Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Quoting Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> >and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> >better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this.
> 
> I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a  
> gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing  
> list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF  
> rules exclude (oh well, "do not specifically include") the server that  
> forwards the mailing list message.
> 
> Or could it be that my understanding of SPF is flawed (quite likely)?

Exactly that happened to me: one of my mailing lists saw very odd
bounces if a mail was coming from provider A who published SPF
records. Unfortunately, provider B (the one who created bounces)
did not only check the Envelope-Sender, but also the Header-From.
This resulted in the mail being refused as it came from my server
which wasn't in the SPF record of ISP A. 

One might argue that it's all provider A's fault (so there!), but
it's not exactly helpful that way, is it?

I *know* it's not my or provider A's fault, still we're the ones
who have to deal with the fall out. So I steer clear of SPF as I
don't want any of my users to fall into the same trap. That it's
notoriously difficult to debug isn't exactly helpful, either.

Regards,
Tobias

PS: That pre-delivery forwards are broken (something used quite
often) is another story. SPF is broken in more ways than one.

-- 
Never touch a burning system.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Alexander Færøy (eroyf)

[Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen]

On Monday 06 November 2006 20:03, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> This announcement is "slightly" late but Alex never the less deserves a
> warm welcome for all the good work I'm sure he'll be doing in the
> future.
>
> Alex have a mysterious norwegian background but lives in Denmark (some
> people are a bit concerned about that fact as well..). Adding to his
> dubious background is the facts that he's a teenager and works for User
> Relations and the Alpha and Mips teams :)
>
> Please give Alex a warm welcome.
/me hugs eroyf

Welcome to the Danish conspiracy:-)

-- 
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz)


pgpsHed1YnDTD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Duncan]

Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 07:13:53 +:

> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 03:23, Sven Köhler wrote:
>> After reading all the concerns and doubt and things, i ask myself:
>>
>> why not keep in a tmpfs?
>>
>> Well, it can be swapped out too, and it isn't too much data anyway, is it?
> 
> Only linux has a non specific tmpfs - ie it just uses what it needs.
> For the BSD's it has something similar, but you have to specify either it's 
> size or it's maximum size so it's not as flexable.

Getting a bit worried by comments so far.  You ARE planning to keep the
OPTION of keeping a tmpfs (or whatever) mounted svcdir, right (an option
to keep it mounted that way after the boot level, is how I guess it'd
work)? I'm using that now and hope to keep it. I went with the suggested
size=2m (tmpfs). df says 184KB used, so that's quite big enough and then
some, but on Linux the free space isn't actually allocated until it's no
longer free space, so no matter. Are you saying the BSDs would allocate
and therefore remove from further use the full 2MB, no way around it, even
if only 148KB is actually used?

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 09:49, Duncan wrote:
> Getting a bit worried by comments so far.  You ARE planning to keep the
> OPTION of keeping a tmpfs (or whatever) mounted svcdir, right (an option
> to keep it mounted that way after the boot level, is how I guess it'd
> work)?

Actually we mount it in the sysinit runlevel

> I'm using that now and hope to keep it. I went with the suggested 
> size=2m (tmpfs). df says 184KB used, so that's quite big enough and then
> some, but on Linux the free space isn't actually allocated until it's no
> longer free space, so no matter. Are you saying the BSDs would allocate
> and therefore remove from further use the full 2MB, no way around it, even
> if only 148KB is actually used?

Which demonstrates that you don't know about tmpfs as you don't specify any 
size for it - it just uses what it needs.

And yes, the BSD's will use the full 2MB.

Actually I forgot about the option allowing you todo this. It will be 
supported in the next version, although the variable name specified 
in /etc/conf.d/rc will change to match out existing RC_ names, the old one 
will still work.

Thanks

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 10:50, Roy Marples wrote:
> > I'm using that now and hope to keep it. I went with the suggested
> > size=2m (tmpfs). df says 184KB used, so that's quite big enough and then
> > some, but on Linux the free space isn't actually allocated until it's no
> > longer free space, so no matter. Are you saying the BSDs would allocate
> > and therefore remove from further use the full 2MB, no way around it,
> > even if only 148KB is actually used?
>
> Which demonstrates that you don't know about tmpfs as you don't specify any
> size for it - it just uses what it needs.
>
> And yes, the BSD's will use the full 2MB.
>
> Actually I forgot about the option allowing you todo this. It will be
> supported in the next version, although the variable name specified
> in /etc/conf.d/rc will change to match out existing RC_ names, the old one
> will still work.

Actually, before I do that, let me attack this from another angle.
What do you gain from keeping it mounted as a ramdisk?
If the answer is performance, well you loose performance at start time as 
you've lost the deptree.

So why would you want to keep it?

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> From all of the large Gentoo deployments I've done (one of which
> exceeded 200 machines), you're approaching this the wrong way.
> ...
Thanks for the concise and clear explanation. It's the first time I've read
a description of how Gentoo might be used on an entreprise level. As Paul
says:
> It would be cool if you could write up a howto for others who want to do
this.
..although I figure if you know enough about gentoo to take a job
administering you should be able to follow that explanation well enough.

Grant Goodyear wrote:
>> Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of
>> bandwidth.  That's easily got round.
> 
> It is?
> 
Yes. I'd be happy to set up the site and I'm sure other users would be happy
to contribute.

