Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Jokey (Markus Ullmann)
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 17:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:51:20 + (UTC) Markus Dittrich | | My apologies, that should have been Mar[ck]uses! No, that would be Marci. Now write it down a hundred times. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off. Now, you need to right it a hundred times... Mar[ck]i Weclome Markus -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Repoman and his automagic
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:57 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: There are a couple of bugs against repoman that request repoman detect and do things for the developer. The two cases are: repoman does not auto-commit new license files[1] repoman should cvs add files/ if it isn't already[2] [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30235 [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32529 1. This IMO is not a good Idea, licences need to be reviewed thoroughly to ensure they are freely distributable. The case I am thinking of: if in the process of making a new ebuild, a copy of the licence is quickly made, without thorough review, for convenience, then forgot about. At this point, if repoman auto-commits, the licence is never fully reviewed. In packages that have more then one licence this scenario becomes more plausible. Yes, all licences should be considered before ebuilds are created, but this may not always be the case. 2. No opinion -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] http-replicator: error: invalid directory '/var/cache/http-replicator' [ ok ]
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 13:35 -0600, Dan Sheffner wrote: which group should I send this to? Try, gentoo-user, gentoo-server /maybe/ search forums.gentoo.org wiki.gentoo.org if those fail. submit a bug on bugs.gentoo.org -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:25 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: The problem with that is that it removes all motivation to ever port the packages. They'll just stay that way forever, where forever means until I threaten to remove that from the virtual, in which case we'll be in the same scenario we are now. Why? Because people have better things to do than fix stuff that isn't broken. It'd be nice if you reconsidered this as it will minimize any breakage that may occur. Knowing that 800 packages are broken, and going to unmask it knowing that just doesn't seem acceptable in my eyes. ~arch isn't meant to be things are known to be broken. It's meant to mean, we think all of this is ready to be stable, which it certainly won't be in this case. I did some rough calculations and we are porting about 29 pkgs/day. At this rate it will take roughly 30 days to have all packages ported to ModX. spyderous wants it tomorrow, HalycOn wants it when all is ported. A (perhaps overly) simple solution is to split the difference. In 15 days ModX goes ~arch. 8 February -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-portage-dev] Order of operations: buildpkg
Many ebuilds fail due to failed QA. How difficult would it be to have the package create the tarball before the QA tests. If this were possible, QA could be slightly quicker, as there would be no need to rebuild the entire package, with features disabled, upon failure. -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 08:28 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: OK, I've got this fixed. Suddenly there are 1037 unported apps instead of 500! How exciting. Today's update.. down to 1012 packages. Great. Could you post updates once a week(or two), similar to what [EMAIL PROTECTED] does with the aging ebuilds. I don't feel a play-by-play is necessary. -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: regular project updates
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 17:00 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, as the debate about the future direction of Gentoo continues it's getting more and more obvious to me that there's a lack of information skewing the debate. It seems that while most devs (and users) have a good idea what's happening in their projects it's quite difficult to see what is happening in other projects. So - as GWN monkey - I'm offering my services as aggregator for project updates. Maybe someone from the doc project wants to help to get this information put on the website so that it's visible? I suggest project updates every 6 months (which roughly is the same timeframe as releases) Maybe this helps people get a global vision of where Gentoo is and where it's going. Any feedback appreciated :-) brainstorming Perhaps we could kill more then one bird with on stone. Once every X months, have all herds commit an ebuildish file containing the following to CVS, which would then be parsed and posted on g.o. --- begin --- Herd name: What we do: General vision of our herd Working on: what we are specificaly working on Lead(s): current lead(s) Dev list: list of active devs AT/HT list: list of active AT/HTs Herd Deps: Other Herds we _need_ in order to work properly simple example - x86 Herd (as it is currently called) depends on linux, complex - webapps depend on PHP, Perl, python, Ruby etc; apache; ?mysql Herd associates: People we work in parallel with. ie - all arch work in parallel - KDE and Gnome work in parallel Herd homepage: either a homepage or a wiki --- end --- all herds depend implicitly on the gentoo infrastructure. Now, If this file isn't commited to CVS on the interval, the herd becomes stale, and is marked as such. If the the herd is stale for interval*2, the herd would be considered dead. Issues this may address - inactive devs/testers - clearly defined scopes for all herds - some communication grevences (easily find a herds direction and projects) - easy to 'find' related herds After parsing, this info could be posted to g.o and easily browsed. An org-chart could be generated for easy reference by all. /brainstorm brainstorm Have all groups in gentoo be considered a herd. Including council, gentoo-infra, portage, ReleaseEng and others I can't think of. With the dependency structure developed 'from the bottom up', the issue of where we are going is mitigated. Also this allows for any group to have their own objective and not conflict with each other. Anyone can release a livecd under the gentoo name, just add the herdname in the title. ie. gentoo-2006_hardened.0, or gentoo-2006_bin.0 or gentoo-2006_server.0. There would still be an 'official' gentoo release, but I would wrather see a 'default recommended' release. Because in all reality, there is a different release for each