[gentoo-dev] missing ide discs mapping is udev's fault?
Hi, yesterday I've noticed, that some mappings in /dev/discs are missing on my machine. Actually I have an additional ATA controller with some discs attached. So I have /dev/hda through /dev/hdl which are ok. But the mappings to /dev/discs/discX with X > 7 are missing. Whose fault would that be in the first case? hot- or coldplug? udev? I've looked through /etc/udev/scripts/ide-devfs.sh but could not find anything wrong there so far. I've noticed he missing mappings as e.g. /etc/init.d/hdparm loops through /dev/discs/discX to set params for all discs attached and thus misses the last two. I wanted to file a bug report, but I'm not certain if it's actually udev's fault. Christian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting all log related packages into it's own category (sys-logging)
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 20:30 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: > Personally I think unless there is a real problem that needs to be > resolved, moving packages around should be avoided. It's a shame we can't find a way to turn package categories into solely a presentational feature, rather than being an integral part of the package's identity as it is today. (And, at the same time, multi-depth categories would also be nice :) With the way things are today, "improvements" to the structure of the package tree are held back by our historical legacy. As the tree grows, it makes sense to move packages into new groups that weren't viable before - and to clear out historical dumping grounds in the process. If package categories were only something that users used to find things - and weren't used by Portage as part of a package's unique identity - then we could afford to be more flexible on this. Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ http://blog.stuartherbert.com/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Beware DESCRIPTION clobbering
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:46:01PM -0300, Marcelo Góes wrote: > I agree. Adding a package to a herd is basically the same as adding > someone as a package maintainer. If one doesn't belong to the target > herd, he/she should drop a line asking first. Some developers tend to think that if they just add themselves to the herd as well, someone else from that herd will take care of fixing the bugs in the packages they introduce... Unfortunately I see no easy solution to this other than to speak to the common sense of these devs asking them to take the time to actively maintain any packages they add to the tree - or don't add them at all. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpEtqCh6RzG2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Beware DESCRIPTION clobbering
On 2/20/06, Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 'given' to us) but if you're (NOT ciaranm, general reply) going to add a > package and then proceed to assign it to a herd, it would be really keen > if you told the herd, or at least took care of the bugs you generated as > a result. Maybe there should be a policy or something about not willy > nilly adding packages to a herd without some sort of exchange. And yes, > unfortunately we catch these things months, even a year later, then > scratch our heads on what happened. I agree. Adding a package to a herd is basically the same as adding someone as a package maintainer. If one doesn't belong to the target herd, he/she should drop a line asking first. Cheers -- Marcelo Góes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Beware DESCRIPTION clobbering
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 02:36 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > dev-perl/XML-AutoWriter-0.38: description: > major: DESCRIPTION equal to $PN? You can do better than that. slightly off topic (fixed btw - perl herd didn't add it, but it was 'given' to us) but if you're (NOT ciaranm, general reply) going to add a package and then proceed to assign it to a herd, it would be really keen if you told the herd, or at least took care of the bugs you generated as a result. Maybe there should be a policy or something about not willy nilly adding packages to a herd without some sort of exchange. And yes, unfortunately we catch these things months, even a year later, then scratch our heads on what happened. /me steps off pulpit. ~mcummings signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Berlios-hosted SRC_URI components
On Monday 20 February 2006 19:51, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Positive as in "yes, we'll fix it", or positive as in "yes, we're > mangling the tarballs and we hate you"? Positive as in already fixed. Carsten pgpBBuf9e1rQs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting all log related packages into it's own category (sys-logging)
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:13:46 +0100 Bjarke Istrup Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was thinking, how about putting all log related packages into their > own category? Personally I think unless there is a real problem that needs to be resolved, moving packages around should be avoided. We've been over the problems of the concept of categories many times, I don't see any value in going through it in depth again as categories are too deeply embedded to be changed. Suffice to say that any package is likely to have several reasonable categorisations, however the tree only supports one. Different people will prefer different categorisations according to each person's perspective, so moving packages to suit one perspective just messes things up for another perspective. > Maybe creating a logging herd would be an idea to, to remove the load > from the base-system herd. Creating a herd is not a problem; obviously herds and categories are completely different things. However a quick scan of the logging-related packages in sys-admin shows they mostly do not belong to a herd, so are not imposing any load on the base-system herd as such. Creation of a herd for these packages would be a question for the maintainers of those packages :) -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Berlios-hosted SRC_URI components
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:36:35 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Got a positive answer. Any remaining issues? Positive as in "yes, we'll fix it", or positive as in "yes, we're mangling the tarballs and we hate you"? -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Berlios-hosted SRC_URI components
Got a positive answer. Any remaining issues? Carsten pgpNZUjiYYIkb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting all log related packages into it's own category (sys-logging)
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 14:13 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hey. > > I was thinking, how about putting all log related packages into their > own category? > This should be logging daemons, log viewers, logrotate etc. > > Maybe creating a logging herd would be an idea to, to remove the load > from the base-system herd. > > What do you think? I think most pkgs are fine where they are at now. The main logging pkgs do not suffer from not being maintained. app-admin/ where most things are now seems the most fitting. -- solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting all log related packages into it's own category (sys-logging)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:13:46PM +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was thinking, how about putting all log related packages into their > own category? > This should be logging daemons, log viewers, logrotate etc. > > Maybe creating a logging herd would be an idea to, to remove the load > from the base-system herd. > > What do you think? I think this is a great idea, as long as it doesnt get abused. There are quite a lot of log handling packages anyways, although would there be enough to warrant a new category as well as a new herd? My brief suggestion of packages which would be good for this: app-admin/analog app-admin/cronolog app-admin/fetchlog app-admin/klogview app-admin/logmon app-admin/logrotate app-admin/logsentry app-admin/metalog app-admin/modlogan app-admin/newsyslog app-admin/phpsyslogng app-admin/socklog app-admin/sysklogd app-admin/syslog-ng app-admin/ulog-acctd app-admin/ulogd app-misc/logserial net-firewall/fwanalog net-mail/qlogtools net-mail/qmailanalog sys-apps/gluelog sys-apps/logwatch x11-misc/paralogger Regards, John -- Role:Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead Gentoo Linux:http://www.gentoo.org Public Key: gpg --recv-keys 9C745515 Key fingerprint: A0AF F3C8 D699 A05A EC5C 24F7 95AA 241D 9C74 5515 pgp50aBPGXFyN.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Putting all log related packages into it's own category (sys-logging)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey. I was thinking, how about putting all log related packages into their own category? This should be logging daemons, log viewers, logrotate etc. Maybe creating a logging herd would be an idea to, to remove the load from the base-system herd. What do you think? Best regards GurliGebis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD+cCKO+Ewtpi9rLERAt4/AJ0ebe9R88a89NbFcIDWwAjYZmVQWACfd/fE A8oegF7aHMcVJCk1cmSrsBw= =XFwz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
