Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:27:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote: # Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (21 Jul 2007) # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2. # Masked for removal in 30 days. x11-misc/fsv in other words, you have no real reason for punting this package ? -mike well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it to version 2 from upstream is a valid reason, BUT it doesn't draw the graphics correctly and seems broken with current mesa -- draws white artifacts. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11 cleanups
On 7/22/07, Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Donnie wants to remove virtual/x11 (can ya blame him?) and since Josh_B has retired (for now! ;) ) I wanted to help Donnie out a bit, since he is busy and X is a massive undertaking... a quick grep of the tree excluding ChangeLog files shows 3319 occurrences of virtual/x11 still in the tree. Good idea. How about using bug #168328 as a tracker or opening a new one ? I don't have a list as that is a lot of occurrences, so if you maintain something that uses X, please take a glance through your ebuilds and make sure they have the true package deps and perhaps help lighten Donnie's load. In any case I'll handle sci-electronics and dev-embedded as usual. Denis. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv
On Sunday 22 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote: # Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (21 Jul 2007) # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2. # Masked for removal in 30 days. x11-misc/fsv in other words, you have no real reason for punting this package ? well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it to version 2 from upstream is a valid reason punting a package because you disagree with the implementation is not a valid reason. nor is an upstream who hasnt touched a package in ages. there are plenty of packages in system which could be punted using this reasoning leaving Gentoo broken. BUT it doesn't draw the graphics correctly and seems broken with current mesa -- draws white artifacts. if the package doesnt function properly, that is a reason. it runs fine for me, but i'm not interested in supporting the package. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Zombie: Sven Vermeulen (swift)
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 23:22, Petteri Räty wrote: Your doc zombie Sven Vermeulen has risen from his grave and is back to beat www.gentoo.org/doc/en with his fingers. Give him the usual welcome with nice head shots. A bit late but welcome back Sven! -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)
Le mardi 17 juillet 2007 à 02:20 +0200, Camille Huot a écrit : Welcome p-y! 2007/7/15, Pierre-Yves Rofes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: @Remi: Yeah, the french conspiracy strikes again :D btw, I hope we'll have an opportunity to meet all the frenchies near Paris around some beers one of these days :) Be sure we will ;) I'm all for beers too :) -- Gilles Dartiguelongue [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11 cleanups
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:48:48 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Donnie wants to remove virtual/x11 (can ya blame him?) and since Josh_B has retired (for now! ;) ) I wanted to help Donnie out a bit, since he is busy and X is a massive undertaking... a quick grep of the tree excluding ChangeLog files shows 3319 occurrences of virtual/x11 still in the tree. I don't have a list as that is a lot of occurrences, so if you maintain something that uses X, please take a glance through your ebuilds and make sure they have the true package deps and perhaps help lighten Donnie's load. I decided to just start committing tonight, and some #gentoo-commits spectators apparently noticed and wanted to join in the fun. Between me, calchan, omp, graaff, drac, dirtyepic, and pva, we finished all of the changes! Sorry if I left anyone out, I just looked on CIA (which we completely took control of, btw). Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)
Pierre-Yves Rofes a écrit : @Remi: Yeah, the french conspiracy strikes again :D btw, I hope we'll have an opportunity to meet all the frenchies near Paris around some beers one of these days :) Absolutely ! :) Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
Roy Marples wrote: On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 12:45 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: Roy Marples wrote: I don't actually know how to set those up or what the migration path would be. Maybe devzero and strerror could document this as I understand they do this. I manage systems with a single RAID 0 stripe (not dmraid) managed by device-mapper. When upgrading baselayout, we also have to upgrade to a recent device-mapper version which provides the device-mapper init script. Then we must run: # rc-update add device-mapper boot If we don't, we get an unbootable system. Probably a good idea to add that to the ebuild output too? Roy I added that ages ago. -- Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On 7/21/07, Nathan Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I can tell by reading the logs of the council meeting [1], the purpose of -project is to keep all the flamewars and bitching off the -dev list. On 7/21/07, Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this is a good idea. If the only thing that goes on -project is flame wars then the list will die and all the flamewars will just come back to -dev... What makes you guys think that flamewars or bitching will be tolerated on any of our lists ? Denis. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
