[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/minitunes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (21 Jan 2012) # Package renamed to media-sound/musique # http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes-renamed-to-musique # Removal in 30 days media-sound/minitunes - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPGpNkAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCZxMQAKlNkWbutHuiU/I1La7qzqKo 3S0ZGT0dGEzORQZ2wqMtxNSd97Jc8He/Vy9JQCpIhUvet1u/y4Pr/88ofXin5p/s 8sS/7R7qIWrIoFC1BiKsvM1fa8LXnls/VaVJzm1qbqJs4stBjY9oVfVAZ24qrqfa o420bbxRJwgFWraPKfw77h1bsnxh9JnZlYKAuH4LGWg58wLjx3tHpxmHIgF1cuXx kH++6zbOtjum6MbX4tJ7ipg+EtLS3rEqCIJuILvpYpgPyINTcuLmJ+muMSu5xHg/ vy5NkvQecnSXAZqQsQIO+TKKLkNsIz3htXpaIjHjFGW3t5lCs5d+6GrWy7IbP+d7 2TmDqYgLycK4n/7CjQlwbIKtXdaYErexupDRr2DjS0XjDAwisShDNp4sfro/khZB S7eQjKuNn63K19C8ucVlbiA5cjk497U6elFJ442b+Ais9QIJk81DcVLQIvxkQaIn ykm48rjStfPK8d5NbDLahS54FD/O+52emRgT85Svb1xpwjzYamTMHBK1633ar9pm 8Z+JMIJbxAd44v5qXsSuh/U1TopyB4Q4rGIjdw6Eo6kZgFEBKBAvGqf5YuInvCKZ hEQFWq3f9p2HrECjuPu3nQw4usvND6bG4G6ncicx4ZMrJbOoWbZk4P/bfSqe7dKu Y5aqp3oLO0mFMaurv8AB =ESK4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config? 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. Reality check: 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it still adds one more thing to break. I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: sci-visualization/scidavis
# Justin Lecher j...@gentoo.org (21 Jan 2012) # Mask for removal # Direct upstream is dead, doesn't build anymore # Most code is included in http://labplot.sourceforge.net/ # removal #398897, labplot #399607 sci-visualization/scidavis signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config? 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. Reality check: 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it still adds one more thing to break. I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. So we're talking about taste... It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/minitunes
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (21 Jan 2012) # Package renamed to media-sound/musique # http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes-renamed-to-musique # Removal in 30 days media-sound/minitunes Is it normal to wipe out the ChangeLog when renaming the package?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/minitunes
On 1/21/12 5:45 PM, Matt Turner wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (21 Jan 2012) # Package renamed to media-sound/musique # http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes-renamed-to-musique # Removal in 30 days media-sound/minitunes Is it normal to wipe out the ChangeLog when renaming the package? I think it's worth to keep it, but I'm not aware of any policies... By the way, I don't think it's necessary to send last rites on renames. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Cheers.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/minitunes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/21/2012 05:04 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 1/21/12 5:45 PM, Matt Turner wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (21 Jan 2012) # Package renamed to media-sound/musique # http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes-renamed-to-musique # Removal in 30 days media-sound/minitunes Is it normal to wipe out the ChangeLog when renaming the package? I think it's worth to keep it, but I'm not aware of any policies... By the way, I don't think it's necessary to send last rites on renames. The ChangeLog was pretty minimal. Haven't checked but I think it only had one entry. I didn't know at that time that last rites was not required. I did it properly afterwards - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPGv8jAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCZYsQAIDHaP7wy3uLMUVFK3n7LNwz oHovalXuzuPaZqxn72g+0Z8JEtzS9VTrxv9SP16U+leIjmjTjsiXkdb7UtzE0G2I gvbqk6Qu7bgJpMBQEQfLdpH8FjoQhuh87/dG38ITcZQPkGADb8dbSbDpBFjKL/qL QhkV0LWupWqgWMuPjPT33L1zesHfATjsojx6D98JjnfyMmAh+Fnf5YcF1CZiCzAC z+EoecZXnvgqJUOQvtpqMUhD0p316Sxd0YPq3vxEQ/QJ/jC17imFEKQjVm5fDyxN +zcg3kGf+k6FV/FMhAkMwK5AcvMODz/T86HeS/Q8xQhIBdZbKxJ/dF2yOMH2VtrJ omkLMUclFyT5f+95lyBaSDJYdRpfVJSJFPk/Z2/MLq2D7x4MefPRSGZfkxIQn78e 445VRDyqed9Ox5CF2AVpbEgJDvUe53cGpvR4TkuhkyX3jJMchWOyRj8Dn6Q3WTQ4 VHhulEVlCFLobOHuvQ4qhR600CYxtsVRgphXd3/W6Ph9KILSnxHRtmmnITaTvfpC DYoKfbuUvCSBTbbbaH0sUwBPDaWZn27JZ3GKXNBFkazVNBS4wD+7VXhG3Pr6ZT/y nMazC8CL9X4PSekpwCMMq/x3A60VIfSkPsdtY9M4gdodgYM1sjIpWuMEwNUvMm32 KHXxD/m6ZfOoxujHmSdL =wAa5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On 21 January 2012 13:01, . ivd...@gmail.com wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Cheers. To your first comment, I believe you can put: ACCEPT_LICENSES=@FSF-APPROVED in your /etc/make.conf and with that, portage will only allow you to install software with a license approved by the FSF. As for your second comment.No comment. :P