arch. /brainstorm This is by no means complete, just some thoughts that might work. cat flames /dev/null; I'd wrather hear nothing. -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 12:35 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: More structure and less red tape ... How do those two work together? I feel like they're connected -- a more structured organization will have more bureaucracy and more red tape. To me red tape means that there are odd and peculiar steps in the process. Make the tape clearly defined, and have no exceptions; everyone plays by the same rules, no back doors. Perhaps - more structure with easy-to-use tape - would be a better way of phrasing it. -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:14 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: Gentoo has been missing some kind of direction/goal for some time now. Looking back at the last two years, what are the major changes/accomplishments that we have done? Granted, I know there has been great strides in improvement in some things, but I really wonder about any ground breaking enhancements. Since the council is the closest representation to a leader we have, I'd like to ask if they can come up with some kind of global goals for 2006 and beyond. You don't need to come up with goals by this meeting if you haven't had time, but at least by the February meeting. Each group can have their own goals, but we lack any overall binding goals or direction. We've brought on numerous devs in the past year, and I have yet to see a huge improvement in QA or anything else. Numbers aren't everything. If anything, it makes it harder to maintain good QA. There's a lot of people out there frustrated with Gentoo because of the lack of QA and direction. Package foo changes a bunch of config locations, package bar gets upgraded and causes a bunch of QA nightmares. At least from an admin point of view, Gentoo has gotten harder to maintain. Granted, thats a question for Gentoo itself. Who exactly are we catering to? Power users? New users? We can't satisfy everyone out there and need to draw a line of how much we'll devote to keeping the new user from destroying their system, etc. I'm not sure of the exact solution. Its just been pretty frustrating lately hearing folks complain about this and that when I know that we could do so much better. Maybe we're just happy with being where we're at. I know I'm not. There's a niche that Gentoo fits really well and I think we should focus on perfecting that niche instead of trying to be better than distroA or distroB. Ok, thats all my ranting for today. Hopefully I didn't start off the next world flamewar :-) Cheers- I have been involved with many Volunteer organisations over the last couple years. Not all computer related. Something Gentoo is notably missing is a Mission Statement. IMO a Mission statement acts as a beacon on the horizon, allowing us to have a gauge against which to measure our progress. In the process of discussing and generating this statement the issues mentioned above, can be ironed out and/or flamed about. -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 20:03 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: A mission statement only goes so far. The underlying leadership has to make sure that statement is upheld and kept alive. Too many folks have a mission statement, but no one ever remembers what it is or abides by it. I guess there isn't one driving force behind Gentoo - we have many differing opinions on things like QA, handling of bugs, ... It's just that usually Gentoo gets the least in your way when you're trying to do something :-) I guess I'm almost hinting at that Gentoo needs a single entity that's sole purpose is to drive/research the direction and goals for Gentoo. There was this Robbins guy ... remember him? ;-) It'd be almost ceo-like, but the council is still top dawg. Right now, I view our group as a bunch of chiefs with no real single leader saying lets strive to do this. The main problem is, too many people fear about such a person could turn into a dictator, so I'm not sure if this could ever happen. I wonder if any single person would be accepted? After all there is noone capable of forcing anyone to do anything as far as I can tell - worst case you fork Gentoo (again) and don't resolve the issues. This person would be in constant contact of all the groups and try to muck together what everyone is doing. They could suggest things to help minimize user impact, maybe try to join two projects if they are both working on a similar goal, thus minimizing the workload. Stuff like that essentially. Communication ... should happen anyway, but it seems to get more and more difficult. Another layer of bureaucracy won't help that ... We need a good visionary. If such a position were created, I also think that person's sole focus should be that focus within Gentoo. (i.e. they aren't a major contributor for a subproject in Gentoo). This position would take too much time for them to keep those other duties. ... and you'd burn out a capable person within half a year I think Dunno, maybe I'm the loner here thinking this... Maybe a bit idealistic, but I mostly agree :-) Upon doing some reading about what _exactly_ Gentoo council does, it seems to me that Gentoo Council is an operations board. I think what Patrick and Lance are getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we need to have some form of Governance board. A board that doesn't worry about implementation details; a board that gives a long term vision to our project. I am a big believer is having a common goal to unite all people who work with an organization. I'm sorry If I am repeating myself, but I feel this is an issue that is vital to the continued success of Gentoo. -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] default USE flags in IUSE
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 16:10 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Disclaimer: This is nowhere near done, mostly looking to start a conversation with people about stuff it's missing, and ways to improve, mostly it was a proof of concept. However please try it out and play with it a bit, find issues, etc.. included is a patch against 2.1_pre3-r1. Also included is the ebuild I used to test fun things with. The ebuild doesn't pass QA, I know :P I would like to have the option to opt-out of having these flags enabled. This way, the average user would not need to worry about enabling flags, and the advanced user (opting out) doesn't have 'magic' happen behind their back. The IUSE as you have in the sample.ebuild can be thought as the recommended default use-flags. -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] relocation.
