Re: [gentoo-dev] profiles 17.0 hardened/no-multilib missing?

[RB]

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Alon Bar-Lev  wrote:
>> 1) there's barely any use for it,
>
> Well, I think that whoever use hardened barely use multilib.

For the value of one anecdote, I'm a long-time hardened user and all
of my hardened systems are no-multilib.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-forensics/* and other forensics@g.o packages

[RB]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:41 PM, R0b0t1  wrote:
> The last update visible on pentoo.ch is from two years ago. Is the
> project still active?

Yes.  Check their github [0] - they may have stopped caring as much
about their separate bootable project, but the overlay is alive and
well.

[0] https://github.com/pentoo/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-forensics/* and other forensics@g.o packages

[RB]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> app-admin/integrit
> app-forensics/afflib [o]
> app-forensics/air
> app-forensics/autopsy
> app-forensics/chkrootkit [o]
> app-forensics/cmospwd
> app-forensics/examiner
> app-forensics/galleta
> app-forensics/libewf [o]
> app-forensics/lynis
> app-forensics/mac-robber
> app-forensics/magicrescue
> app-forensics/memdump
> app-forensics/pasco
> app-forensics/rifiuti [o]
> app-forensics/rkhunter
> app-forensics/scalpel [o]
> app-forensics/sleuthkit [o]
> net-mail/libpst [o]
> sys-apps/dcfldd
> sys-block/disktype

The pentoo.ch overlay has superseded and expanded on a lot of these. I
gave up on trying to provide patches and updates for this category
long ago, but they have picked up the flag and are doing a good job.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[RB]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 07:41, Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org wrote:
 Mike Frysinger (vapier) vap...@gentoo.org said:
 vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02

   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
   Log:
   old

 Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.

It would also seem manifests weren't regenerated.  Don't have the time
to go look if they were all touched by the same individual, but since
Friday afternoon bzip2, cabextract, rsyslog, rubygems, and
ca-certificates all come up with files missing from the manifest.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

[RB]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until you
 answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a troll.

Hell, I'll explain.  Read paragraph 8 again.  Slowly.  Read it a
second time, since you obviously didn't read the first time.  The
paragraph makes the point that the pro-GLEP55 stance says that
encoding EAPI inside the file is slower.  It is not saying GLEP55 is
slower, it is attempting to debunk the theory that it is faster.

You may be a lightning-fast typer and emailer, but until your
comprehension catches up, you might want to consider reading things
that make you angry twice.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[RB]

Regardless of the points being made or their validity, this is the
long-standing problem with Gentoo: excessive pride and ego and too
little inability to cooperate internally, much less externally.  Too
many people are treating every discussion (turned argument) as
life-or-death and are unwilling to concede anything.  Sometimes you
have to say, I disagree, but not enough to make waves about it.

This is why we've been bleeding old-guard developers (the quiet ones
that got stuff done and didn't flame) for months and not gaining the
people that carefully examine an environment before they commit.  Some
people just want to quietly go about their business and Do Things
Right, not trudge through hundred-fatwa threads detailing the latest
technical-turned-personal 'discussion'.  For those of you doing the
dev thing for CV points: which will your future employer appreciate
more, fifty pseudo-technical flames or a few highly-informative
documentation posts?  A dozen new packages or a 20MB IRC log detailing
what you hate about infra member $foo?


Get over yourselves.  Please.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27

[RB]

  My specific interest in it is for having a sane UID/GIDs that are
  identical between a set of machines, regardless of the order packages
  are emerged in.

I was initially surprised to see Gentoo didn't have written standards
for UID/GID management, but don't see many other distros having one
either.  Would it be untoward to extend this GLEP to define both
default ranges and an internal body to hand them out?  I, for one, am
aesthetically uncomfortable with processes like mysql and rpm using
IDs  100, but don't have a clean technical argument as to why they
shouldn't.

It would also probably be fruitful to have enewgroup/enewuser check
UID_MIN/GID_MIN instead of hard-coding the 101-999 search it does now.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage

[RB]

  non-system packages, the only thing stopping people from using EAPI 1 where
  useful is ludditism.

While most of us appreciate your desire to move forward, ad-hominem
attacks (however subtle) really only serve to damage your point.

That said, this is the typical developer-wants-shiny-object,
engineering-wants-stability drama played out day after day in
corporations worldwide, and nothing ever gets solved until someone
puts up.  Please - for the rest of the community's sake, get over
yourselves and your high ideals and spend some of this energy doing
something positive.  Like pushing for ratification/completion of
EAPI=0 so none of you have room to complain.  Until EAPI=2.


RB
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list