate". Not necessarily. If it builds on Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly x11@ project status for June 2018

> On Jun 1, 2018, at 2:58 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > x11@ is currently assigned or cc'd on 176 bugs. This number is down from > 222 on April 1st and more than 412 in February 2015 (I reported this on > #gentoo-desktop after closing out a bunch of bugs that day). Awesome! > > > == Fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny

> On May 22, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > W dniu sob, 19.05.2018 o godzinie 18∶53 +0300, użytkownik Consus > napisał: >> Okay, this >> >>https://github.com/mgorny/portage-mgorny/issues/15 >> >> is a goddamn piece of sanity that Portage requires for a long

[gentoo-dev] Most of my packages up for grabs

My past jobs have worn me out, which combined with upstream work, caused me to become minimally active for some time. I am in the middle of some changes to my life that will likely change that, but I don't use most of the packages that I maintain anymore and they have gotten very little attention

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:43 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr ou

Re: [gentoo-dev] GitHub GPG Signature Verification

On 04/06/2016 01:52 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: > Greetings all, > > As of yesterday, GitHub now supports GPG signature verification [1]. > As a result, when viewed through the GitHub mirror, all commits now > have a widget that displays whether the GPG signature has been > verified (via GitHub). To

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 12:33 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 04/06/2016 12:20 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:06:35 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: >> >>> That is unless you put per-system state in /usr/local, do symlinks to it >>> in / and mount /usr/lo

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 12:20 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:06:35 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: > >> That is unless you put per-system state in /usr/local, do symlinks to it >> in / and mount /usr/local as part of system boot, which is the other way >> of

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 12:06 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 04/06/2016 11:11 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:58:05 PM CEST, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I >>> happen to have a few workstatio

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 11:11 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:58:05 PM CEST, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I >> happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share >> presently, > > > This is

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I > happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share > presently, with some bodgery-workarounds I did pre the udev notification > about initramfs's which I have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge

On 04/06/2016 01:34 AM, Duncan wrote: > Richard Yao posted on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:15:58 -0400 as excerpted: > > >>> On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:19 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I thought that since

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:55 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:42:04 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > >>> This was invented in Solaris and copied by RHEL. The upgrade >>> path for the /usr merge on those systems is a complete >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost > track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a > new thread to discuss it. > > When it came up before, some were saying

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: upgrading to Plasma 5

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:34:07AM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > Hi, > > KDE team intends to stabilise Plasma 5 shortly, so please review the > accompanying news items. > > Regards, > > Michael > > Title: KDE Plasma 5 Upgrade > Author: Michael Palimaka >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 02:01 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:18:46 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> >>> The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh when the list of PIDs using a >>> mountpoint includes "$$" which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 01:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Genkernel's initramfs generation was what we endorsed for the most >> part, until dracut came around. it's hard to say what "most" are >> doing but i expect dracut and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 12:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Systemd installs that go back into the initramfs at shutdown are rare >> because there is a >> hook for the initramfs to tell systemd that it should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/17/2016 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by >> sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/17/2016 11:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:38:05 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Michał Górny schrieb: With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

o-dev@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> >> >> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler <bkoh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler <bkoh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> >> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > William Hubbs posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:41:29 -0600 as excerpted: > >> What I'm trying to figure out is, what to do about re-mounting file >> systems read-only. >> >> How does systemd do this? I didn't find an

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> >> The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh when the list of PIDs using a >> mountpoint includes "$$" which is shell shorthand for self. How

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:22:13PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> >>> The reason it exists is very vague to me; I think it has

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file > systems which happen to be pre-mounted

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Ben Kohler <bkoh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for >> virtual/udev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:52 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:00:27 -0500 > Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Antho

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 > Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:37 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:54:31 -0500 > Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the >> logical choice for those con

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using > kdbus/bus1, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> >> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work >> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. >> >> some of the criticism given here are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> Ohey, >> >> I've opened a bug at: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 >> >> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. >> For

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 04:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this would mean that eudev is

[gentoo-dev] Change in Gentoo ZFS packaging policy

st when cross-compiling Ned Bass (1): Prevent SA length overflow Olaf Faaland (1): Remove "index" column from dbufstat.py Richard Yao (5): ClusterHQ Proposed API extensions Only trigger SET_ERROR tracepoint event on error Unconditionally build zdb

[gentoo-dev] New license: CROSSOVER-3

Earlier this year, I spoke with Codeweavers' CEO, Jeremy White, about changing their license terms so that we could remove RESTRICT=fetch from app-emulation/crossover-bin. Robin Johnson and I also discussed it then. The main issue was the requirement that users delete the software after the trial

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introduce ppc64le architecture into gentoo ! please share your comments

On 10/21/2015 04:55 AM, Kevin Zhao wrote: > Hi Guys， We have finish compiling stage3 for ppc64 (little-endian).Here is > the link: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2k84p6709AyTFlwLUF1WjlxUk0/view?usp=sharing Awesome! > Now we are going to build LiveCD using stage3. Could you help to

[gentoo-dev] What is the status of phone/tablet support?

I asked in #gentoo-embedded on freenode, but I would like to pose this question to a wider auidence through the list. What is the status of phone/tablet support? In specific, I am curious about: * Modern hardware options (especially those without a hardware keyboard) * Status of F/OSS drivers *

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

On 09/27/2014 07:39 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 09/27/14 18:46, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new set of profiles/default/linux/uclibc

On Thu 14 Aug 2014 12:04:10 PM EDT, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to add a new set of profiles under default linux. These will mirror what's already under hardened and will have the structure: default/linux/uclibc/{amd64,arm,mips,ppc,x86} Currently I maintain both

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Returning dev: Thomas Alan Gall (tgall)

Welcome back! :) On 07/14/2014 04:26 AM, Justin (jlec) wrote: Hi everyone, we have an returning oldtimer here, Thomas Gall aka. tgall. His original bug has been opened in 2003, so he knows gentoo from the early days. He is joining the arm team now and will stabilize mostly for arm64,

[gentoo-dev] Re: GSoC proposal: cp --reflink support for zfs.

A key feature of reflinks is that they operate on any data in a mountpoint, but what you described only applies to data with a deduplication table entry. In such cases, it do not see what it accomplishes over simply using data deduplication. In specific, there is no efficiency advantage. It is

Re: [gentoo-dev] GSoC proposal: cp --reflink support for zfs.

On 03/12/2014 08:45 AM, Alex Xu wrote: On 12/03/14 03:15 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote: Hi, I would like to implement cp --reflink support for ZFSOnLinux as my GSoC project. cp --reflink is used to create a COW copy of a file, so the file will not take any disk space if it's not modified. This

  1   2   3   >