Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: x11-misc/xscreensaver

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:30:44PM +0100, Jonas Stein wrote: > the following packages are up for grabs after dropping > desktop-misc: > > x11-misc/xscreensaver > https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/x11-misc/xscreensaver > > It has 3 open tickets. Hi, Strongly considering picking it up. Please

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Discontinuing LibreSSL support?

I agree with the proposal to sunset LibreSSL. Supporting it benefits very few users due to how non-universal the support of this option is. I see it as entirely sensible choice on apps' upstreams part to not collaborate on libressl support, motivation being focusing on more typical user setups.

[gentoo-dev] Up for grabs: dev-util/tup, ...

Hi fellows, The following packages are up for grabs: * dev-util/tup Two outstanding issues: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=711856 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=704990 * media-gfx/propaganda A collection of graphics. No open bugs. No other package depends on it. *

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

I have transitioned to "away" state as I have to reclaim my time for other uses. Here I am trying to reduce the scope of my Gentoo responsibilities to make potential return to activity less dreadful and overwhelming. Call for successors === The following are the packages I do not

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Ideas for gentoostats implementation

Since it is going to be opt-in and optional anyway, we seem to be fine with having just partial data. I assume we have logs of distfiles downloads from Gentoo infrastructure, and can negotiate access to relevant logs of our mirrors. That constitutes partial data correlated with users'

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] News Item: sys-boot/raspberrypi-firmware will not install device tree files

Title: sys-boot/raspberrypi-firmware will not install device tree files Author: Andrey Utkin Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2019-11-25 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: sys-boot/raspberrypi-firmware sys-boot/raspberrypi-firmware up to and including version 1.20190709

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New QA policy: Packages must not disable installing manpages via USE flags

I am also against the part of the proposal about maintainer being responsible to prebuild the docs. I'd also like to note that Gentoo users are empowered to locally bump ebuild versions in this insanely easy way, it almost always works, and it is really useful at times. With this policy, this

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v3] glep-0081: User and group management via dedicated packages

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 09:53:46AM -0400, Brian Evans wrote: > What significance will such numbers have when a daemon uses a new > UID/GID and really doesn't care what it is? Why do we have to go > through the effort of assigning fixed IDs at random? One reason not mentioned by mjo: this paves

Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing global USE=gui flag

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 07:09:12PM +0200, David Seifert wrote: > Dear fellow developers, > as part of our effort in making Gentoo more pleasant to use, I am > suggesting to add the global USE=gui flag. The idea seems sensible to me. What should be the next step? An experimental patchset handling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: sys-boot/raspberrypi-firmware

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 03:03:58PM +0100, Conrad Kostecki wrote: > Could we keep this package? I can take it, and make a proper release, if that > would be enough to keep this package? I am using this on my gentoo with my > Rpi3. Hi Conrad, Thank you for being this active! I am also

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to tetromino's retirement

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:52:24AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > media-libs/libv4l > media-tv/v4l-utils I have some familiarity with these, I'll take them. (Everybody is welcome to co-maintain if they wish so.) signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:50:31PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: > So let's satisfy everyone and be done with it: Let's put AUTHORS in > Git with a section header that states that these Copyright holders are > not obvious from the git history. This is where Sony would go. We can make it obvious from

Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:12:26AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > based on the previous thread about copyright attribution clarifications, > I want to add the following AUTHORS file to the top level of the portage > repository if no one objects. > > This is based on the description of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Gentoo binary package container format

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:45:54AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > We agree it is hackish, and we agree we can do without. You simply > exaggerate the problem, IMO, which mostly isn't there, because it works > fine today. It can also be solved today using shell tools. I am sad that you don't see

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:57:40AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > net-im/mcabber > net-libs/loudmouth Taking these. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Personall Gentoo Installer project pre-beta release

Hi, First, my appreciation for your work! I am not going to check it out myself, but I'd enjoy watching a screencast, or at last a series of screenshots, of how it looks and works. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: empty directories in ${D}

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:57:06AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > On 03/29/2018 11:28 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > > > Is there any particular reason we need to remove them? > > > > > > > The PMS says that empty

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Lars Wendler wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:58:10 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote: > > >net-wireless/hostapd > > In case nobody else wants to take it I can do. But I'm a mere user of > the package and don't know anything about its internals. So it would be >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proliferation of IUSE=static-libs in Gentoo

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:57:35PM +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:40:44 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > As part of that we also shouldn't deliver static libraries > > OK, so you want to absolutely kill dead the only current sane way for > developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

> sys-power/acpid Taking this one. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted > > those remotes to the source package used to build them all. > > I think in

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for uclibc-ng

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:37:52PM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Attached you'll find a news item for uclibc-ng. I'd like to push it out > in a few days. > > This will make sure all executables link directly against libc.so.0 (as > reported by `readelf -d`) rather than via

Re: [gentoo-dev] Help wanted with www-client/chromium

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 06:00:25PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > Keeping up with the frequent Chromium releases is quite a chore. > Recently, phajdan.jr has been slacking on the masked dev channel > updates due a hardware problem, so I have been spending additional > time on them. > > If there are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:50:42PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote: > I completely agree that we should credit (and thank) contributors. I'm > not sure if I'm doing things correctly, but when I'm dealing with a bug > and users contribute patches or edits to ebuilds, I try to credit them > in my

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

Hi Matthew, Please take my deepest excuses for unjustly blaming you, now I see that my perception was plain wrong in being so blindly emotional. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:43:36PM -0600, Matthew Thode wrote: > While I did see your PR and bug if I remember correctly I didn't > actually use your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:27:17AM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > One more reason to use merge commits for pull requests: original > author commits with proper authorship will be retained. > > Yes, I know that some people are unhappy with non-linear history, > but this is how git works, so

[gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

I'm quite sure this angry rant won't be pleasant to read for anybody, but still I believe this post serves the good of Gentoo and this issue is technical enough to be discussed on gentoo-dev. Also gentoo-pr list seems retired anyway. This is a second time I've got into a situation when a new