>> The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
>> compile with standard C-flags right?)...We can always tag
>> pkgs with USE flags.
>> 
> 
> I think you'll find that there is little interest (among devs) in Gentoo
> maintaining a binary sub-distribution.  My view, and for some time it's
> been our semi-official view, is that Gentoo can serve as a nice base for
> creating a binary distribution, and we encourage people to do so, but
> that it shouldn't be a part of Gentoo itself.
> 
I accept that has been the position. As for devs not wanting to do it, I'm
thinking it would be part of the standard emerge process (ie binhost/PKGDIR
and -b) but you would need to add tagging of USE flags if the binary format
ATM does not include which flags were used.

So yes, it might add time/ network in terms of uploading but nothing else.

> (That said, it's true that there is still a real need for better support
> for binaries in portage, especially for handling USE conflicts.)
> 
I think the above would _start_ to handle that.

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
> binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
> whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
> up for debate.
> 
So you are looking to provide /some/ sort of binary packages as part of an
official Gentoo project then.

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
> There are too many things that are specific to my systems.
>
Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are
advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would make
your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags, then at least
the pkg is a start- if others want different settings they can compile
their own.

Hopefully we could set up a collaborative build process so others could
upload their builds. In terms of security though, this would have to be
restricted to devs (of the new project).

>> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary
>> repo (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little
>> bit behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users
>> would.
> 
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think that's total rot, sorry.  A binary distro can break a system
> just as much as a source based one.  A source-based distro is just as
> practical in the enterprise; in fact, for web stuff, it's a lot more
> practical, because it gives you the flexibility to build a box to your
> exact needs, rather than having to compromise on what binary distro
> vendors provide you with.
and Grant Goodyear wrote:
> As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
> that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
> users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
> strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
> install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
> and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)
>
I accept that for the enterprise compiling from source may well be better,
based on Robin Johnson's reply. However this point about system breakage is
serious *for users*.

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think what you really need is an alternative package tree, one
> that's versioned and tested as a whole, and one that isn't "live".
> 
That's also been discussed on the fora. I think the idea was that if we have
the tree in svn (or whatever) there would be better scope for branches to
enable exactly that.

Regards,
Steve.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Friday 03 November 2006 03:47, Steve Long wrote:
>> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption
> 
> Gentoo as an entire whole is not really "serious" about anything
> 
I thought you were serious about being a great project.

> last i checked, it was the "server" project who was working on the
> whole "enterprise" thing ... those guys are serious about targetting the
> enterprise so why do we need to discuss it ?

Well, I've found the discussion interesting so far. And enterprises don't
just use servers.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] $svcdir options (was baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon)

[Roy Marples]

OK, so some people have raised concerns about writing in /lib is ugly and 
against LFS. Others have raised concerns about loosing their ramdisk support.

So - how do people feel about always keeping it mounted as a ramdisk (default 
tmpfs, then ramfs then ramdisk) in /lib/rcscripts/init.d? That means we're 
not writing to /lib directly and not using /var which makes me happy.

ramdisk users and BSD users will loose the size of memory (default 1 meg) 
allocated, but this is definable. We an also preserve the deptrees between 
reboots if /lib/rcscripts is writeable so we can write it back when we 
shutdown.

A net benefit of this is that we would could remove around 60 lines of code 
which handle the moving of $svcdir to disk whilst the system is active 
(handles locking, timeouts, nice messages, etc)

The only downside is that ramdisk and BSD users do then have the potential to 
run out of space, but I've yet to see my 1meg svcdir on BSD go over 13% 
usage.

So does this make everyone happy?
Thoughts?

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Michael Cummings]

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
> friendly/recommended
> -mike

Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
through their mail servers.
-- 

-o()o--
Michael Cummings   |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net 
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-o()o--



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:30:02 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
> > There are too many things that are specific to my systems.
> >
> Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are
> advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would
> make your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags,
> then at least the pkg is a start- if others want different settings
> they can compile their own.

The (well, at least one) problem is that you're only thinking about
individual packages. However to be of any real use you'd need all
packages to use the same system configuration. Otherwise you'll get ABI
breakages and other runtime errors. Oh, and people using those binaries
would ahve to use the same system configuration as well (or at least a
very similar one).
This pretty much rules out devs submitting home-build binary packages
of ebuilds they maintain to a central repository.

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] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Andrew Gaffney]

Roy Marples wrote:

Actually, before I do that, let me attack this from another angle.
What do you gain from keeping it mounted as a ramdisk?
If the answer is performance, well you loose performance at start time as 
you've lost the deptree.


So why would you want to keep it?


read-only nfsroot or any other root that needs to stay read-only

--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer   Installer Project
Today's lesson in political correctness:  "Go asphyxiate on a phallus"
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] $svcdir options (was baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon)

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 11:56, Roy Marples wrote:
> A net benefit of this is that we would could remove around 60 lines of code
> which handle the moving of $svcdir to disk whilst the system is active
> (handles locking, timeouts, nice messages, etc)

Attached is the patch that does this and shows exactly what's involved here.
As you can see, the code that currently handles the locking, saving back to 
disk, and stuff is very hairy. So this would be a good argument for the 
$svcdir always on a ramdisk option.

