Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Matthew Thode prometheanf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/03/2013 01:18 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: On 02/03/2013 12:46 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: Due matsuu lack of time the following packages are up for grabs: app-admin/augeas app-admin/puppet dev-ml/ocaml-augeas dev-python/python-augeas dev-ruby/facter dev-ruby/hiera taking these :D Also, if anyone else wants to help me with these it would be appreciated. Puppet and friends are not unmaintained. Ruby and sysadmin herds are taking care of these already. No problem having you as co-maintainer there though, just let us know before you do any major changes (most of us are in #gentoo-infra) Theo
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time
On 02/04/2013 09:54 AM, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Matthew Thode prometheanf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/03/2013 01:18 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: On 02/03/2013 12:46 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: Due matsuu lack of time the following packages are up for grabs: app-admin/augeas app-admin/puppet dev-ml/ocaml-augeas dev-python/python-augeas dev-ruby/facter dev-ruby/hiera taking these :D Also, if anyone else wants to help me with these it would be appreciated. Puppet and friends are not unmaintained. Ruby and sysadmin herds are taking care of these already. No problem having you as co-maintainer there though, just let us know before you do any major changes (most of us are in #gentoo-infra) Theo Ya, I didn't plan on anything major at all. -- -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/03/2013 09:56 PM, Tim Harder wrote: On 2013-02-03 Sun 04:46, Pacho Ramos wrote: net-dns/ldns-utils net-dns/unbound net-libs/ldns I'll help maintain these. Tim @Tim: you can add me there, too. Michael - -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlEPk1oACgkQknrdDGLu8JDGnwD/V3iu0OSElPK83CWl3I38SHZZ j4HbkuGOTlcss9SNDz4A/0KFwP6Se5hi7NOuEeShFKPCVtZyxxkozLDVmC+jpFcS =OQ9n -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] meaning of EROOT
On 02/03/2013 12:07 PM, heroxbd wrote:
self.eroot = self.target_root.rstrip(os.sep) + self.eprefix + os.sep
wouldn't be this more robust
import os
os.path.normpath('/some/' + os.path.sep + '/stuff/') + os.path.sep
'/some/stuff/'
--
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removals reply
On 02/03/2013 07:07 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: We the Gentoo developers strongly believe that this project is not fun and not important. veto. a) there is no we, b) there are conrary posts on this list. -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time
03.02.2013 16:46, Pacho Ramos wrote: dev-libs/confuse I will pick up this one. I use it in one of my projects -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo Linux Developer Desktop-effects project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-emulation/xen: xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog
On 04/02/13 16:41, Ian Delaney (idella4) wrote:
idella4 13/02/04 14:41:03
Modified: xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog
Log:
Added acquired but missed sec patch 2012-5513-XSA-29.patch to set of sec
patches in 4.2.0-r1
(Portage version: 2.1.11.40/cvs/Linux x86_64, signed Manifest commit with
key 0xB8072B0D)
Revision ChangesPath
1.5 app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild?rev=1.5view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild?rev=1.5content-type=text/plain
diff :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild?r1=1.4r2=1.5
Index: xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
--- xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild 2 Feb 2013 21:16:34 - 1.4
+++ xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild 4 Feb 2013 14:41:03 - 1.5
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# Copyright 1999-2013 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild,v 1.4
2013/02/02 21:16:34 ago Exp $
+# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild,v 1.5
2013/02/04 14:41:03 idella4 Exp $
EAPI=5
@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-4538-XSA-23.patch \
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-4539-XSA-24.patch \
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-5510-XSA-26.patch \
+ ${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-5513-XSA-29.patch
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-5514-XSA-30.patch \
You forgot a \ there and it makes this ebuild fail.
- Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-emulation/xen: xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:48:50 +0200
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04/02/13 16:41, Ian Delaney (idella4) wrote:
idella4 13/02/04 14:41:03
Modified: xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog
Log:
Added acquired but missed sec patch 2012-5513-XSA-29.patch to
set of sec patches in 4.2.0-r1
(Portage version: 2.1.11.40/cvs/Linux x86_64, signed Manifest
commit with key 0xB8072B0D)
Revision ChangesPath
1.5 app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild?rev=1.5view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild?rev=1.5content-type=text/plain
diff :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild?r1=1.4r2=1.5
Index: xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild
===
RCS
file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.4 retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
--- xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild 2 Feb 2013 21:16:34 - 1.4
+++ xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild 4 Feb 2013 14:41:03 - 1.5
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# Copyright 1999-2013 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-#
$Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild,v
1.4 2013/02/02 21:16:34 ago Exp $ +#
$Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-4.2.0-r1.ebuild,v
1.5 2013/02/04 14:41:03 idella4 Exp $
EAPI=5
@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-4538-XSA-23.patch \
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-4539-XSA-24.patch \
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-5510-XSA-26.patch \
+ ${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-5513-XSA-29.patch
${FILESDIR}/${PN}-4-CVE-2012-5514-XSA-30.patch \
You forgot a \ there and it makes this ebuild fail.
- Samuli
ah thx
--
kind regards
Ian Delaney
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removals reply
Le lundi 04 février 2013 à 12:08 +0100, Michael Weber a écrit : On 02/03/2013 07:07 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: We the Gentoo developers strongly believe that this project is not fun and not important. veto. a) there is no we, b) there are conrary posts on this list. that doesn't mean this is the majority either. In any case, if anyone feels strongly about this, it should probably be discussed on -project and/or brought up to the council. I have absolutely no interest in having Gentoo be some kind of archive distro and will not read any further mail in this thread since it has looped a few times already on the same arguments. Thanks for reading this captain obvious mail. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org Gentoo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] meaning of EROOT
On 02/04/2013 03:01 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
On 02/03/2013 12:07 PM, heroxbd wrote:
self.eroot = self.target_root.rstrip(os.sep) + self.eprefix + os.sep
wouldn't be this more robust
import os
os.path.normpath('/some/' + os.path.sep + '/stuff/') + os.path.sep
'/some/stuff/'
In this context, the relevant paths have already been normalized earlier.
--
Thanks,
Zac
[gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)
Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that /usr/lib64/efi or /usr/libexec/efi is more appropriate location for them. What's your opinion? Thanks for the answer Martin Pluskal signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that /usr/lib64/efi or /usr/libexec/efi is more appropriate location for them. What's your opinion? It depends on if you want the bootloader to use the binary or not. If you do, it needs to be in /boot/efi/, otherwise it will never be able to be run by the UEFI system. Unless you really think that having /usr/ as a vfat filesystem is ok? :) thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)
On 4.2.2013 23:34, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that /usr/lib64/efi or /usr/libexec/efi is more appropriate location for them. What's your opinion? It depends on if you want the bootloader to use the binary or not. If you do, it needs to be in /boot/efi/, otherwise it will never be able to be run by the UEFI system. Well, in order to boot you have to place .efi into /boot/efi, I am not sure if it is the best idea to directly install everything with .efi into /boot/efi. As far as I know, elilo is installed into /usr/lib/elilo and grub2 is placed into /boot/efi by grub2-install. Unless you really think that having /usr/ as a vfat filesystem is ok? :) thanks, greg k-h signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:22PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: On 4.2.2013 23:34, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that /usr/lib64/efi or /usr/libexec/efi is more appropriate location for them. What's your opinion? It depends on if you want the bootloader to use the binary or not. If you do, it needs to be in /boot/efi/, otherwise it will never be able to be run by the UEFI system. Well, in order to boot you have to place .efi into /boot/efi, I am not sure if it is the best idea to directly install everything with .efi into /boot/efi. As far as I know, elilo is installed into /usr/lib/elilo and grub2 is placed into /boot/efi by grub2-install. If elilo is in /usr/lib/elilo, the UEFI bios can not run the binary as it can't even see the filesystem to read the binary from. So how can anything that is .efi _not_ be in /boot/efi and still work? Have you tried this out on your system with any success? What exactly is the issue you are trying to solve here? thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)
