Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 2020 22:31:54 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> There used to be a package that caused some serious problems with >> upgrades.  It was really tricky but I can't recall the name of it since >> it was ages ago. > expat? I recall that causing some hair loss. > > It's

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, 6 May 2020 22:31:54 -0500, Dale wrote: > There used to be a package that caused some serious problems with > upgrades.  It was really tricky but I can't recall the name of it since > it was ages ago. expat? I recall that causing some hair loss. -- Neil Bothwick "Ubuntu" is an ancient

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:35 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:14 PM Caveman Al Toraboran > toraboracave...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > are you referring to python's dependence on expat > > and glibc? > > More like bash's dependence. Well, and in the case of glibc just > about

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Thursday, May 7, 2020 7:31 AM, Dale wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: > > OP, odds are the emerge failure is what triggered the problem.  If it had > completed without failure, it would likely have been a clean update.  This is > why I set up a chroot and do my updates there and use the -k option

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Are you overriding something, or were you running this right in the > middle of an update? emerge was updating, then some ebuild failed and i didn't have --keep-going. then next time i tried to sync layman it failed. i'm now re-running

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 8:28 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 4/22/20 12:24 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > > On a source-based distribution, the thing that manages package > > installations can break itself if it incorrectly installs a library that > > a subsequent run of itself would

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:14 PM Caveman Al Toraboran > wrote: >> are you referring to python's dependence on expat >> and glibc? >> > More like bash's dependence. Well, and in the case of glibc just > about everything. When those break you're basically stuck recovering >

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:14 PM Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > > are you referring to python's dependence on expat > and glibc? > More like bash's dependence. Well, and in the case of glibc just about everything. When those break you're basically stuck recovering from a rescue disk.

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > > just to say that some portagy thing (layman) can't > work now as emerge was rebuilding packages to > remove python3_6): > > running "layman -S"... > Traceback (most recent call last): > File

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:14:55 +0300 lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > portage must be in C and statically linked. Do you want Segfaults? Because that's how you get segfaults :p. Maybe Rust or something like it, but I don't really trust our capacity to implement something this complicated in C.

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 04:37:43PM +, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > so i really can't believe that we have devolved in > such a way where malloc/free suddenly has became a > hard concept for homo sapiens. You'd be surprised how much shocking code is out there, especially in

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Friday, April 24, 2020 12:27 AM, Steven Lembark wrote: > Main issue I can see with C is that most people today don't know how > to manage memory; not enough of us left who really understand how > malloc works :-) i find it very hard to believe this. because, fundamentally, the concept of

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/23/20 4:45 AM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:24:07PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> FWIW, I do know there are situations where static linking is the right >> thing to do. > > If you project require strong security, than it would be simpler to use > static

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Friday, April 24, 2020 9:56 PM, Michele Alzetta wrote: > I mean, basically portage is just a set of functions, so a functional > programming language might just be the best way to go yes, haskell passes step (1); so does php, java, etc. now kindly apply the rest of the steps ((2) and

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 06:30:25PM +0200, inasprecali wrote: > There is no rational reason for the core of Portage to be written in > C. There are more than one rational reasons to do so. -- Олег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

I mean, basically portage is just a set of functions, so a functional programming language might just be the best way to go Il giorno ven 24 apr 2020 alle ore 19:54 Michele Alzetta < michele.alze...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > ... seems like you're describing haskell ... > ... now, portage written

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

... seems like you're describing haskell ... ... now, portage written in haskell would be really something Il giorno ven 24 apr 2020 alle ore 14:36 Caveman Al Toraboran < toraboracave...@protonmail.com> ha scritto: > On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 8:32 PM, Michael Jones > wrote: > > > > No-no.

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Friday, April 24, 2020 8:30 PM, inasprecali wrote: > There is no rational reason for the core of Portage to be written in > C. curious.. are you also cool if busybox was written in python?