Thanks

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD Developer (baselayout, networking)
Index: init.d/halt.sh
===
--- init.d/halt.sh	(revision 2364)
+++ init.d/halt.sh	(working copy)
@@ -119,6 +117,23 @@
 	stop_addon "${x}"
 done
 
+# If $svcdir is still mounted, preserve it if we can
+if [[ -w ${svclib} ]] && [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) =~ $'\n'${svcdir}\  ]] ; then
+	tar cpf "${svclib}/init.d.$$.tar" -C "${svcdir}" \
+		depcache deptree netdepcache netdeptree
+	if [[ -n $(fuser -m "${svcdir}" 2>/dev/null) ]] ; then
+		fuser -k -m "${svcdir}" &>/dev/null
+		sleep 2
+	fi
+	umount "${svcdir}" 2>/dev/null
+	rm -rf "${svcdir}"/*
+	# Pipe errors to /dev/null as we may have future timestamps
+	tar xpf "${svclib}/init.d.$$.tar" -C "${svcdir}" 2>/dev/null
+	rm -f "${svclib}/init.d.$$.tar"
+	ls -l ${svcdir}
+	read foo
+fi
+
 # Remount the rest read-only
 ebegin $"Remounting remaining filesystems readonly"
 if [[ $(uname) == "Linux" ]] ; then
Index: sbin/runscript.sh
===
--- sbin/runscript.sh	(revision 2365)
+++ sbin/runscript.sh	(working copy)
@@ -12,15 +12,6 @@
 # Common functions
 [[ ${RC_GOT_FUNCTIONS} != "yes" ]] && . /sbin/functions.sh
 
-# Sleep until svcdir is unlocked
-while [[ -e ${svcdir}/.locked ]] ; do
-	eerror "$0:" $"Sleeping while svcdir is locked"
-	sleep 1
-done
-
-# Change dir to $svcdir so we lock it for fuser until we finish
-cd "${svcdir}"
-
 # User must be root to run most script stuff (except status)
 if [[ ${EUID} != "0" ]] && ! [[ $2 == "status" && $# -eq 2 ]] ; then
 	eerror "$0:" $"must be root to run init scripts"
Index: sbin/rc
===
--- sbin/rc	(revision 2366)
+++ sbin/rc	(working copy)
@@ -441,55 +441,6 @@
 # Runlevel end, so clear stale fail list
 rm -rf "${svcdir}/failed" &>/dev/null
 
-# If $svcdir is mounted in ram, save it back to disk and unmount
-# but only if $svclib is writeable.
-if [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) =~ $'\n'${svcdir}\  && -w ${svclib} ]] ; then
-	# Function to show the timeout message
-	timeout=
-	do_timeout() {
-		if [[ -z ${timeout} ]] ; then
-			timeout=60
-		else
-			[[ -n ${ENDCOL} ]] && echo -n $'\e[A'
-		fi
-
-		ewarn $"Waiting for services to finish, timeout in" \
-		"${timeout}" $"seconds" "  "
-		sleep 1
-		((timeout--))
-		[[ ${timeout} -gt 0 ]] && return 0
-	
-		eerror $"Timed out! Killing some services"
-		echo
-		fuser -k -m "${svcdir}"
-		return 1
-	}
-
-	while [[ -n $(fuser -m "${svcdir}" 2>/dev/null) ]] ; do
-		do_timeout || break
-	done
-	[[ ${timeout} -le 10 ]] && timeout=10
-
-	# Lock svcdir
-	touch "${svcdir}/.locked"
-	# Wait for processes to finish
-	while true ; do
-		while [[ -n $(fuser -m "${svcdir}" 2>/dev/null) ]] ; do
-			do_timeout || break
-		done
-		tar cpf "/tmp/init.d.$$.tar.bz2" -C "${svcdir}" .
-		umount "${svcdir}" 2>/dev/null && break
-		do_timeout
-	done
-	touch "${svcdir}/.locked"
-	rm -rf "${svcdir}"/*
-	# Pipe errors to /dev/null as we may have future timestamps
-	tar xpf "/tmp/init.d.$$.tar.bz2" -C "${svcdir}" 2>/dev/null
-	rm -f "${svcdir}/.locked" "/tmp/init.d.$$.tar.bz2"
-
-	[[ $(uname) == "FreeBSD" ]] && mdconfig -d -u 0
-fi
-
 # If we were in the boot runlevel, it is done now ...
 if [[ -n ${BOOT} ]] ; then
 	unset BOOT

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/7/06, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I accept that has been the position. As for devs not wanting to do it, I'm
thinking it would be part of the standard emerge process (ie binhost/PKGDIR
and -b) but you would need to add tagging of USE flags if the binary format
ATM does not include which flags were used.

So yes, it might add time/ network in terms of uploading but nothing else.


Sorry, that's not correct.

If random-joe-developer simply uploaded whatever packages he has
locally to a central repository, you'll just end up with a large
binary mess.  The binary packages need to be built as a set, to be
sure that there is no ABI breakage going on.


Stuart Herbert wrote:
> If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
> binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
> whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
> up for debate.
>
So you are looking to provide /some/ sort of binary packages as part of an
official Gentoo project then.


See above.  I'm interested in providing binary packages for updating
systems, yes - systems that are running seeds.  Whether they're
provided through Gentoo or not hasn't yet been discussed at all.  We
need to actually finish and release the LAMP Server seed first :)

I'm not interested in providing binary packages for a generic Gentoo
'binary' release.  My personal opinion is that this isn't what Gentoo
is about.


I accept that for the enterprise compiling from source may well be better,
based on Robin Johnson's reply. However this point about system breakage is
serious *for users*.


Yes - but binary packages on their own have nothing to do with
preventing system breakage.  You're chasing completely the wrong bus
to solve that problem.

Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 12:29, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > Actually, before I do that, let me attack this from another angle.
> > What do you gain from keeping it mounted as a ramdisk?
> > If the answer is performance, well you loose performance at start time as
> > you've lost the deptree.
> >
> > So why would you want to keep it?
>
> read-only nfsroot or any other root that needs to stay read-only

We don't unmount it if root is ro (well, /lib/rcscripts, but it's the same 
thing really).

This is another argument to "keeping it simple and keeping $svcdir always 
mounted in a ramdisk" thread I've started - you may want to chime in on that.

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Duncan]

Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 07:24:37 -0500:

> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> through their mail servers.

This is of interest to me since I'm on Cox too (tho of course not a dev so
no gentoo address to worry about).  Gentoo doesn't do SSMTP?  Or your
client of choice doesn't (I've not had to worry about it so honestly don't
know what *ix clients do or don't).

IIRC, Lance did say something in his post about contacting him if another
port was necessary.  That's the standard solution suggested to folks on
Cox, as Cox is primarily interested in blocking spambots, and legit mail
just gets caught in the cross-hairs.  They don't care about third party
mail as long as it's not on port 25, which the spambots of course use. 
Thus, no fancy encryption or the like needed, only a server listening on
something other than 25, and a client that can be set to send on something
other than 25.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 13:24, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server
> > friendly/recommended
> > -mike
>
> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> through their mail servers.

For that reason there is a special port (587) for mail submission that should 
be supported by the gentoo servers.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpibnjTmwVKP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Patent threat?

[Jeff Rollin]

HiI'd like to ask how many Gentoo devs get paid for contributions to Gentoo? How many of you (paid or non-paid) think MS's threat to sue over patents is a real danger?Thanks in advanceJeff

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Lance Albertson]

Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
>> friendly/recommended
>> -mike
> 
> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> through their mail servers.

Then use port 587 like I do and it works perfectly fine. I have Cox and
don't have any problems sending gentoo mail through our system.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Patent threat?

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/7/06, Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'd like to ask how many Gentoo devs get paid for contributions to Gentoo?
How many of you (paid or non-paid) think MS's threat to sue over patents is
a real danger?


I think this is a non-issue until Microsoft issues a direct threat (or
litigation) against a named opensource company or developer.  I don't
think there's any benefit in speculating on what Microsoft will (or
will not) do at this time.

Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Duncan]

Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 10:50:21 +:

>> I'm using that now and hope to keep it. I went with the suggested 
>> size=2m (tmpfs). df says 184KB used, so that's quite big enough and then
>> some, but on Linux the free space isn't actually allocated until it's no
>> longer free space, so no matter. Are you saying the BSDs would allocate
>> and therefore remove from further use the full 2MB, no way around it, even
>> if only 148KB is actually used?
> 
> Which demonstrates that you don't know about tmpfs as you don't specify any 
> size for it - it just uses what it needs.

I think we talked past each other on this. =8^(  tmpfs uses what it needs,
yes, but the size specified is the max-size, according to mount's manpage.
In fact, I believe it was you that pointed out to me back during the
parallel thread on 1.12 or whatever that one of the advantages of tmpfs
over the "lighter" memory-fs types was precisely that -- that it allowed
such specifications, as I was using the lighter versions at the time, but
ultimately "saw the light" and decided that full tmpfs, with a size-limit,
was a bit more sensible in a scenario of restricting a run-away process
eating up all available file (and therefore memory if ramfs without such a
limit) space, if it's unrestricted.

BTW, having just looked it up, tmpfs default size is half of memory,
according to the mount manpage.  I hadn't realized/remembered that, and
had thought it was basically unlimited if unspecified, so I'm glad you
prompted me to look it up again.  =8^)  Anyway, I always set a (max) size
on my tmpfs mounts, 2m on svcdir as I said, 50m on /dev/shm (which has
PORTAGE_TMPFS pointed at it), and 5g on /tmp (out of 8 gig total real
memory so even in a runaway scenario I'd have 3 gig of real memory
reserved for system use, PORTAGE_TMPDIR and PKG_TMPDIR pointed at this one).

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] treecleaner removal

[Steve Dibb]

# Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (4 Oct 2006)
# masking media-video/jahshaka for treecleaners, bug(s) 150116
# Pending removal Nov 4th
media-video/jahshaka

Gone from the tree.

Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass

[Jason Stubbs]

On Monday 06 November 2006 17:55, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:18:41 + Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Yes, I'm also sick of this negative level of civility. If I don't
> | preempt it now, I'll likely be told that I'm taking the above two
> | quotes out of context
>
> Which you are, since you removed a large part of my answer and then
> used it to claim that my answer was unhelpful. Hint: read all of what I
> wrote.

I didn't claim that you were unhelpful; I merely claimed that you weren't 
civil. In fact, I acknowledged that your responses could be learned from.

> | Ciaran's analogies are always outrageous, condescending and greatly
> | accentuated.
>
> And a lot of people find them a pleasant change from the usual lack of
> style and humour exhibited on this list. Effective technical writing
> does not have to be boring.

Sure, but others just find them to be uncivil personal attacks.

> | Specifically, his intention is never to help the person
> | he is replying to, but rather to show them that they are wrong.
>
> The person is irrelevant. What matters is whether someone looks at a
> proposed incorrect solution and uses it.
>
> | He believes that is purely up to the person that he is replying to
> | whether they learn from it or not.
>
> Well yes. What is this, nursery school?