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:01:26 +0300 . ivd...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. Why yes! Gentoo has been working closely with the FSF to add support for Digital Freedom Management hardware. Soon you will be able to buy a processor with special firmware ensuring that only FSF-licenced code will be permitted to execute, and that only free data can be loaded; Gentoo has signed up to this program, and has plans to ship a DFM-enabled release as soon as some minor kinks are worked out: * it turns out that some of Gentoo's core components are distributed under licences which don't forbid users from owning software patents -- we're working on rewrites that allow us to enforce this freedom. * we're not sure whether the Linux kernel meets the FSF's strict freedom requirements. Unfortunately, we have a few minor hardware incompatibilities with Hurd that we've not yet worked out. The Gentoo Foundation is also using some of its funds to lobby the USA and the EU for mandatory DFM support in all new hardware, thus ensuring that freedom hating terrorists can't choose not to have freedom enforced upon them. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Good news on that front too. Gentoo Linux will be renamed to GNU/FDO/IBM/Oracle/Mozilla/KDE/Gnome/Linux as soon as we make sure we haven't left anyone out. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
Hello, On L, 2012-01-21 at 21:01 +0300, . wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? You have all the tools available to only install FSF approved licensed packages through the ACCEPT_LICENSE and related features. I'm sure maintainers don't mind fixing license tags based on bug reports if some are incorrect at places. A Gentoo based distribution called Ututo GNU/Linux may be of interest to you. I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. Some of us need to get actual work done, and doing so without being seriously impeded may require non-free software, or for even being able to use their hardware. Not all people are so radically viewed - meanwhile we provide the means to achieve what you need per the above mentioned ACCEPT_LICENSE stuff. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. We are not paid by the FSF to achieve its goals. We are volunteers getting our stuff done, developing a distribution to fit our needs and minding our own business. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Feel free to go discuss that on the gentoo-users mailing list or the forums. Here we'd like to get work done, and many of us want to be able to easily use and configure open source and free software, not spend hours on discussing and fighting about open source beliefs versus more radical free software philosophies. We provide the means, and e.g Ututo distribution and thousands of Gentoo users make use of it. Best Regards, Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Linux developer, GNOME team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 13:09 -0500, JD Horelick wrote: To your first comment, I believe you can put: ACCEPT_LICENSES=@FSF-APPROVED in your /etc/make.conf and with that, portage will only allow you to install software with a license approved by the FSF. It's ACCEPT_LICENSE (singular). Users who want only free/libre software and documentation should probably set ACCEPT_LICENSE=-* @FREE to allow the FSF- and OSI-approved licenses and other miscellaneous licenses meeting the free definition, and deny everything else; see http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=2chap=1 -Alexandre.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 01:09:45PM -0500, JD Horelick wrote: On 21 January 2012 13:01, . ivd...@gmail.com wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Cheers. To your first comment, I believe you can put: ACCEPT_LICENSES=@FSF-APPROVED in your /etc/make.conf and with that, portage will only allow you to install software with a license approved by the FSF. As for your second comment.No comment. :P To answer your question: Gentoo Linux is a free distro. To be more precise, it is a free meta-distribution. In fact, all of the packages in the tree are free. As to the name: 'Gentoo' is the name of the organization, 'Linux' is the name of the operating system. 'Gentoo Linux' is a fairly sensible name for a product. -- Mr. Aaron W. Swenson Gentoo Linux Developer Email: titanof...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0 GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0 pgp7bmAY97VB9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
