[gentoo-dev] eselect
Hi, is anyone working on eselect? V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
В Чтв, 28/02/2008 в 21:49 -0500, Richard Freeman пишет: Santiago M. Mola wrote: What do you think about? Would it be easy to integrate it with packages.g.o or should it belong somewhere else? Do you think this is a suitable project for SoC? I like the idea, although it is a bit redundant with bugzilla. Exactly. It's not convenient when we have stabilization requests in one place and problems with packages to be stabilized (or even stable on some archs) reported in another... Stealing ideas from the recent discussion of KISS in -security ml[1]: May be it's better to have such keyword application as an interface to bugzilla. This separate web/cli/gui program will add/update/search bugs in bugzilla and e.g. Status Whiteboard field could be used to track status of the bugs... Also such implementation would move forward KISS project too. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-security/msg_684b5c1fe2970c2d4be05ba42e9ff4e8.xml -- Peter. signature.asc Description: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
Peter Volkov a écrit : В Чтв, 28/02/2008 в 21:49 -0500, Richard Freeman пишет: Santiago M. Mola wrote: What do you think about? Would it be easy to integrate it with packages.g.o or should it belong somewhere else? Do you think this is a suitable project for SoC? I like the idea, although it is a bit redundant with bugzilla. Exactly. It's not convenient when we have stabilization requests in one place and problems with packages to be stabilized (or even stable on some archs) reported in another... Stealing ideas from the recent discussion of KISS in -security ml[1]: May be it's better to have such keyword application as an interface to bugzilla. This separate web/cli/gui program will add/update/search bugs in bugzilla and e.g. Status Whiteboard field could be used to track status of the bugs... Also such implementation would move forward KISS project too. +1 on that idea, using bugzilla with an external tool for keyword requests is a good idea. The tool could do bugzilla research to see if the keyword has already been requested and point the user to the corresponding bug report, hopefully limiting the number of dupes. Cheers, Rémi -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: Mesa on i965 (DRI)
You're hijacking threads again. Please stop. If you have an issue, file a bug report at http://bugs.gentoo.org/ The -dev mailing list is the _wrong_ place for that. Thanks -- Rémi Cardona LRI, INRIA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Gentoo Foundation Elections - voting ended
Hi. As was announced many times before, the voting period for the election ended at 23:59:59 UTC yesterday. We are currently counting the votes and will announce the winner and send the master ballot asap - hopefully, in a few hours. For the election officials, -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008
I have some ideas to improve GNAP (last year was a nice experience): - live upgrade - squashfs pkgs - unionfs i think this 3 task can fit in only one project. - use new catalyst This is the hardest one adn must be a different project. regards El mar, 26-02-2008 a las 10:32 -0800, joshua jackson escribió: All, Google is once again doing the summer of code for students. I'm helping organize it this year and am putting out a call for some elements to help. 1) We need idea's for things to do. Diego has already submitted some via his blog which have been taken into consideration. 2) We need mentors, so far confirmed I have: Diego and Saleem -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Is it dead..? Is anyone still working on it? I have had a lot of success using it for linux vservers and in an embedded build. Would really hate to see it stall though...? What are the big picture items still missing? Seems that it's close to becoming a stable upgrade? I have filed a few minor bugs against it (some more to come) - is there anything I can do to help progress development further? Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect
Christian Faulhammer wrote: Hi, is anyone working on eselect? V-Li peper told me he'd wrap up a few bugs and make a release this week after I was about to go touching eselect all over when we know my C/C++ is better then my bash. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Hi baselayout-2 was renamed to openrc when Roy left Gentoo as an official dev. Answering my own question (for the record). I found some explanation here: http://lycos.dropcode.net/gregarius/author.php?author=Roy_Marples__uberlord_ Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Don't know. Yes. Very. Yes Yes. Excellent - this is exciting to hear On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? Would it not make sense to start to snapshot some builds and push openrc out for testing? (Seems like a gentoo job rather than an upstream is the reason I ask here?) Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Ed W wrote: Hi baselayout-2 was renamed to openrc when Roy left Gentoo as an official dev. Answering my own question (for the record). I found some explanation here: http://lycos.dropcode.net/gregarius/author.php?author=Roy_Marples__uberlord_ Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Don't know. Yes. Very. Yes Yes. Excellent - this is exciting to hear On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? Would it not make sense to start to snapshot some builds and push openrc out for testing? (Seems like a gentoo job rather than an upstream is the reason I ask here?) Cheers Ed W sudo emerge layman sudo layman -L sudo layman -a openrc sudo emerge openrc sudo etc-update -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Ed W wrote: Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Check out OpenRC it is baselayout successor and works great! Funnily enough I came across this earlier today for different reasons. However, I hadn't realised that it was a full baselayout competitor? baselayout-2 was renamed to openrc when Roy left Gentoo as an official dev. Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Don't know. Yes. Very. Yes Yes. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Check out OpenRC it is baselayout successor and works great! Funnily enough I came across this earlier today for different reasons. However, I hadn't realised that it was a full baselayout competitor? Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote: On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? It's actually been very stable and usable for a long time. It's not, and never will be a 100% drop in replacement for everything baselayout provides, but it's very very compatible. Would it not make sense to start to snapshot some builds and push openrc out for testing? (Seems like a gentoo job rather than an upstream is the reason I ask here?) As Doug mentioned earlier, my git repo is available in an ebuild. Why haven't I done a snapshot or release yet? Well, I have one last feature to add basically. That feature is so it can be installed prefixed and still work perfectly - with the exception of not booting or shutting down the host system. I'll be doing this on my NetBSD box next week hopefully. But bugs are still being found and fixed - although at a slow rate :) Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 15:56:44 Ed W wrote: Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Check out OpenRC it is baselayout successor and works great! Funnily enough I came across this earlier today for different reasons. However, I hadn't realised that it was a full baselayout competitor? Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? It's not a full baselayout competitor - instead it's reduced baselayout to providing key base files such as /etc/passwd. OpenRC is just the service management system. Yes Yes [1] A done deal [1] No [2] [1] The Gentoo Council and Gentoo base-system team know and approve of OpenRC. Mike Frysinger of the Gentoo base-system team also has commit access to the git repo. So it's very very likely. [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I don't and probably never will support vserver personally, but will work with Gentoo developers ensuring that at least one version works. In other words, I'll try and support it but it may break from time to time. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008
Check your idea into cvs.. ;) On 2/29/08, JoseAlberto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have some ideas to improve GNAP (last year was a nice experience): - live upgrade - squashfs pkgs - unionfs i think this 3 task can fit in only one project. - use new catalyst This is the hardest one adn must be a different project. regards El mar, 26-02-2008 a las 10:32 -0800, joshua jackson escribió: All, Google is once again doing the summer of code for students. I'm helping organize it this year and am putting out a call for some elements to help. 1) We need idea's for things to do. Diego has already submitted some via his blog which have been taken into consideration. 2) We need mentors, so far confirmed I have: Diego and Saleem -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Roy Marples schrieb: [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I don't and probably never will support vserver personally, but will work with Gentoo developers ensuring that at least one version works. In other words, I'll try and support it but it may break from time to time. actually, baselayout-2 and openrc work great in vservers ... and it is kind of hard to break it, most things are just cosmetic, so you don't get errors on vserver startup some (minor) cosmetic bugs still need to be fixed in openrc, but i'll send a patch to roy really soon now HTH Bene -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
Rémi Cardona wrote: +1 on that idea, using bugzilla with an external tool for keyword requests is a good idea. The tool could do bugzilla research to see if the keyword has already been requested and point the user to the corresponding bug report, hopefully limiting the number of dupes. ++ It would still be nice to have better status tracking in bugzilla - some way for ATs to officially mark that stuff is tested in a way that can be easily queried (so that ATs can find stuff that isn't tested, and devs can find stuff that has been). The issue about hard-to-test packages is really a separate one, but one that could use a solution... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
On Friday 29 February 2008 13:13:16 Richard Freeman wrote: Rémi Cardona wrote: +1 on that idea, using bugzilla with an external tool for keyword requests is a good idea. The tool could do bugzilla research to see if the keyword has already been requested and point the user to the corresponding bug report, hopefully limiting the number of dupes. ++ It would still be nice to have better status tracking in bugzilla - some way for ATs to officially mark that stuff is tested in a way that can be easily queried (so that ATs can find stuff that isn't tested, and devs can find stuff that has been). The issue about hard-to-test packages is really a separate one, but one that could use a solution... Definitely. I find it very annoying searching through bugzilla looking for things that other Arch Testers haven't tested. On the other hand, after a while you start to remember which bugs haven't been tested(at least if you are on an arch with 150 bugs). Barring that case, such a system would be very nice. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