Keep these two points in mind.

> | discussing it further won't help any.
>
> But you still felt the need to try to throw in a cheap shot full of
> personal attacks. Right.

My intention was only to present the facts as I see them so as to reassure 
Ryan Hill that he is not alone. I can understand why you might take offense, 
but I was no more throwing in "a cheap shot full of personal attacks" than 
you do with your analogies. I thought that there might be a slim chance that 
you'd learn from what I said, but I left that decision up to you - after all, 
this isn't nursery school.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Duncan]

Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 10:58:53 +:

> Actually, before I do that, let me attack this from another angle.
> What do you gain from keeping it mounted as a ramdisk?
> If the answer is performance, well you loose performance at start time as 
> you've lost the deptree.
> 
> So why would you want to keep it?

Well, as you point out it's mixed from a performance angle.  One reason
I'm beginning to appreciate a bit more now that I have a tmpfs mounted
/tmp as well, however, is the clean start at every boot thing. 
Eliminating even the possibility of trouble from stale or corrupted
carryover has its own >0 benefits.

Back to performance, however, the deptree rebuild isn't as much of a
pull-down as one might expect, for a number of reasons.  Keep in mind that
perhaps the biggest boot-time bottleneck is disk read bandwidth anyway. 
Preloading all those scripts effectively at once therefore has three
overlapping effects.  1)  There's the direct disk read bandwidth, but that
would come in somewhere anyway when the scripts are actually executed.  2)
Having them all loaded at once gives the filesystem elevator scheduler a
bigger chance to do its thing, ordering the reads appropriately for better
efficency.  3) Once it comes time to actually run the scripts, they are
already loaded into cache, so no waiting to read them in then, simply
virtually instant execution.

Thus, while the performance benefit won't be great, it's likely to be
there, and there's the "system hygiene" (I believe that's a decently
accurate label) benefit as well.

So, keeping it at minimum an option is IMO a good thing.  If as proposed
we make it standard, there are other benefits including serious code
simplification as well.  There could well be negatives, especially on
certain archs I'm not familiar with, but for x86, amd64, and probably the
ppc folks, at least, it sounds very reasonable from my perspective.  From
what I've read, the particular challenges faced on MIPS may change the
time effects greatly there (basing this on remarks I recall from the
split-KDE debate, but I haven't the foggiest whether that applies here
or not), so I'd be interested in seeing someone address it from their
perspective.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Michael Cummings]

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 08:06 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Michael Cummings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
> >> friendly/recommended
> >> -mike
> > 
> > Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> > ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> > doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> > through their mail servers.
> 
> Then use port 587 like I do and it works perfectly fine. I have Cox and
> don't have any problems sending gentoo mail through our system.
> 
Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:).
Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls
is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being
able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this
still just a discussion (vs an impending action)?
-- 

-o()o--
Michael Cummings   |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net 
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-o()o--



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] Re: $svcdir options (was baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon)

[Duncan]

Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 11:56:27 +:

> So - how do people feel about always keeping [svcdir] mounted as a
> ramdisk (default tmpfs, then ramfs then ramdisk) in
> /lib/rcscripts/init.d?  [W]e would could remove around 60 lines of
> code[.]
> 
> The only downside is that ramdisk and BSD users do then have the
> potential to run out of space, but I've yet to see my 1meg svcdir on BSD
> go over 13% usage.
> 
> So does this make everyone happy?

I like it, especially the idea of simplifying that code and eliminating one
more place bugs could hide.  =8^)

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Patent threat?

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 14:12 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd like to ask how many Gentoo devs get paid for contributions to Gentoo?
> > How many of you (paid or non-paid) think MS's threat to sue over patents is
> > a real danger?
> 
> I think this is a non-issue until Microsoft issues a direct threat (or
> litigation) against a named opensource company or developer.  I don't
> think there's any benefit in speculating on what Microsoft will (or
> will not) do at this time.

Also, all Gentoo developers are unpaid volunteers.  While some might
have jobs that allow them to work on Gentoo on the job, the Foundation
pays nobody.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] Re: Patent threat?

[Duncan]

"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on  Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:57:12 +:

> I'd like to ask how many Gentoo devs get paid for contributions to Gentoo?
> How many of you (paid or non-paid) think MS's threat to sue over patents is
> a real danger?

No devs get paid directly for working on Gentoo -- they are all
volunteers.  Having said that, from the remarks of a few devs over time, I
believe (a) some devs have the particular job they have in part because
they /are/ Gentoo devs, and (b) some devs became devs because they were
already using Gentoo on the job and wanted to be able to shape particular
packages or projects of interest more directly.

As for the patent threat, I think most in the community treat it much like
both the US and USSR treated the nuclear threat in the later stages of the
cold war.  The outcome is so unthinkable, the ability of most individuals
to affect whether it happens or not so small, that most folks simply go on
doing what they are going to do, and if it happens, well, any survivors
will have to figure out how to continue with life at that point.  If MS
pushes the button, they'll push the button.  There's little you or I or
most FLOSS community devs can do about it, so it's really not worth
worrying about unless or until it happens.  Keep a watchful eye and stay
informed, sure, but not much else.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Aron Griffis]

Lance Albertson wrote:  [Tue Nov 07 2006, 01:55:39AM EST]
> Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I
> especially didn't like the "lets take this to the council first"
> approach. I'm with genone on the "I guess people can complain to the
> council every time emerge output changes" crap. I can't believe what I
> read on here...
> 
> People, this whole thread is silly and a disgrace to our user base to
> even read. I'm half tempted to submit iggy's vote-devs-off-the-island
> GLEP :P (Thanks SpankY for reminding me about that).