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 09:03 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote: Curtis Napier wrote: 051230 John Mylchreest wrote: as of tonight I pack up my most valued of possessions -- my computer kit -- and get ready to board a one-way ticket to York. I guess that means I won't be the only American in ##uk anymore. ;-) Have fun in New York John! I live in Buffalo, NY (the other side of NY) but maybe its high time we had some gentoo meet for the region. Tux Uhh.. in this case. I don't think York == NewYork maps.google.com | search 'York UK' just FYI -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] relocation.
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 14:32 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote: leads me to think that it might just be New York that he is referring to. Tux How about we wait and see what John Says. :) -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Postdated time
A couple months ago, I was having trouble with my NTP server. I took me a couple hours to fix. During that time I sent some emails, and It seems that many people are now receiving these emails. All is quite on the NTP front :) Sorry for the PITA this may cause, -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 21:41 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would only happen with FEATURES=stricter. This is what I currently do in my bashrc. Obviously when integreted to portage one can use helper functions like hasq which are not available in bashrc. Well some people opposed this idea so what do everyone think about making portage output stuff like this to a qa-warnings (or whatever) file that developers can use? This would have the added benefit that users would not normally see this stuff and report stuff so easily but developers would still have easy access to it. Portage could even output a header to this file saying not to file bug reports unless you know what you are doing? I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar' user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in PORTLOG_DIR? Later Days, -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 22:10 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: I see the point about not showing all the QA stuff to the 'regluar' user. Maybe only show this info on screen with --verbose set. As for the QA-warnings file, how does this differ from parsing the files in PORTLOG_DIR? Stuff that goes to PORT_LOGDIR is also shown to the user. Could it be split? Have the QA stuff shown on screen only when --verbose is set, but have all the information written to PORT_LOGDIR no matter the flag. In my experience most users don't use PORT_LOGDIR in the first place. People who want the information define PORT_LOGDIR and have the information. Why add files containing duplicate information? -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 10:34 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: what about defining something like GENTOO_LEVEL=n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru in make.conf? And act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level or two most of the time. This is what happens anyway, but it is called FEATURES :) -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please | keep this info out of the sync-tree? Learn to use the rsync exclude list. I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well and has _no_ use for it. There are already complaints about syncs taking to long. -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Optimizing performance
On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 09:36 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul de Vrieze wrote: | On Thursday 15 December 2005 16:50, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |gentoo-performance Discussions about improving the performance of Gentoo | |Although it was a bit quiet last time I was subscribed to it. | | | I still am. The last message is from last august. And that was about someone | wanting to unsubscribe the wrong way. The last proper message was from July | 4th. That clearly means everybody thinks Gentoo's performance is great and feels no need to discuss it. =) It is discussed on gentoo-user. although many times with less-then-practical solutions -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing description for the xml global use flag
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 00:19 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/test/java $ qgrep -v IUSE | grep xml2 | grep -e xml[^2] dev-tcltk/tclxml/tclxml-3.0.ebuild: IUSE=expat threads xml2 media-libs/libwmf/libwmf-0.2.8.3-r1.ebuild: IUSE=jpeg X xml xml2 debug doc gtk net-misc/sitecopy/sitecopy-0.13.4-r2.ebuild: IUSE=ssl xml xml2 gnome nls net-print/pykota/pykota-1.22_p1548.ebuild: IUSE=ldap postgres snmp xml xml2 net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1869-r1.ebuild: IUSE=ldap postgres snmp xml xml2 net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1869.ebuild: IUSE=ldap postgres snmp xml xml2 net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1874.ebuild: IUSE=ldap postgres snmp xml xml2 Found a couple. [EMAIL PROTECTED] pykota # qgrep -v -e 'xml2\??' |egrep 'pykota|sitecopy| libwmf' media-libs/libwmf/libwmf-0.2.8.3-r1.ebuild: xml2? ( !xml? ( dev-libs/libxml2 ) ) media-libs/libwmf/libwmf-0.2.8.3-r1.ebuild: xml? ( dev-libs/expat ) net-misc/sitecopy/sitecopy-0.13.4-r2.ebuild:xml? ( dev-libs/libxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.22_p1548.ebuild: xml? ( dev-python/jaxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.22_p1548.ebuild: xml2? ( dev-python/jaxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1869-r1.ebuild: xml? ( dev-python/jaxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1869-r1.ebuild: xml2? ( dev-python/jaxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1869.ebuild: xml? ( dev-python/jaxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1869.ebuild: xml2? ( dev-python/jaxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1874.ebuild: xml? ( dev-python/jaxml ) net-print/pykota/pykota-1.23_p1874.ebuild: xml2? ( dev-python/jaxml ) pykote draws the same package, and doesn't compile anything, so I don't think they are relavent sitecopy-0.13.4-r2 does IUSE both, But uses them to determine weather or not to use XML1 || XML2. It doens't enable both. On the other hand libwmf-0.2.8.3-r1 warns you about using both. - if use xml use xml2; then -einfo You can specify only one flag of xml and xml2. -einfo It will be defaulted to expat (like autocheck does). Could we have one XML flag and an xml.eclass to determine which XML version is installed on a particular system. -Lares -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changes to date format of current GLEPs
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 21:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:18:36 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Pardon my ignorance, but how's a GLEP amending a GLEP (amending a | GLEP ...) less confusing than just changing the text of the original | GLEP... Huh, goes beyond me... History. Look at RFCs for a good example. There's nothing wrong with extending or replacing parts of existing standards, especially if the existing standards are clearly marked as extended by $blah or replaced by $blah. On the other hand, changing accepted GLEPs leads to confusion -- when someone says GLEP 1, do they mean GLEP 1 as it was when it was approved or GLEP 1 plus the modifications made three weeks ago or GLEP 1 plus the modifications made three weeks ago plus the modifications made last Tuesday? Plus, of course, it helps to have a record of *why* changes were made... Or IEEE ish Original: GLEP 01 Ammended: GLEP 01.a -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild suggestion: texmaker
Heya, I don't know how this program pased under my radar. I'm a TeX geek. I have my local repository for my overlay. I'll start it and post as I go. I anyone wants access to my svn email me off list. On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 12:41 -0200, Herbert Lists wrote: Hi, A great software that would be fun to have on Gentoo is texmaker. http://www.xm1math.net/texmaker/ I don't know how to help on get this ebuild on Gentoo but I can try to help with this one if you guys tell me how. Thanks, Herbert -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:17 -0600, R Hill wrote: All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable already. They did so without problem and without extra docs. Why does x86, the last to switch, need to be special-cased? From what I understand, most other archs have done the switch from 3.3 to 3.4 by use of a profile switch (Please Correct me if I am wrong). x86 on the other hand is attempting to do so without the profile switch, and to get it accomplished 'gracefully' w/o great amounts of user effort. The libstdc++ issue, mentioned earlier) is the only thing I can think of that is inhibiting out goal. Later Days -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:19 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler. Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade instructions can be found at http://thedoc; Trigger the message only when switching minor versions. That's going to be really really annoying for someone like me that flips between gcc versions all the time to test things. New flag? # gcc-config -q foo -q == quiet just a thought -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 07:49 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: 051121 Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: I would rather see something about system customization in general, not only CFLAGS but also USE flag et al, which is much more interresting. Something like Get Gentoo and make your own « sur mesure » system, but i don't know how to translate sur mesure from french to english. 'custom-made' or perhaps 'home-brewed'. 'made-to-order' -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org
I don't know if the contents are supposed to be the 'live' website data, but, after scrolling down to the nice link tables at the bottom, clicking on GLEPs, the info is outdated. Only up to GLEP 38. Don't know if that is what you are looking for? Later Days -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS-Server requirements (was: implementation details for GLEP 41)
The Specs giving were for the new dev box, not the projected CVS/SVN box. I think the wire got crossed somewhere along the way. -Lares On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 06:31 +0100, Lars Weiler wrote: * Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/11/19 22:50 -0600]: Yeah, we defiantly could use a beefy new server for CVS/SVN. Just make sure you chat with robbat2/Pylon on the specifics for the requirements. I believe the main thing they wanted was lots of ram. CVS/SVN doesn't need much CPU load or even several CPUs and also we don't need a lot of disk-space. But our setup could make use of a lot of fast RAM and a nice RAID (which we don't have at the moment). So specs are: - ~3GHz Xeon - 4-6GB of RAM - RAID-5 or -10 with u320 disks (for the actual data, 20GB would be enough for the next years) - a very good network-connection Regards, Lars -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: implementation details for GLEP 41