Marius Mauch wrote: While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics that concern me a bit: 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems? 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail: a) who would (legally) own the copyright? b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change the license? c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)? It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia drivers, vmware) to be producing non-free software (as per the Conservancy's charitable purpose) as mentioned in section 2(b) of their notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project agree that any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software. If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Chris Gianelloni wrote: gentoo-dev: This list is for technical discussion, primarily between developers, about development and development-related issues that directly affect the tree or current projects. For now, no changes are made to this list. technical discussion gentoo-projects: This list is for... what exactly? I've not really figured that one out just yet. I know it is supposed to be pretty much anything that doesn't fit into gentoo-dev or another project-specific list. Am I correct here? Is this what everyone thinks this list is supposed to be used for? non-technical discussion ;) at least that's how i see it. for example, based on the last few weeks of threads here on -dev: virtual/x11 cleanups-dev baselayout-2 stabilization -dev new lists and their usage -project zombieswift/new devs-project council/trustee nominations -project paludis/emacs overlay -dev math-proof herd -dev qmail eclass-dev more photos on planet -project random flaming /dev/null i don't know about last rites - i'd say -dev since they're about ebuilds being removed. -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Getting -project started
Duncan wrote: Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:29:19 -0500: [About the project list as carried on gmane.] I had to send the confirmation email twice then it started sending me emails. WE may have caught it before we should have and something didn't take. May want to dig out the confirm email and send it one more time. I am getting post to -project so it is working. Thanks, everyone. gmane's sub probably got caught in limbo and didn't take either, so it's not getting mail to gateway to the newsgroup. I'll take it up with gmane. I'm getting them through gmane fine. About 48 posts so far on -project, and one test post on -dev-announce. -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Ryan Hill wrote: zombieswift/new devs -project council/trustee nominations -project Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. more photos on planet -project Perhaps a note on -core, again. Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)
Better late than never: welcome p-y! Yay for french conspiracy And of course yay for beers in Paris ;) Le Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:05:51 +0200 Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: Pierre-Yves Rofes a écrit : @Remi: Yeah, the french conspiracy strikes again :D btw, I hope we'll have an opportunity to meet all the frenchies near Paris around some beers one of these days :) Absolutely ! :) Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Getting -project started
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:11:37 -0600: I'm getting them through gmane fine. About 48 posts so far on -project, and one test post on -dev-announce. Yes, I found out my news client installation is buggy, and not seeing posts in the two groups for some reason. I've not traced it down just yet, but other pan users say they see the posts, so it's definitely my installation, not a general list/group/gmane issue, and not a general pan issue. Thanks. I'm working on it (and don't intend to spam this list with further mention, thanks everyone for your patience as the kinks get worked out, mine and others). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
Ryan Hill wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics that concern me a bit: 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems? 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail: a) who would (legally) own the copyright? b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change the license? c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)? It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia drivers, vmware) to be producing non-free software (as per the Conservancy's charitable purpose) as mentioned in section 2(b) of their notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project agree that any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software. If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. We don't distribute those, do we? A look at their ebuilds shows that those are just downloaded from upstream, not from Gentoo mirrors. Well, except for Nero. At least we aren't the creators of it! Does that document you mention define what Free Software is? nvidia drivers are free to download, install, use, in the sense that they don't cost anything. Bah, legal hassle! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
a topic for the gentoo-nfp list since it'd be the trustees making the decision -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] please drop support for 2.4
hello all. i would like to propose that we officially drop support for 2.4 kernel profiles (especially default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4). over the last few months it has been increasingly difficult to keep 2.4 systems up to date. here are some bugs i filed recently discussing this: http://bugs.gentoo.org/174697 unmask linux-headers-2.6 on 2.4 profiles (eix 0.8.8 compile failure) http://bugs.gentoo.org/154018 alsa-driver-1.0.13 fails compile on hardened-2.4 and vanilla-sources http://bugs.gentoo.org/177357 media-sound/alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2-r1 compile failure thoughts from the arch teams? PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] please drop support for 2.4