I just tried openrc and I really like it! All the things changed from baselayout-2.0.0-rc6 are really good ideas! good work! Thanks! But bugs are still being found and fixed - although at a slow rate :) Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 18:32:44 Stefan Hellermann wrote: I just tried openrc and I really like it! All the things changed from baselayout-2.0.0-rc6 are really good ideas! good work! Thanks! :) Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rémi Cardona wrote: +1 on that idea, using bugzilla with an external tool for keyword requests is a good idea. The tool could do bugzilla research to see if the keyword has already been requested and point the user to the corresponding bug report, hopefully limiting the number of dupes. Definite ++ here.. It would still be nice to have better status tracking in bugzilla - some way for ATs to officially mark that stuff is tested in a way that can be easily queried (so that ATs can find stuff that isn't tested, and devs can find stuff that has been). The issue about hard-to-test packages is really a separate one, but one that could use a solution... This would certainly help coordinate AT efforts. Couldn't this also be done by searching through bugzilla? Maybe with an official keyword, or some sort of flag we don't otherwise use? (I'm not intensely familiar with bugzilla internals.) Keeping it all in bugzilla seems best, if possible. An additional suggestion: what about some way for ATs to indicate that they are currently testing a package? Testing can take a while, and occasionally I've tested packages only to find that someone else had already taken care of it. Coordinating that on bugzilla or the mailing list as is would be cumbersome, and IRC is hit or miss. Not sure how this could be implemented, but that's what a SoCer is for (hey, maybe me, I'm planning to apply!). -- Aaron Mavrinac www.mavrinac.com PGP Public Key: http://www.mavrinac.com/pgp.asc ���^�X��� ��(��j)b�b�
[gentoo-dev] [gentoo-core] Fwd: Gentoo Foundation 2008 Elections -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2008.02.29 19:43, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Hello fellow devs, users and Gentoo community, here are our 2008 trustees : NeddySeagoon fmccor tsunam tgall wltjr [snip] For the election officials, - -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE Team, I would like to thank everyone in the electorate for trusting me with a role in the Trustees of the Gentoo Foundation. I hope I can deliver to your satisfaction. I would also like to take this opportunity that thank the election officials for conducting the proceedings - without whom the election could not have happened. I have enough experience of real life to know that the Trustees cannot please everyone, I for one won't even try to do that but I will ensure that the Trustees always act in an open honest manner and in the best interests of the entire Gentoo community. - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners Trustees - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHyGP+TE4/y7nJvasRAs3wAKCPzb/IyABpOxtwck+6eJmm0j48UACeJoEc EphXQAjHPI4QROMYS+r9ZvE= =6kjN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Stefan Hellermann wrote: Roy Marples schrieb: Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Here is something other badly broken :) So I don't think it's a openrc issue. # echo $PATH /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin # env | grep PATH *nothing* # sysctl # only a example for a app that works *works* # which sysctl# this should work if sysctl works without typing /sbin/sysctl which: no sysctl in ((null)) I think it could be a CFLAG, I compiled my whole System with -mfpmath=sse (not sse,387), but while emerging openrc there are compiler warnings saying it uses -mfpmath=387 because sse is not available. Does openrc block -msse? Cheers Stefan To hijack this thread, you know you're getting worse performance and more problematic results by using -mfpmath=sse. This is the very same reason that -march=pentium2 / -march=athlon-tbird and newer based CPUs don't enable this flag by default. It requires specific changes to system headers. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Fwd: Gentoo Foundation 2008 Elections - Results
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello fellow devs, users and Gentoo community, here are our 2008 trustees : NeddySeagoon fmccor tsunam tgall wltjr Master ballot and personal confirmation emails will follow. Thanks to Shyam for the technical support :) Congratulations to our new trustees, to all that ran for office, to those that nominated and or were nominated and to everyone that voted in this election. For reference, the complete ranked list is: NeddySeagoon fmccor tsunam tgall wltjr je_fro jakub patrick For the election officials, - -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org iD8DBQFHyF8TcAWygvVEyAIRAg/fAJ9505BOnk4G3x0Nynhih8WUaTS6ZACgi/25 QT4NJrMSwTrrzjF8rn6RUfQ= =WvUh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Roy Marples schrieb: Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Here is something other badly broken :) So I don't think it's a openrc issue. # echo $PATH /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin # env | grep PATH *nothing* # sysctl # only a example for a app that works *works* # which sysctl# this should work