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 04:29 -0700, Duncan wrote: If the capacity is there, go RAID6 (dual parity RAID5, so two drives can drop out without the thing dieing) with a hot-spare as well, so threex146GB usable. Is RAID6 production ready? -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain
Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht @docs.g.o for document persons @infra.g.o for infrastucture etc... @staff.g.o for non-specific staff @g.o for devs Further, have an alias from @g.o to @subdomain.g.o, with an email returned to the sender if the subdomain is incorrect. eg. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] body Now if Foo is an AT, then the email alias would forward to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which would solve that problem. Also an email could be sent on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] informing that person of a missed typed address and to have all further email sent to @testers.g.o . This may be just convoluted, but food for thought. On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 11:09 -0600, Homer Parker wrote: Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out: @staff.g.o @assist.g.o Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Team Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead Gentoo Linux Developer Relations [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 10:38 -0600, Brian Harring wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:16:06AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote: Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own subdomain. ie. @testers.g.o for at/ht @docs.g.o for document persons @infra.g.o for infrastucture etc... @staff.g.o for non-specific staff @g.o for devs No (and hopefully this email finally kills this line of thought off :) Dead in my line of thinking fex, for me [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (portage infra crap plus distfiles) ferringb@(recruiters|devrel).g.o (recruiters) for solar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Etc. I'm naming subdomains off the top of my head to match high level grouping, but it should be clear this isn't a tenuable path to take both for devs, and for harassing infra with alias requests. Further, have an alias from @g.o to @subdomain.g.o, with an email returned to the sender if the subdomain is incorrect. Aliasing sucks due to the need to remove the alias after a role changes- if I stop doing recruiting, that alias now needs to be disabled. Either you bounce the email, or you leave the alias in place- either solution sucks if you're trying to do subdomains and have them actually mean something. This also is not even remotely getting into the question of segregating gentoo peeps, something I dislike. It's just not a good way to manage things with people changing roles, nor does the subdomain addition really mean anything imo- if I had all of those aliases, I'd still send from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't tell what the hell I do based upon the from, still would have to resort to doing some digging... ~harring -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)? I'm a AT for x86, and I am still reading the thread. That being said, Do I feel it is Necessary for me to get a @g.o account? Plain and simple, No. However do I feel it is benificial, Yes. I believe it makes it easier to converse via email. I have on many occasions had to give out my email to people via IRC. Its an annoyance, that is 'easily' subverted by having an @g.o account. There have been arguments made about ease of checking 'what type of validity' should be giving to a bug, based upon email. And it's expidition of preliminary bug-wrangling. These are valid points, and I agree. IMO I think @g.o would be good for the intergration of AT/HT's into the realm of gentoo. (Look elsewhere for the subdomain.g.o arguments.) As for the ro access to CVS. I don't use it now, but if I had it I would probably use it. IMO CVS ro access is a Chicken-egg issue, - you don't need it! - if I had it I would use it! So I won't get in that war. The more tools I have, the more I can do. Later Days -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:03 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: I'm going to come up with an implementation plan that looks something like the following: * all SSH keys and email addresses for arch testers will auto-expire after 60 days. If an arch tester needs to have continued access, a gentoo dev will have to re-submit the key and recreate the alias for that arch tester every 60 days. Just a thought, auto-expire after 60 days of non-use. That only applies to ro CVS access, but perhaps a resonable implimentation. Email is a different issue, which I do not have a 'firm' opinion on. -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:56 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: So, can other arch testers please pitch in with their $.02? If we gave you rsync instead of CVS, would that be sufficient? Or do you need the revision history, etc. of CVS? And, any objections to a ~30 minute delay between CVS-this solution? --kurt I personally do not need Revision histories, I can't speak for other ATs. Rsync with 30min delay is a noted improvement over the standard rsync policy. Does this also allow us to sync to main rotation mirroes is that already overstressed? I ask because IIRC it may take ~30min for all the mirrors to sync up to the 'Latest' revision, therefore the sync that I do _may_ be up to 60min old (worstcase). so main rotation mirror access would be nice. Feasable? I know not. Later Days -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 19:02 