Re: [gentoo-dev] Categories for GUI stuff x11 and wayland
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:01:08 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > Examples > x11-libs/gtk+ > x11-terms/terminology "desktop" came to mind for me for some reason. "desktop-apps/" "desktop-libs/" "desktop-terms/" "desktop-themes/" All appeal more to me than "gui-apps/" "gui-libs/" "gui-terms/" "gui-themes/" "Gui" just seems too vague and generic here, and also feels like double-dipping. And it will be additionally confusing if any of those apps don't have any GUI, like for instance: gui-apps/xset That just seems backwards to me. desktop-apps/xset Alright, I guess. Maybe a category for non-graphical desktop-related tools should exist instead. desktop-tools/xset IDK. I'm not committed to anything I've said here, just food for thought. pgpr6Qg6Tm53X.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Categories for GUI stuff x11 and wayland
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:01:08 -0400 as > excerpted: > > > This is more food for thought to start a discussion on new category > > names. With Wayland becoming more of a reality every day. I think some > > of the x11-* categories may need to change. Stuff in there may not be > > bound to X and can run on Wayland or X. > > > > Examples x11-libs/gtk+ > > x11-terms/terminology > > > > Not sure what better "universal" category names would be. But seems it > > maybe time for a discussion on such and some new categories and package > > moves. Given thus stuff can run under X or Wayland. Not sure x11 makes > > sense anymore. > > > > I can do this on my own in my own overlay. But likely best for official > > categories as this effects the tree not just others overlays etc. I do > > not really have any ideas for better names. Just seems like a need. > > That could be a lot of package-move churn. It arguably might make sense > to keep the current names "for legacy reasons". (Or not. Just > speculating here.) > > FWIW, there was some related discussion awhile back on USE=X, proposing > USE=gui instead, but I don't know what became of it. Perhaps gui-* > category names if that's actually moving forward, in ordered to maintain > a bit of consistency and for lack of a better idea? > I think "USE=X" should be reserved for X specific stuff. If it's being used to control gui in general IMHO that's not appropriate. It's bad on principle and is likely to cause practical difficulties later if confusion arises vs competing guis, like qt, gtk, wayland, etc. > > -- > 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] [RFC] sys-boot/grub:0 (GRUB legacy) sunset planning
Hi, The base-system project would like to put forward a plan to sunset GRUB Legacy, sys-boot/grub:0 (grub-0.97). What does this cover? - - sys-boot/grub:0 - sys-boot/grub-static What does this NOT cover? - - sys-boot/grub:2 - app-emulation/xen-pvgrub [1] - app-emulation/grub-xen-host [1] Why should it go? - - No longer supported by upstream - no upstream fixes at all for 5+ years - very fragile to toolchain changes. Why does it need to stay at all? - grub:0 is still used by legacy systems where the upgrade is non-trivial (eg. re-partitioning), or not supported (eg. vendor clouds) - grub-static was heavily used in specific profiles [2] where the build system produced a grub that didn't work properly. I think (but would like confirmation) that the grub-static use cases are no longer in use. What are other distributions doing? --- - Ubuntu shipped both versions of grub for Xenial, but dropped them entirely for Zesty & Artful. - Debian: still offers grub-legacy, but defaults to grub-2. - Fedora: hasn't shipped grub-0 in years. - CentOS: 6 ships grub-0.97 only, 7 ships grub2 only. The plan: - - To the extent possible, no new installs should use grub:0. - package.mask grub:0 - Last-rite grub-static if not needed. - No new functionality will be accepted - Outstanding feature patches/bugs will be closed (e.g. btrfs, tpm) - Fixes to keep it building correctly will be accepted (e.g. gcc-6) - base-system, as a project, will only maintain grub:2 from this point forward. - metadata.xml will mark base-system as maintaining grub:2 only. - metadata.xml will list explicit grub:0 maintainers. - This is only available while there is sufficient skilled manpower/maintainers. Open questions: -- - Are there more maintainers willing to put their name in the hat? - Are there existing use cases that I've missed, where migration to grub-2 CANNOT be done? - Are there other use cases that need grub-static? [1] app-emulation/xen-pvgrub & app-emulation/grub-xen-host are maintained by the Xen project. app-emulation/xen-pvgrub is the grub:0 part, and probably also deserving of sunset. app-emulation/grub-xen-host depends on grub:2 and builds a specific config. [2] hardened, no-multilib, mixed 64-bit kernel/32-ul systems. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Asst. Treasurer E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-qt/qtphonon
# Michael Palimaka (03 Sep 2017) # Dead upstream. Use media-libs/phonon instead. # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #629144. dev-qt/qtphonon