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 24 Apr 2020, at 18:37, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > > On Friday, April 24, 2020 8:30 PM, inasprecali > wrote: > >> There is no rational reason for the core of Portage to be written in >> C. > > curious.. are you also cool if busybox was written > in python? The argument for a

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:22:39 +0300 lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > The core of portage should be in C, imho. But it can be extendable > with hooks written in something simple like a bash. > It mustn't be a solid binary. It can be splitted into separate parts > with strict definitions of interaction

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Friday, April 24, 2020 4:45 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > How did we get from "Is Gentoo dead?" to "Is C++ dead?" c++ is very alive. it just usually exists in the form of a disease and spreads like cancer. rgrds, cm.

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 8:32 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > >   No-no. C++ is a nightmare. A few people want to use it. > > C++ is an extremely widespread language with millions of lines of code > written daily world wide.  i think that might be misleading as it seems to imply that being a

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:35 AM Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 8:32 PM, Michael Jones > wrote: > > > > No-no. C++ is a nightmare. A few people want to use it. > > > > C++ is an extremely widespread language with millions of lines of code > > written daily world

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 03:27:16PM -0500, Steven Lembark wrote: > > > portage must be in C and statically linked. > > Seems to argue in favor of a statically-linked dynamic language: The > runtime compiler can be static with install scripts being a bit more > malleable. The core of portage

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

> portage must be in C and statically linked. Seems to argue in favor of a statically-linked dynamic language: The runtime compiler can be static with install scripts being a bit more malleable. Main issue I can see with C is that most people today don't know how to manage memory; not

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:19:26PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> If you only sync once a day, then yes, you'll only have to rebuild once >> a day. I sync considerably more than that though, and besides, it takes >> me about a week to emerge -e @world. > Just

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:52:52AM +0300, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > Nobody talk about "everything is statically linked". > However, this is a good idea ;-), but this is a topic for another > conversation :-). No wonder Yandex considers you SPAM.

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:19:26PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > It's not that everything depends on OpenSSL, but that everything depends > on /something/. If everything is statically linked, then any update of > any package sets off a chain reaction of other packages that trigger > rebuilds of

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:24:07PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > FWIW, I do know there are situations where static linking is the right > thing to do. If you project require strong security, than it would be simpler to use static linking. If you have many instances of the same program or have

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Michael Jones wrote: > But I don't generally want my entire system statically linked, only a few > things. But who said that *entire* system should be statically linked? The conversation is so far only about such a critical thing as portage. -- Олег

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 02:33:45PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > If you statically link more than a few things, this is emerge -e @world > twenty times a day. Hm :-D. And why it should be so? I run emerge one time in a week. If there are any changes in a dependancy of some package, why it

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 02:19:19PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > How do you plan to update all of your programs when there's a security > vulnerability in, say, OpenSSL? Hm. And why we need every package to be statically linked? I told just that static linking is a good and useful feature.

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/22/20 3:22 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > But I don't generally want my entire system statically linked, only a > few things. > FWIW, I do know there are situations where static linking is the right thing to do.

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:19 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 4/22/20 3:15 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > > > Why would I need to emerge world? Portage knows the full list of > > packages that depend on openssl, transitively. > > > > Unless you're generalizing to say that (almost) everything

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/22/20 3:15 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > Why would I need to emerge world? Portage knows the full list of > packages that depend on openssl, transitively. > > Unless you're generalizing to say that (almost) everything depends on > openssl, I suppose. > > Also, didn't the handbook, at one

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:33 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 4/22/20 2:24 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:19 PM Michael Orlitzky > > wrote: > > > > How do you plan to update all of your programs when there's a > security > >

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 02:38:40PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Rust packages get no security updates. Neither do Go packages. That's > what I'm screaming about in those threads on gentoo-dev that you singled > out in your original post =) Oh... I was under the impression that $EGO_SUMS

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/22/20 2:24 PM, Consus wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 02:19:19PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> How do you plan to update all of your programs when there's a security >> vulnerability in, say, OpenSSL? > > emerge -1 @world of course :D > > By the way, Rust does support dynamic linking