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: For now, I don't want to rsync more than every 30 minutes (concerns of overloading the main cvs server). Pylon has mentioned that the newer version of cvs has better commit hooks that may allow for more of a live replication effect, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon. I will try and come up with a revised version of GLEP 41 and see if hparker and folks will agree with this new solution. We will probably still have the blocking script on this server, but will be at a much higher level. This is just to prevent folks from abusing the service or giving out their access for other people to use. I really don't see that happening, but I would prefer to have some kind of prevention in place for infra's sake. I'll have to think out details on the authentication scheme for access, but I would assume it would be per AT and not a shared access account. Thoughts? If any user really wanted to get the access that AT/HT's get, and the AT/HT was so to give them it, there would be different IP addresses from the same auth 'similaneously'. ie. logs state, IP A, IPB IPA, IPb. this would indicate a security violation and revocation of privilege for the AT/HT. Accomplished Via script? Personally, If I wanted a user to have access to the same tree I had, I would say A) chill for 12hrs, B) sync to my local mirror, C) post ebuild.tar for them. I don't believe there is an issue with AT/HT's disseminating access to users. However I understand the need to be prepared in case it happens. 25-55min delay may need to be acceptable. brainstorming out loud Allow (x) access to the dedicated rsync server, not limited by time. - Allow Devs to change this number if they feel it is necessary - 5min access when working directly with Dev. - number reset every (y) days. (this means new infra, so prolly not) Per AT Access: Each AT upload their ssh_pub to the existing infra - use that for ?secure? rsync auth. / -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] python-2.4.2 marked stable x86
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 23:41 -0700, Rob Cakebread wrote: There is a memory leak in python-2.4.1 so 2.4.2 was marked stable on x86. Is the memory leak specific to python-2.4.1? Or is it still present in 2.4.*? There isn't much listed in the changelog[1] upstream such as a patch or bug#, but Mr_Bones_ encountered it when running repoman on the full tree causing python to consume 400 megs of memory. [1] http://python.org/2.4.2/NEWS.html -- Rob Cakebread Gentoo Linux Developer Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x96BA679B Key fingerprint = 5E1A 57A0 0FA6 939D 3258 8369 81C5 A17B 96BA 679B -- Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo x86 Arch Tester LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org 127.0.0.1 Canada -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Does someone who is primarily working on (for arguents sake) Translations does not nessessarily know what they are doing in terms of overall gentoo dev. My impression is that they have voting privileges. My feeling is that people who know about TopicA will vote on things that relate to that Topic and refrain from voting on things of which they have little or no knowledge of. SO why the big argument Lares On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 13:22 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Homer Parker wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | voting previleges Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. I don't remember that being asked for... As the GLEP asks to make the ATs staff, it'd imply giving them voting privileges. -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] i8k with torsmo
I'm addding functionality to torsmo by adding support for i8k, The dell laptop utils. I am using existing source code from the i8kutils package to extend this functionality. Now my question is, Since I am using source code from i8kutils and adding it to torsmo, which would be the most appropriate method to pass this info on to torsmo? add a patch to bugs.g.o? pass it directly to torsmo? or something else. I'm still writing it, so nothing pressing yet. Lares -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: i8k with torsmo
Nevermind, torsmo is superseeded by conky. On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 16:51 -0600, Lares Moreau wrote: I'm addding functionality to torsmo by adding support for i8k, The dell laptop utils. I am using existing source code from the i8kutils package to extend this functionality. Now my question is, Since I am using source code from i8kutils and adding it to torsmo, which would be the most appropriate method to pass this info on to torsmo? add a patch to bugs.g.o? pass it directly to torsmo? or something else. I'm still writing it, so nothing pressing yet. Lares -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] combining x86 and amd64
What structure are you thinking about for the 'real' x86 arch?
would there be a meta-x86 and then two sub-archs?
ie.
--real_x86--+--x86--~x86
+--amd64--~amd64
where {real_x86}={x86}INTERSECT{amd64}.. ?
Lares
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 12:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
The recent discussion about having a real x86 arch team and combining
the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and provocative. Of
course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP system was meant for.
Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in approving
or rejecting GLEPs, perhaps someone should be writing a GLEP about
combining x86 and amd64?
-g2boojum-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