Hi Lance,

I appreciate that infra have put some thought and effort into setting
up SPF for gentoo.org, but I don't think the complaints are silly.  To
recapitulate what's been said: some devs are having trouble sending
email, infra's posted documentation is wrong, and infra hasn't
provided suggested configs in an easily-accessible manner.  Email is
pretty central to Gentoo development, so could you provide some help
instead of smacking people down?  :-(

Thanks,
Aron


pgpSo9htaMVHJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Duncan]

Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 10:03:59 -0500:

> Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:).
> Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls
> is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being
> able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this
> still just a discussion (vs an impending action)?

As I've been reading it, they won't be actually stopping you from sending
anything.  Those who can send now without issue will continue to be able
to do so.  The problem and resolution is focused on those having issues
with SPF as currently configured.  They need a way to be able to send mail
without running into that SPF flagging, and the consensus that seems to be
developing is to leave the SPF in place as is, but change the policy to
encourage, rather than discourage, sending thru Gentoo's servers, so
the SPF entries don't /need/ to change.

IOW, I don't see anyone proposing changes for those who find their current
solution works.  The changes are for those having problems with the
current solution.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Grant Goodyear]

Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:55:39AM CST]
> Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I
> especially didn't like the "lets take this to the council first"
> approach. I'm with genone on the "I guess people can complain to the
> council every time emerge output changes" crap. I can't believe what I
> read on here...
> 
> People, this whole thread is silly and a disgrace to our user base to
> even read. I'm half tempted to submit iggy's vote-devs-off-the-island
> GLEP :P (Thanks SpankY for reminding me about that).

With all due respect, I disagree.  My recollection was that the SPF
discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't archived,
so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of the devs who
have started raising questions about it.  Kurt's reply to those devs was
not particularly helpful.  (My suspicion is that Kurt figures that he's
been through all of these arguments before, and doesn't want to rehash
them yet again, but that misses the fact that many of our current devs
not only weren't part of that earlier discussion, but they have no
access to it, either.)  Your reply was  very helpful, but between Kurt's
closing of the bug and your response on -dev it appeared that infra was
essentially saying "We know best, we're not changing how we do things,
and we don't want to talk about it".  If that appearance were, in fact,
the reality, then appealing to the Council would seem to be perfectly
reasonable.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgp1T69EXR6oK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Patent threat?

[Luca Barbato]

Duncan wrote:
> If MS
> pushes the button, they'll push the button.  There's little you or I or
> most FLOSS community devs can do about it, so it's really not worth
> worrying about unless or until it happens.  Keep a watchful eye and stay
> informed, sure, but not much else.
> 

Yawn, if they claim something over mono it will be completely replaced
and/or mono will became the new gif with parrot being the new png.

That said you could just think about ways to reduce the damage like
pushing your country to NOT condone software patents...

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Patent threat?

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/7/06, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

No devs get paid directly for working on Gentoo -- they are all
volunteers.


That statement may or may not be true.  We don't require Gentoo
developers to disclose this information, so it's always possible that
some Gentoo developers are paid to work on Gentoo and the rest of us
just don't know about it.

What is true is what Chris says - the Gentoo Foundation (owner of
Gentoo's IPR) does not pay anyone to work on Gentoo.

Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:00:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| With all due respect, I disagree.  My recollection was that the SPF
| discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't
| archived, so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of
| the devs who have started raising questions about it.  Kurt's reply
| to those devs was not particularly helpful.  (My suspicion is that
| Kurt figures that he's been through all of these arguments before,
| and doesn't want to rehash them yet again, but that misses the fact
| that many of our current devs not only weren't part of that earlier
| discussion, but they have no access to it, either.)

Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just told
Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no matter
what anyone said...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Patent threat?

[Alec Warner]

Luca Barbato wrote:

Duncan wrote:

If MS
pushes the button, they'll push the button.  There's little you or I or
most FLOSS community devs can do about it, so it's really not worth
worrying about unless or until it happens.  Keep a watchful eye and stay
informed, sure, but not much else.



Meh, much of the reason behind suing someone (or a corporation) is 
monetary; since the Foundation has barely any money (in comparison to 
other companies) I don't see us being a very large target.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Aron Griffis]

Roy Marples wrote:  [Mon Nov 06 2006, 12:44:42PM EST]
> +if [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) =~ $'\n'${svcdir}\  && -w ${svclib} ]] ; then

Shouldn't this be:

if [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) == $'\n'"${svcdir} " ...

because I don't think you want to treat the RHS as either a regex (=~)
or a glob (unquoted).

Aron
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 15:59, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > +if [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) =~ $'\n'${svcdir}\  && -w ${svclib} ]] ; then
>
> Shouldn't this be:
>
> if [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) == $'\n'"${svcdir} " ...
>
> because I don't think you want to treat the RHS as either a regex (=~)
> or a glob (unquoted).