On 4.2.2013 23:59, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:22PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: On 4.2.2013 23:34, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that /usr/lib64/efi or /usr/libexec/efi is more appropriate location for them. What's your opinion? It depends on if you want the bootloader to use the binary or not. If you do, it needs to be in /boot/efi/, otherwise it will never be able to be run by the UEFI system. Well, in order to boot you have to place .efi into /boot/efi, I am not sure if it is the best idea to directly install everything with .efi into /boot/efi. As far as I know, elilo is installed into /usr/lib/elilo and grub2 is placed into /boot/efi by grub2-install. If elilo is in /usr/lib/elilo, the UEFI bios can not run the binary as it can't even see the filesystem to read the binary from. Well it cannot, elilo.efi has to be placed to /boot/efi, install path is however /usr/lib/elilo/elilo.efi. So how can anything that is .efi _not_ be in /boot/efi and still work? I am talking about location to which .efi is supposed to be placed after installation, not necessary from which it can work. Have you tried this out on your system with any success? Why would I try it? I am not suggesting that it would work. After you emerge elilo or grub2 you are still not able to boot unless you do other steps (grub2-install or cp elilo.efi /boot/efi... efibootmgr ... etc.) What exactly is the issue you are trying to solve here? I am thinking about creating ebuild for shim. I was wondering if there is any policy or suggestion where to place .efi binaries or how to handle them in gentoo - it seems that there is none so perhaps there should be agreed on what best practice is (install directly into /boot/efi or install else and let user manually copy .efi to /boot/efi or something completely different (eselect efi ...)). In suse default path is for example /usr/lib64/efi/: ls /usr/lib64/efi/: MokManager.efi elilo.efi shim-suse.efi shim.efi xen-4.2.1_02-0.7.2.efi xen-4.2.efi xen-4.efi xen.efi yet /boot/efi contains only elilo.efi thanks, greg k-h thanks Martin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Martin Pluskal mar...@pluskal.org wrote: On 4.2.2013 23:59, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:22PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: On 4.2.2013 23:34, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that /usr/lib64/efi or /usr/libexec/efi is more appropriate location for them. What's your opinion? It depends on if you want the bootloader to use the binary or not. If you do, it needs to be in /boot/efi/, otherwise it will never be able to be run by the UEFI system. Well, in order to boot you have to place .efi into /boot/efi, I am not sure if it is the best idea to directly install everything with .efi into /boot/efi. As far as I know, elilo is installed into /usr/lib/elilo and grub2 is placed into /boot/efi by grub2-install. If elilo is in /usr/lib/elilo, the UEFI bios can not run the binary as it can't even see the filesystem to read the binary from. Well it cannot, elilo.efi has to be placed to /boot/efi, install path is however /usr/lib/elilo/elilo.efi. So how can anything that is .efi _not_ be in /boot/efi and still work? I am talking about location to which .efi is supposed to be placed after installation, not necessary from which it can work. Have you tried this out on your system with any success? Why would I try it? I am not suggesting that it would work. After you emerge elilo or grub2 you are still not able to boot unless you do other steps (grub2-install or cp elilo.efi /boot/efi... efibootmgr ... etc.) What exactly is the issue you are trying to solve here? I am thinking about creating ebuild for shim. I was wondering if there is any policy or suggestion where to place .efi binaries or how to handle them in gentoo - it seems that there is none so perhaps there should be agreed on what best practice is (install directly into /boot/efi or install else and let user manually copy .efi to /boot/efi or something completely different (eselect efi ...)). In suse default path is for example /usr/lib64/efi/: ls /usr/lib64/efi/: MokManager.efi elilo.efi shim-suse.efi shim.efi xen-4.2.1_02-0.7.2.efi xen-4.2.efi xen-4.efi xen.efi yet /boot/efi contains only elilo.efi Can you even guarantee that /boot is mounted when your package is installed? That would be my major concern on Gentoo... -A thanks, greg k-h thanks Martin