if sysctl works without typing /sbin/sysctl which: no sysctl in ((null)) I think it could be a CFLAG, I compiled my whole System with -mfpmath=sse (not sse,387), but while emerging openrc there are compiler warnings saying it uses -mfpmath=387 because sse is not available. Does openrc block -msse? Cheers Stefan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Doug Klima schrieb: Stefan Hellermann wrote: Roy Marples schrieb: Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Here is something other badly broken :) So I don't think it's a openrc issue. # echo $PATH /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin # env | grep PATH *nothing* # sysctl # only a example for a app that works *works* # which sysctl# this should work if sysctl works without typing /sbin/sysctl which: no sysctl in ((null)) I think it could be a CFLAG, I compiled my whole System with -mfpmath=sse (not sse,387), but while emerging openrc there are compiler warnings saying it uses -mfpmath=387 because sse is not available. Does openrc block -msse? Cheers Stefan To hijack this thread, you know you're getting worse performance and more problematic results by using -mfpmath=sse. This is the very same reason that -march=pentium2 / -march=athlon-tbird and newer based CPUs don't enable this flag by default. It requires specific changes to system headers. Thanks for the comment! This is the test-system on a new Via C7, I wanted to do some performance check's, but haven't so far. I thought it could be a good flag :) btw: All my problem are gone ... somehow I managed to not install baselayout from Roys overlay, I only installed openrc. Thanks Roy for your help! -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
Santiago M. Mola schrieb: I splitted this from the SoC thread so the possible discussion doesn't add noise to the original thread. On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:32 PM, joshua jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Google is once again doing the summer of code for students. I'm helping organize it this year and am putting out a call for some elements to help. 1) We need idea's for things to do. Diego has already submitted some via his blog which have been taken into consideration. A lot of users don't feel comfortable using Bugzilla and often are lost with our procedures for keyword (both ~ and stable) requests. I think we could use an easy web interface for requesting specific keywords for packages in a point-and-click fashion. So the user would just pick a package from the list, and check some boxes with the arch(es) she want to see in ~arch or stable. Then ATs could go for the ones that met the requirements, and even prioritize stabilisations depending on the number of users who have requested it. I've been talking about it with some users and everyone agrees that they would like to have such an interface... What do you think about? Would it be easy to integrate it with packages.g.o or should it belong somewhere else? Do you think this is a suitable project for SoC? Regards, Santiago Maybe you are looking for something similar to the Wine app database? http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=versioniId=3755 Of course not the same, but similar. I do think, that something like this could integrate in a very nice way into packages.gentoo.org. The nice thing about that would also be, that you have a nice overview over the packages(versions), that have a keyword. Bernd -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
btw: All my problem are gone ... somehow I managed to not install baselayout from Roys overlay, I only installed openrc. Thanks Roy for your help! So just to be clear, you need to install both openrc AND baselayout from the layman profile? Sounds sensible enough Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Benedikt Boehm wrote: Roy Marples schrieb: [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I don't and probably never will support vserver personally, but will work with Gentoo developers ensuring that at least one version works. In other words, I'll try and support it but it may break from time to time. actually, baselayout-2 and openrc work great in vservers ... and it is kind of hard to break it, most things are just cosmetic, so you don't get errors on vserver startup some (minor) cosmetic bugs still need to be fixed in openrc, but i'll send a patch to roy really soon now This would be excellent. Actually I can't believe that there are people who run normal servers anymore. Vserver has such a small overhead and allows so many more features that it's just a no brainer (for most servers). I have been very very impressed with it! Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[OT] Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:49:25 -0500 Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cringe when I see a stable request for some dialup networking package - I doubt many devs even own modems these days. I do own few modems, but alas, no phone line to hook them up to. :) -- Andrej Ticho Kacian ticho at gentoo dot org Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
[2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I guess I could just check it out instead of asking but What's missing from the busybox s-s-daemon? I am using the busybox version 95% successfully with baselayout-2 for example (just simple stuff mind). The only thing it's breaking on right now is a --test option which doesn't seem to exist? I'm not that fussed, I'm just curious? Thanks for continuing to work on this stuff! Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword request interface (SoC candidate?)