El 21/01/12 19:01, . escribió: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. If it weren't because I know rms won't ever use gmail I'd thought it could have him under another name since I had this same discussion with him at FSCONS. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On 1/21/12 7:01 PM, . wrote: The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. Forcing people to use a system that doesn't meet their requirements is not the right solution to this problem. It's not like people using one of http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html distros don't use non-free software _because_ the distro doesn't package it. They use those distros because they don't want non-free software. And with that clear, you can actually do the same using ACCEPT_LICENSES in Gentoo. If you want other people to use free software more, you can tell them to use ACCEPT_LICENSES on Gentoo, or not to use non-free in Debian, or to switch to one of http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html distros. But ultimately it's their choice and their responsibility. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:01:26 +0300 . ivd...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? It's free. We don't force it to do anything, it may leave any day it wishes. I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. Yes, that's bad news. I always thought we didn't keep packages in there. I'm sure we will hunt them down soon. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. Yes, we all run proprietary unix systems on our Gentoo. I'm not sure where it hides but I'm sure I will find it someday. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Please punish us by removing from distrowatch. Oh wait... I'm wonder why I'm replying to a mail sent by person who lacks enough courage to sign him-/herself. I guess I want to be funny too. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: How help in arch testing work
Hi,
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org:
4) Nobody knows how work all packages in tree, so there are obvious
packages like a browsers, IM, audio player,that is easy decide if is
ok or not, but there are also packages that an Arch tester has never
seen, so is a lack of time everytime google about it or ask to
maintainer, so, please specify what test you want for this package;
e.g. -only compile test
-compile test and make sure src_test goes well
-make sure /usr/bin/${foo} works properly in ${that} manner
-see 5) about library
So, you can write one time 'how to' and copy/paste for the future
stablereq; I guess I'm not asking a long and difficult task.
what i dislike in this approach is that arch testers will follow a
test plan which the maintainer has obviously tested before and knows
it works.
sending people into the jungle of 'try to do something with $pkg' may
make them encounter problems the maintainer hadnt thought about.
To stick with the Emacs example: We barely use all those packages we
maintain. So sometimes we do not even execute this documented
test plan ourselves. Of course it only contains a small subset of
everything, but some test plans contain a fool around with the
program and it is better than nothing.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:01:26 +0300 . ivd...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Please punish us by removing from distrowatch. Oh wait... I'm wonder why I'm replying to a mail sent by person who lacks enough courage to sign him-/herself. I guess I want to be funny too. Actually, I'm wondering how much cognitive dissonance it takes to complain about the possibility of using proprietary software in a mail sent via gmail. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/minitunes