Needs to be regex so I can match $'\n' as iirc you loose that in globbing

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just told
> Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no matter
> what anyone said...
>   
In the year 2005, the only gentoo-core discussion related to SPF was
between me and lcars.
Probably you are talking about an IRC conversation.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] $svcdir options (was baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon)

[Matthew Snelham]

On 07 Nov 2006 12:30 PM or thereabouts, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 11:56, Roy Marples wrote:
> > A net benefit of this is that we would could remove around 60 lines of code
> > which handle the moving of $svcdir to disk whilst the system is active
> > (handles locking, timeouts, nice messages, etc)
> 
> Attached is the patch that does this and shows exactly what's involved here.
> As you can see, the code that currently handles the locking, saving back to 
> disk, and stuff is very hairy. So this would be a good argument for the 
> $svcdir always on a ramdisk option.

Yeah, I've tried to write patches that allow disk placement of service
state in /var, without damaging too many 'what if' use cases, and they are
pretty damn ugly at the moment.  Maybe the future will lend the required
brillance. 

Actually, Debian has started to take this ramdisk approach as well, with a
tmpfs filesystem mounted on '/lib/init/rw'.  They're not maintaining
service state, but other boot and shutdown tmpfiles and device nodes.  The
only configuration var is for configuration of the ramdisk size.

A var to allow ramdisk size tweaking on memory constrained systems (256K?),
or systems will *huge* deptrees (4M?) would be nice.  1M looks like a good
default.

I still think the location is unfortunate (and actually prefer
something like /etc/init.d/state, even as a ramdisk), but the technical
issues you raise are real, and you've got a working solution... so thanks
for listening to the other arguments. 

--Matthew
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo list server dropping mail

[Chris Gianelloni]

Andrea has worked pretty hard on this.  He's made some changes that he
thinks has solved the problem.  If anyone is having issues currently
with emails being dropped to the mailing lists, could they please post
on bug #141904 so Andrea can look at them?  You'll definitely want the
msgid of the failed message for him.

Thanks,

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo list server dropping mail

[Andrew Gaffney]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

Andrea has worked pretty hard on this.  He's made some changes that he
thinks has solved the problem.  If anyone is having issues currently
with emails being dropped to the mailing lists, could they please post
on bug #141904 so Andrea can look at them?  You'll definitely want the
msgid of the failed message for him.


In that bug, he says he changed some config option but doesn't go into details.
Andrea, can you give a brief synopsis of the issue, so that it could possibly 
help others avoid the same pitfall in the future?


--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer   Installer Project
Today's lesson in political correctness:  "Go asphyxiate on a phallus"
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Lance Albertson]

Michael Cummings wrote:

> Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:).
> Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls
> is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being
> able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this
> still just a discussion (vs an impending action)?

Nothing is stopping you from sending from another smtp server. The
problem people have been complaining about is that spamassassin is
adding a score of 1-2 for anyone who sends from a host other than what
we stated in the SPF rule. I personally don't remember the reasons for
the SPF argument so I can't speak for that in a reasonable manner. When
SPF was added, I don't believe SA was scoring emails in this way so it
wasn't as much as a deal then. We probably should look into seeing if we
can get around that, but as you've seen Kurt/Andrea have already made up
their mind. I let them deal with the mail system so they have a say on
that for now.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Lance Albertson]

Grant Goodyear wrote:

> With all due respect, I disagree.  My recollection was that the SPF
> discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't archived,
> so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of the devs who
> have started raising questions about it.  Kurt's reply to those devs was
> not particularly helpful.  (My suspicion is that Kurt figures that he's
> been through all of these arguments before, and doesn't want to rehash
> them yet again, but that misses the fact that many of our current devs
> not only weren't part of that earlier discussion, but they have no
> access to it, either.)  Your reply was  very helpful, but between Kurt's
> closing of the bug and your response on -dev it appeared that infra was
> essentially saying "We know best, we're not changing how we do things,
> and we don't want to talk about it".  If that appearance were, in fact,
> the reality, then appealing to the Council would seem to be perfectly
> reasonable.

I'm sorry, but when people automatically want to go to the council first
and ask questions later I have a hard time wanting to help them. I can't
control what Kurt does/says so that's out of my control. I didn't
exactly like his response either but he wanted to take care of mail so
that's what he's doing. Respect around here lately has been at an all
time low and I'm getting sick and tired of it.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo list server dropping mail

[Andrea Barisani]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:34:51AM -0600, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >Andrea has worked pretty hard on this.  He's made some changes that he
> >thinks has solved the problem.  If anyone is having issues currently
> >with emails being dropped to the mailing lists, could they please post
> >on bug #141904 so Andrea can look at them?  You'll definitely want the
> >msgid of the failed message for him.
> 
> In that bug, he says he changed some config option but doesn't go into 
> details.
> Andrea, can you give a brief synopsis of the issue, so that it could 
> possibly help others avoid the same pitfall in the future?
>

The setup is too much customized, giving an account of the issue wouldn't be
useful ( it would only confuse people :) ). Besides the cause and resolution
are not precisely identified and at the end I just performed a series of
upgrades trying to see if the "hidden" issue got solved.

Cheers

> -- 
> Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
> Gentoo Linux Developer   Installer Project
> Today's lesson in political correctness:  "Go asphyxiate on a phallus"
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

-- 
Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.*.
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer  V
 (   )
PGP-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc   (   )
0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E^^_^^
  "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

Lance Albertson wrote:
> I'm sorry, but when people automatically want to go to the council first
> and ask questions later I have a hard time wanting to help them. I can't
> control what Kurt does/says so that's out of my control. 
For the record, I've asked the council first because I thought it might
be reckoned as Gentoo policy.
You seem to be the only one who took this honest mistake the wrong way. :-\



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo list server dropping mail

[Wernfried Haas]

Great, this has been a bit annoying recently, hope it works now.

