Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 03:27 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this will become part of baselayout. yes, we will add it when i can get all remaining packages cleared of profile.d we have bash-completion and tcsh left -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Great! Doing a grep on portage I found this another package with profile.d things: dev-util/aegis Thanks! On 7/20/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 20 July 2005 03:27 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this will become part of baselayout. yes, we will add it when i can get all remaining packages cleared of profile.d we have bash-completion and tcsh left -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 22:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*) Don't know, don't care, don't use xprint. Pull it from your USE flags and all will be well. =) I don't actively maintain xorg's xprint support; that's largely provided by patches from motivated contributors. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Monday 18 July 2005 02:53 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 22:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*) Don't know, don't care, don't use xprint. Pull it from your USE flags and all will be well. =) can we get you to actively remove the file then ? or move it into the docs dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: | can we get you to actively remove the file then ? or move it into the docs | dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually uses xprint and it breaks, let me know. Thanks, Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC3D+uXVaO67S1rtsRAmSIAKCXAI7DEB07O87xH6Ah0DJWZvPWFwCdEzlf Tg5nNGJZjsQ2rwGXtEo/4JE= =OCeu -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Monday 18 July 2005 07:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: | can we get you to actively remove the file then ? or move it into the docs | dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually uses xprint and it breaks, let me know. i dont see how it would seeing as how nothing uses profile.d :) thanks though ... one package down ! -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: | On Monday 18 July 2005 07:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: | |Mike Frysinger wrote: || can we get you to actively remove the file then ? or move it into the | |docs | || dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d | |OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually |uses xprint and it breaks, let me know. | | | i dont see how it would seeing as how nothing uses profile.d :) You wouldn't believe the weird crap that goes on with xprint. There could be another file somewhere else that sources it and relies on it, or something else even stranger. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC3ETvXVaO67S1rtsRArA7AJ9bpoVd4oOx7uXoaYgeiMIKvuRQ6gCg3XWM QXan/3t0KPS63DdDXhUhNeI= =nFS0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user -mike Hmm... what about bash-completion? bash-completion has installed /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it. - -- Beauty is one of the rare things which does not lead to doubt of God. -- Jean Anouilh Aaron Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC2HwhC3poscuANHARAul7AKDGBeScuVw1rtXT24dS4vOyXk8HHQCgmE9h tFYyw27aA3yj11A8/kL+tAg= =Lxc2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Does Window$ and MacO$ users, with all facilities and system security controls they have in their OSes are protected from shooting themselves in the foot? I don't think so. In this case particularly I don't think the risk is too big, since global customizations must be done only by root. I think that on the cited commercial OSes global customizations, that can break the entire system, can be easily done by any user. On 7/15/05, Michael Marineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and nothing was done. Did you know why? hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never posted to the bug the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user -mike Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. speeking of shooting feet, it's be a pretty interesting statistic to see how many times people have borked their system by accidently replacing their fstab :-P -- Michael Marineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux Developer Oregon State University -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source /etc/profile.d/${x}
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgp0Uje3CMAkf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source /etc/profile.d/${x}
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
login?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source /etc/profile.d/${x}
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:08 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on login? no, because it would collide with the packages which are supposed to be installing files there like bash -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source /etc/profile.d/${x}
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like they
couldnt just do 'echo blah /etc/profile.d/.default' at the end of
pkg_postinst or something
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 04:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source /etc/profile.d/${x}
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
If we do something like this, I'll rather not source it, but run it via
the current shell. This should discourage devs to install stuff
touching the environment there rather than /etc/env.d/.
that kind of limits the usefulness of profile.d then ... and again, not too
intuitive when it comes to the behaviors users would expect
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user -mike Hmm... what about bash-completion? bash-completion has installed /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it. well it doesnt matter since nothing actually uses profile.d :P but if we were to add profile.d support to baselayout, i would force you to remove this from bash-completion before hand -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort of cvs information), am I right? If so, some sort of checking script can detect Gentoo signed files on /etc/profile.d and just ignore them when scanning profile.d for user scripts. On 7/16/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user -mike Hmm... what about bash-completion? bash-completion has installed /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it. well it doesnt matter since nothing actually uses profile.d :P but if we were to add profile.d support to baselayout, i would force you to remove this from bash-completion before hand -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 09:13 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort of cvs information), am I right? not always -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont
want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh
into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source /etc/profile.d/${x}
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like
they couldnt just do 'echo blah /etc/profile.d/.default' at the
end of pkg_postinst or something
They could do the same to /etc/profile, no?
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgpdM3xx6eolf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 10:38 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont
want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh
into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source /etc/profile.d/${x}
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like
they couldnt just do 'echo blah /etc/profile.d/.default' at the
end of pkg_postinst or something
They could do the same to /etc/profile, no?
yeah could which is why we could just do a QA smackdown on package maintainers
who utilize /etc/profile.d ...
a quick grep shows that the following packages mention /etc/profile.d for some
reason or another:
dev-util/aegis (but it seems to correctly remove support)
x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*)
app-shells/bash-completion
app-shells/tcsh
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/ as a place to customize all my shell environment, including aliases, prompt, etc, without touching original Slackware's files. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4854 -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a suggestion, not a bug. On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/ as a place to customize all my shell environment, including aliases, prompt, etc, without touching original Slackware's files. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4854 -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a suggestion, not a bug. we use bugzilla for all bugs / enhancements pretty much -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and nothing was done. Did you know why? On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a suggestion, not a bug. we use bugzilla for all bugs / enhancements pretty much -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and nothing was done. Did you know why? hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never posted to the bug the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
can you control this ?? or... maybe could be a place most likely env.d that we could place aliases, shell functions and customize prompt with a closed objective approach If I develop something safe there is some possibility to this being put it on the main gentoo baselayout project ? If so, I'll try something. On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and nothing was done. Did you know why? hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never posted to the bug the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and nothing was done. Did you know why? hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never posted to the bug the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user -mike Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. speeking of shooting feet, it's be a pretty interesting statistic to see how many times people have borked their system by accidently replacing their fstab :-P -- Michael Marineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux Developer Oregon State University signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and nothing was done. Did you know why? hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never posted to the bug the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems with /etc/profile.d functionality we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote: Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems with /etc/profile.d functionality we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar -mike I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let users customize their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making upgrades a bit easier. To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a blacklist of locations that are reserved for users. (/root and /usr/local could also be blacklisted). But on the other hand profile.d isn't that big of an issue as users won't blow away their /etc/profile as long as they use etc-update properly. -- Michael Marineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux Developer Oregon State University signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:56 pm, Michael Marineau wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote: Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems with /etc/profile.d functionality we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let users customize their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making upgrades a bit easier. ah, so *i* misunderstood *your* reply ;) -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 18:56 -0700, Michael Marineau wrote: I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let users customize their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making upgrades a bit easier. To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a blacklist of locations that are reserved for users. (/root and /usr/local could also be blacklisted). That's an interesting idea. At the profile level we could specify INSTALL_MASK for locations like this. Donnie signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Herbert Fischer wrote: In Gentoo we need to hack files that sometimes are changed in some emerge world updates, like /etc/profile, /etc/skel/.bashrc, and that is a little mess to me, as when etc-update's list is too long I place a -5 (auto update) and voilá... all my customizations are gone. Try using dispatch-conf. It is much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with that. I also agree that /etc/profile.d/ is a good idea even when using dispatch-conf. Regards, Petteri Räty (Betelgeuse) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