Rajiv Aaron Manglani wrote: hello all. i would like to propose that we officially drop support for 2.4 kernel profiles (especially default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4). over the last few months it has been increasingly difficult to keep 2.4 systems up to date. vanilla-sources is the only place to find a 2.4 kernel on some arches, though at least using those sources is no longer supported (as DSD and the kernel team told me some months back.) From the docs perspective, I'd like it if all 2.4 profiles for any remaining arches were marked unsupported as well. I spoke with the arch teams around the 2007.0 release time when I was updating the handbooks to remove almost all 2.4 references, but there are still a few in there for things like sparc-sources. AFAIK that's the only arch that still has a 2.4 kernel available. Any chance of seeing it all go away so I can finally clean up *all* 2.4 references? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jan Kundrát wrote: Ryan Hill wrote: zombieswift/new devs -project council/trustee nominations -project Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. I thought the goal was more to separate technical and non-technical content - as most of the heavy-reply emails on -dev were non-technical in nature. The politics/etc could go on -project. As somebody else pointed out in a reply to one of my emails (which I totally agree with) - flames (aka poisonous content) aren't welcome anywhere. If anything of any importance at all gets discussed on -dev, then all the non-technical stuff will end up on -dev as well and nothing will be accomplished by having the new list. Developers who are interested in participating in politics (devrel, CoC debates, user-relation discussions, etc) should subscribe to -project. One thing I want to caution is a potentially-dangerous mindset that a flame is any post that one personally disagrees with - or which a majority of developers disagree with. Flames are more about attitude and intent - not so much about viewpoint. As an example I tended to disagree with the point you were raising, but I'd hope we could agree that I'm attempting to be constructive in my reply and that I'm trying to focus on what is good for Gentoo and not my personal agenda. If I had just replied with a one-liner of some sort it would be less constructive. Even so, this is inherently a political discussion and those devs on this list who would prefer to just work on their herds and not worry about moderation/ CoC/ religious positions on package managers/ etc. would probably prefer that it took place on -project - not because the debate isn't important, but simply because it isn't what they're interested in reading about. I've participated in moderated lists which weren't perceived as one-sided or as creating a division between valued and unvalued posters. Often a majority of posts are moderated, and the only thing the moderator does is determine whether the post adds value to the conversation. One-liners get rejected regardless of who sends them - and genuine arguments get accepted regardless of where they line up against the party view. Such lists benefit from a diversity of opinions and don't get as bogged-down in groupthink. They also tend to be more inviting to outsiders. Flames really shouldn't be welcome on any list. I know there are posters on this list that drive most of the devs crazy - and it is easy for me to just say not to fight fire with fire. I know that when devs do reply with one-liners nobody thinks less of them for it as a result (I am not certain I'd act any differently if I were in their shoes). However, that isn't good for the project - it tends to create a strong core team that circles the wagons against outside dissent - which is good when the dissent is just an annoying party of raiders, but it can lead to less flexibility and an unwillingness to tolerate dissent of any kind. I'm sure the XFree86 team is still a tight-knit group that is happy with the licensing decision they made some time ago, even though as a result they're almost entirely irrelevant to the FOSS world now. I think the -dev / -project division is good, and I think it will make a lot of devs happy - if for no other reason than they don't need to read discussions like this one... :) However, if anybody thinks that it will succeed in getting rid of certain unpopular voices on this list I think they will be disappointed - they will go where the discussion is. At best the division will let people choose what discussion they participate in - not who participates in those discussions. Maybe we can just be optimistic that at some point we'll learn how to disagree maturely... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGpBM3G4/rWKZmVWkRAglhAJ9AYoXcvhIYd5hMYQBElNm4CMfgWACgqEoD n8pSc8R9O1cpAezKxAEnaaY= =XqMN -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[gentoo-dev] bindnow-flags going the way of the dodo
for people who maintain a package which utilizes bindnow-flags(), please feel free to modify the ebuild to no longer use this or append any such ldflags. the logic for handling set*id bindings is the business of the ldso (aka glibc), not for ebuilds. for example, if your ebuild does: inherit flag-o-matic ... append-ldflags $(bindnow-flags) ... the fix here is to simply delete those lines (assuming you're not using any other flag related functions of course). -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