Aaron Mavrinac wrote: This would certainly help coordinate AT efforts. Couldn't this also be done by searching through bugzilla? Maybe with an official keyword, or some sort of flag we don't otherwise use? (I'm not intensely familiar with bugzilla internals.) Keeping it all in bugzilla seems best, if possible. I know that the amd64 team used to use the STABLE and TESTED keywords to indicate that an AT felt it was ok to keyword stable or ~arch respectively. I guess that practice went away. It doesn't work so well on bugs with 5 archs CC'ed though. Maybe we need STABLEAMD64, STABLEX86, etc. As an AT I used to run queries all the time looking for bugs that weren't keyworded STABLE/TESTED and which otherwise looked like they needed AT attention. I still check the corresponding developer query for stuff keyworded STABLE/TESTED with amd64 CC'ed... There are definitely some easy ways to improve things that don't require code changes... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: Mesa on i965 (DRI)
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 20:19 +0100, Mateusz Mierzwinski wrote: Ok, I've try i810 and... no DRI. Please take this off the general development mailing list and to one of the support lists, or, even better, to our bug tracker at http://bugs.gentoo.org instead. Thanks, -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 23:23:34 Ed Wildgoose wrote: [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I guess I could just check it out instead of asking but What's missing from the busybox s-s-daemon? I am using the busybox version 95% successfully with baselayout-2 for example (just simple stuff mind). The only thing it's breaking on right now is a --test option which doesn't seem to exist? I'm not that fussed, I'm just curious? s-s-d when used in an OpenRC service remembers how the daemon is started so it can poll to see if it's still running or not. We also use this ability to ensure the daemon really starts. A lot of daemons love to fork (and return success) before checking config and system for sanity, so sometimes it's needed. OpenRC variant also works better for finding daemons on the whole, especially if you upgrade an already running daemon. Plus, it supports more OS's than busybox - but to be fair, busybox only supports Linux. It's also missing chroot and env options from the upstream Debian version. It's also missing the Gentoo extras for PAM limits support and redirecting the daemons stdout/stderr to log files. It also requires the crappy use of oknodo. It fails to search for daemon arguments when stopping (important for say daemons using python without pidfiles) I'm not sure that busybox would take any patches to add much of the above as most would add more bloat for sure. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Baselayout-2 progress?
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:07:17 +: On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote: On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? It's actually been very stable and usable for a long time. It's not, and never will be a 100% drop in replacement for everything baselayout provides, but it's very very compatible. Is direct upgrade from previous baselayout-2.0.0-rcX going to be supported? I was running that for some time and just now added and upgraded to the via layman version. There's a blocker, of course, as openrc is now providing most of the files that baselayout did. The problem is that unmerging the old 2.0.0-rcX baselayout in ordered to resolve the blockage is SCARY, since it leaves the system basically unbootable until the new setup is merged and at least basically configured. There's also the issue of not knowing for sure just what's going to still be around in terms of config files and the like, since unmerging baselayout isn't exactly an everyday thing. FWIW, I took the jump anyway, and the etc-update seemed to go reasonably well, but I've not rebooted yet... -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Baselayout-2 progress?
Duncan wrote: Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:07:17 +: On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote: On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? It's actually been very stable and usable for a long time. It's not, and never will be a 100% drop in replacement for everything baselayout provides, but it's very very compatible. Is direct upgrade from previous baselayout-2.0.0-rcX going to be supported? I was running that for some time and just now added and upgraded to the via layman version. There's a blocker, of course, as openrc is now providing most of the files that baselayout did. You just answered your own question. If another package now provides files that an existing package provides, they must be blockers. Considering baselayout-2.0.0_rcX was a masked version and never recommended, it's also not in the direct upgrade path. The proper upgrade is what you've detailed out below. Such are the risks when you unmask a package and install it on your machine. The problem is that unmerging the old 2.0.0-rcX baselayout in ordered to resolve the blockage is SCARY, since it leaves the system basically unbootable until the new setup is merged and at least basically configured. There's also the issue of not knowing for sure just what's going to still be around in terms of config files and the like, since unmerging baselayout isn't exactly an everyday thing. FWIW, I took the jump anyway, and the etc-update seemed to go reasonably well, but I've not rebooted yet... -- Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Blockers (was: Baselayout-2 progress?)
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:59:06 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just answered your own question. If another package now provides files that an existing package provides, they must be blockers. That's really bad policy -- it's pushing a package manager limitation onto users in a visible and highly messy way. Really, it needs to go in the short term (along with collision-protect) to avoid this kind of nonsense on upgrades, and in the long term be fixed by getting rid of blockers in favour of a more verbose syntax that gives the package manager the information it needs to handle all this itself. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev]
Tony wrote: Hi, I am new, but I think I found a problem in thr portage tree, dealing with texlive and tetex. I have a personal overlay, where I changed the dependency in the ebuild from dev-text/tetex to virtual/latex-base. This solved it for the package. I think that the packages will have to transition, because of these conflicts. Also, let me know if this is the right way to do this, and if it is, I suggest you do it soon. (It gets annoying) Don't post without a subject. That's really annoying. Also, this is completely off-topic for this list. Please file a bug at http://bugs.gentoo.org/ -- Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator -- gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