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/22/20 2:24 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:19 PM Michael Orlitzky > wrote: > > How do you plan to update all of your programs when there's a security > vulnerability in, say, OpenSSL? > > > Is there some reason why all packages

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 02:19:19PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > How do you plan to update all of your programs when there's a security > vulnerability in, say, OpenSSL? emerge -1 @world of course :D By the way, Rust does support dynamic linking (to a degree), but does not have (yet, I pray)

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:19 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > How do you plan to update all of your programs when there's a security > vulnerability in, say, OpenSSL? > Is there some reason why all packages that depend on OpenSSL, transitively, could not be recompiled?

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/22/20 2:08 PM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Alessandro Barbieri wrote: >> Whatever, but QA is by my side and I'm helping removing static libraries >> from gentoo packages. > > Man, this is not a technical argument. Sorry :-). You are wrong from a >

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Alessandro Barbieri wrote: > Whatever, but QA is by my side and I'm helping removing static libraries > from gentoo packages. Man, this is not a technical argument. Sorry :-). You are wrong from a technical point of view. And the fact above says just: -

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

Whatever, but QA is by my side and I'm helping removing static libraries from gentoo packages. https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/installed-files.html?highlight=static#pg0302 Also more context here: https://flameeyes.blog/2011/08/29/useless-flag-static-libs/

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:47 AM wrote: > C is more widespread, than C++. > Yes, this is true. > C++ is unneededly complex and for such core thing like a portage > C would be better. C code is simpler and robust. More people know it. > More people can send patches. Etc. > I disagree to the

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:32:49AM -0500, Michael Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM wrote: > > No-no. C++ is a nightmare. A few people want to use it. > > C++ is an extremely widespread language with millions of lines of code > written daily world wide. C is more widespread,

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM wrote: > > No-no. C++ is a nightmare. A few people want to use it. > C++ is an extremely widespread language with millions of lines of code written daily world wide. Lots of people want to use it. Just not people who want to write a PMS compliant package

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:28 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I won't say this is impossible, but in general it hasn't been true for a > long time in Gentoo. Old libraries are left behind until you rebuild the > things that link against them (that's what emerge @preserved-rebuild > does). When used

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:16:20PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 4/22/20 12:14 PM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > > Yes. And yes again :-). +1 > > portage must be in C and statically linked. > > python is a strange dependency. > > Paludis was a C++ package manager, but is dead now. No

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/22/20 12:24 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > On a source-based distribution, the thing that manages package > installations can break itself if it incorrectly installs a library that > a subsequent run of itself would dynamically link against. > I won't say this is impossible, but in general

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:18 PM Alessandro Barbieri wrote: > > Nothing should be statically linked, please stop spreading the disease. > Gee, maybe the musl project should commit suicide? If at least they had read the vulgata consciously before starting the project... > Il Mer 22 Apr 2020,

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 06:17:52PM +0200, Alessandro Barbieri wrote: > Nothing should be statically linked, please stop spreading the disease. You are wrong ;-). -- Олег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:18 AM Alessandro Barbieri < lssndrbarbi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nothing should be statically linked, please stop spreading the disease. > On a source-based distribution, the thing that manages package installations can break itself if it incorrectly installs a library

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

Nothing should be statically linked, please stop spreading the disease. Il Mer 22 Apr 2020, 18:14 ha scritto: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:07:52PM +, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > > in fact, i think portage sucks so much it must be > > rewritten from scratch, in such a way that it has > >

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On 4/22/20 12:14 PM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:07:52PM +, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: >> in fact, i think portage sucks so much it must be >> rewritten from scratch, in such a way that it has >> least run-time dependencies, so we stop worrying >> about upgrading

Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:07:52PM +, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > in fact, i think portage sucks so much it must be > rewritten from scratch, in such a way that it has > least run-time dependencies, so we stop worrying > about upgrading other packages, such as python. Yes. And yes again