On 21.01.2012 20:08, Markos Chandras wrote: On 01/21/2012 05:04 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 1/21/12 5:45 PM, Matt Turner wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (21 Jan 2012) # Package renamed to media-sound/musique # http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes-renamed-to-musique # Removal in 30 days media-sound/minitunes Is it normal to wipe out the ChangeLog when renaming the package? I think it's worth to keep it, but I'm not aware of any policies... By the way, I don't think it's necessary to send last rites on renames. The ChangeLog was pretty minimal. Haven't checked but I think it only had one entry. I didn't know at that time that last rites was not required. I did it properly afterwards Neither is updating package.mask if you use profiles/updates. Anyone unsure how that works feel free to contact me off list for help. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/21/2012 06:01 PM, . wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Cheers. Please guys stop replying to this email. It is clearly a spam or a flamebait. Try to avoid (unnecessary) flames :) - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPGyZ2AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCFosP/1LWCSXF+ih4rp5QNHcYH+UA bWbBZox7hQHXvs6y0wX0QVzT5r/jVchoB65vmV4N5gTFeS2kT6EViEY2lxPg1vuj 9sLDVLBqXJQwkm0i8jPbXMrxrk2HXalZmVXIAMt4mQJEp10aKwhJnqUq2poeWahU jEX0cVduqcBD9Wx6NF62hrauY7yg0FlpyAcVlyqBPjjVqlDPPjIqi1CDmIxAQoch wS4NjNraoiuYUW64hwJz+Cw8p7sqvr2+eU3MCxqqcKGIDO/8Ckx3R9Fp1wmkn03X qM72K/1D1APVjsJwGuwBkkTTixdb1MmbUMVze1gMvnUSXVtEgJi2VYVAkENCGaFR ttO60xvS3gupIkdk0nQc9XDNL+SO7tcieMrpx8u3CKP/vE2B/lI8biOFU8NUUlw3 TBKiOm9Y/2F/oYsYU7d4fjMCEdBFwI1qW6jmAItqkTqgPMtriesU2+m5sH6ZAl7G NN3D8uNrWyYD99nLUXU22938i1iY8z2NUuf5xupwUlBJiuL4iy3/MxA9x+2u80MR NFg408TdTUfHkc6ldrp/tIcSgh1iaW6Ebn86bgRN5kyN15yLmlgrT0BKSGYuL46U seQFYOSeDCPLTwF3WokrKuJDdfELJeeqJqtnvM7PQDMrD4BRLKgoMcMXCc4Dw7Jo oqGLO4YmxOri60G0f1PE =r2NI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/minitunes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/21/2012 08:33 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: On 21.01.2012 20:08, Markos Chandras wrote: On 01/21/2012 05:04 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 1/21/12 5:45 PM, Matt Turner wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (21 Jan 2012) # Package renamed to media-sound/musique # http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes-renamed-to-musique # Removal in 30 days media-sound/minitunes Is it normal to wipe out the ChangeLog when renaming the package? I think it's worth to keep it, but I'm not aware of any policies... By the way, I don't think it's necessary to send last rites on renames. The ChangeLog was pretty minimal. Haven't checked but I think it only had one entry. I didn't know at that time that last rites was not required. I did it properly afterwards Neither is updating package.mask if you use profiles/updates. Anyone unsure how that works feel free to contact me off list for help. Regards, Petteri Like I said, I dropped the package.mask entry once I learnt that profiles/updates works fine with package renames. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPGyjbAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCYvsQAI899Fvz1tuCkIwUgC/Fz+rr o5CvaVhSStmurg0TYUA6wMATyPcGYoBUPMzS+r/dM/3nzzAAqhOvLA6aP/jIJG1H JAu3NseAILXaQGln3jRwD3iMfCH7lo9QdgDc7qsKC/CdiApiIsqhjKRnjDwaQ6rY 5VjExCmaOfdcsLc3TS4/WGvF+EEAc4Cc3fuViJiIGHxujz0RgMI06d6+dlr89wG6 owUWtME5/K7KxiHszBPaxJ6v9ojPco1lqFPr5iWEx2yfnsCu0+Ql9iEpT8ZgpQUq 6RhZ7KyYl1kgxwdhd4X1289NHVjXjHHOyG+hZ3ykfmaPWRupE3ZZnDW7KhGqgjjN KvmEkvwhWXjhyd/KIJ88jS9V+SLMK9PJTVVO2f606HYj9NyE8LTuEKomwWwOShWh DgdaOB54UHothfZ+Y741tBVROylwbvXBe1A+JBYBirgpjHyoqSGmKtGeRoQrq2t0 u/xrgC5AZ5XrpyMi2n2Rqfh9KSAJ1ZPmxEJmoGhyDERzsjo4Tli9MuBNWlqA4E69 m6X1TsllpduGIiUWakPLqDy6PQP4aGdXBu8zY6oQNqk5yXeOFZ2fiEgCH415S4/L u8IK8ip3m/T+KNXmyzX3xiV74fsDAA3L1vDrISIiv5owF+D/lY1tCau0sAjCzd8e pIekw1BAhMX4qPQSW5Re =PqTu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config? 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. Reality check: 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it still adds one more thing to break. I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. So we're talking about taste... Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote: Michał Górny wrote: It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. The old way imposes requirements that are no longer supported by upstream software. So, you basically have three choices: 1) Use old software that supports the old way 2) Develop new software to support the old way 3) Use an initramfs or pre-init script to mount /usr if it must be on a separate partition -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config? 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. Reality check: 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it still adds one more thing to break. I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. So we're talking about taste... Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. And required a considerable amount of work which increases due to software getting more complex and users wanting more features. And I don't get 'the wheel' here? What wheel? I'd say we rather want to get rid of the useless fifth wheel. It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. And noone is forced to update the system either. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jpg On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/21/2012 06:01 PM, . wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Cheers. Please guys stop replying to this email. It is clearly a spam or a flamebait. Try to avoid (unnecessary) flames :) - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPGyZ2AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCFosP/1LWCSXF+ih4rp5QNHcYH+UA bWbBZox7hQHXvs6y0wX0QVzT5r/jVchoB65vmV4N5gTFeS2kT6EViEY2lxPg1vuj 9sLDVLBqXJQwkm0i8jPbXMrxrk2HXalZmVXIAMt4mQJEp10aKwhJnqUq2poeWahU jEX0cVduqcBD9Wx6NF62hrauY7yg0FlpyAcVlyqBPjjVqlDPPjIqi1CDmIxAQoch wS4NjNraoiuYUW64hwJz+Cw8p7sqvr2+eU3MCxqqcKGIDO/8Ckx3R9Fp1wmkn03X qM72K/1D1APVjsJwGuwBkkTTixdb1MmbUMVze1gMvnUSXVtEgJi2VYVAkENCGaFR ttO60xvS3gupIkdk0nQc9XDNL+SO7tcieMrpx8u3CKP/vE2B/lI8biOFU8NUUlw3 TBKiOm9Y/2F/oYsYU7d4fjMCEdBFwI1qW6jmAItqkTqgPMtriesU2+m5sH6ZAl7G NN3D8uNrWyYD99nLUXU22938i1iY8z2NUuf5xupwUlBJiuL4iy3/MxA9x+2u80MR NFg408TdTUfHkc6ldrp/tIcSgh1iaW6Ebn86bgRN5kyN15yLmlgrT0BKSGYuL46U seQFYOSeDCPLTwF3WokrKuJDdfELJeeqJqtnvM7PQDMrD4BRLKgoMcMXCc4Dw7Jo oqGLO4YmxOri60G0f1PE =r2NI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Saturday 21 January 2012 21:56:22 Markos Chandras wrote: On 01/21/2012 06:01 PM, . wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Cheers. Please guys stop replying to this email. It is clearly a spam or a flamebait. Try to avoid (unnecessary) flames :) well, while the original mail was disturbing most of the reply have been fun to read (some even instructive), so may be this time it was worth an exception and feeding the troll :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config? 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. Reality check: 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it still adds one more thing to break. I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. So we're talking about taste... Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. And required a considerable amount of work which increases due to software getting more complex and users wanting more features. And I don't get 'the wheel' here? What wheel? I'd say we rather want to get rid of the useless fifth wheel. Actually, they are adding the fifth wheel. It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. And noone is forced to update the system either. Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thinks for the showing of brilliance there. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Zac Medico wrote: On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote: Michał Górny wrote: It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. The old way imposes requirements that are no longer supported by upstream software. So, you basically have three choices: 1) Use old software that supports the old way 2) Develop new software to support the old way 3) Use an initramfs or pre-init script to mount /usr if it must be on a separate partition So the solution is to break things because things are broken. Sort of running in circles there. Pardon me, I'm dizzy. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On 01/21/2012 03:45 PM, Dale wrote: Zac Medico wrote: On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote: Michał Górny wrote: It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called improvements. ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. The old way imposes requirements that are no longer supported by upstream software. So, you basically have three choices: 1) Use old software that supports the old way 2) Develop new software to support the old way 3) Use an initramfs or pre-init script to mount /usr if it must be on a separate partition So the solution is to break things because things are broken. Well, option 2 means that people have to step up write software that supports the old way. For most people, option 3 is probably the most practical route. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Saturday 21 January 2012 13:01:26 . wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. meeeh -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