Thanks Andrea!

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpoxVDr0Bohg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:52:04 +0200 Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just
| > told Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no
| > matter what anyone said...
| >   
| In the year 2005, the only gentoo-core discussion related to SPF was
| between me and lcars.
| Probably you are talking about an IRC conversation.

Nope, looks like it was just a bit earlier than 2005. The post you want
to read is:

From: Joshua Brindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:30:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [gentoo-core] gentoo's policy on sender id (-infras use of
spf)

Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
refuses to do so.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 04:49, Duncan wrote:
> Getting a bit worried by comments so far.

sorry, but this just stinks of lame
-mike


pgpBicjwkPwiI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Drake Wyrm]

Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 15:59, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > > +if [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) =~ $'\n'${svcdir}\  && -w ${svclib} ]] ; then
> >
> > Shouldn't this be:
> >
> > if [[ $'\n'$(get_mounts) == $'\n'"${svcdir} " ...
> >
> > because I don't think you want to treat the RHS as either a regex
> > (=~) or a glob (unquoted).
> 
> Needs to be regex so I can match $'\n' as iirc you loose that in
> globbing

I could be missing something, but:

[[ $'\nwombat' =~ $'wombat' ]] && \
echo "These compare as equal, with or without the leading \n"

They do not compare as equal with the == operator or the = operator. You
probably want the = operator, because the == operator _does_ interpret
the RHS as a glob. The = operator just uses simple string comparison,
without interpreting anything.



I am curious about why the space was included at the end of the in the
expression:

> > > $'\n'${svcdir}\ 

Does get_mounts add a space to the end of its output?

-- 
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
  -- Oliver Goldsmith


pgpzmDvJMG5B3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Wernfried Haas]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
> claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
> refuses to do so.

Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta
against klieber since you mention his name all the time?

While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as
annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpEjNGLpSD3e.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:32, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> I could be missing something, but:
>
> [[ $'\nwombat' =~ $'wombat' ]] && \
> echo "These compare as equal, with or without the leading \n"

A working example in bash-3.2 :)

[[ $(http://roy.marples.name/node/267

Thanks

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Grant Goodyear]

Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST]
> While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as
> annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

Hmmm?  I just took a look at all of ciaranm's e-mails to -dev since 21
Oct., and in each one I see the following sig:

Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13

Where has he used "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"?

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpUhmfujF8oe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:32, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> I could be missing something, but:
>
> [[ $'\nwombat' =~ $'wombat' ]] && \
> echo "These compare as equal, with or without the leading \n"
>
> They do not compare as equal with the == operator or the = operator. You
> probably want the = operator, because the == operator _does_ interpret
> the RHS as a glob. The = operator just uses simple string comparison,
> without interpreting anything.

Interesting. You just asked the regex(3) command if $'\nwombat' contains 
$'wombat'

Maybe you meant to write

[[ $'\n'wombat =~ wombat ]]
That will still return true

[[ wombat =~ $'\n'wombat ]]
Will return false, which is what we want as wombat isn't at the start of the 
line.

In my example, I'm trying to match something at the start of a line.

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:34:46 +0100 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
| > claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies
| > he refuses to do so.
| 
| Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta
| against klieber since you mention his name all the time?

He's the entire reason Gentoo uses SPF.

| While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
| emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as
| annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

Mmm, I think you just need to repull my key from the keyservers...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Elfyn McBratney]

On 07/11/06, Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST]
> While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as
> annoying as you find klie^WSPF.


Out of date PGP keys is really rather a petty thing to counter with.


Hmmm?  I just took a look at all of ciaranm's e-mails to -dev since 21
Oct., and in each one I see the following sig:

Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13

Where has he used "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"?


I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
key. -- beu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Francesco Riosa]

Roy Marples ha scritto:
> 
> [[ $( && echo "Yay, I matched ^/dev/root "
> 
> I challenge you to get an exact match of /dev/root being on the first line 
> using the == operator and/or quoting.
> Remember, /dev/root/foo and /dev/foo /dev/root must not match either.

mounts=( $(

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:04:18 + "Elfyn McBratney"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
| key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
| key.

Mm. As far as I can see from [1] (second key, not the ebuild signing
one)... The key is listed as having both email addresses, with
@ciaranm.org first... Not sure that I can safely revuid the @g.o
address without causing problems for anyone trying to check anything
signed by the old uid... *shrug* If anyone can confirm for sure (as in,
not just guessing) that revuid won't break things then I'll use it...

In the mean time, sylpheed-claws shows my emails as "Good signature
from Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"...

1: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?search=ciaranm&op=vindex

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Seemant Kulleen]

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 21:34 +0100, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
> > claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
> > refuses to do so.
> 
> Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta
> against klieber since you mention his name all the time?

This isn't quite a fair attack, to be honest.  It's funny how jaded
we've become to any mail from Ciaran.  In this case, he provided info
without sarcastic remarks.  And I believe the observation (made
elsewhere) that SPF's existence on Gentoo's infrastructure has never
actually been justified to the people it affects, namely the developers.


> While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as
> annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

Silly silly, and it doesn't belong on the list.  Please don't be part of
the problem.

-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 21:14, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> mounts=( $( for m in 0 6 12 ; do
>   [[ "${mounts[${m}]}" == "/dev/root" ]] \
>   && echo "Yay, I matched ^/dev/root "
> done

Good, but you fail due to only matching 3 lines

mounts=( $(
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:20:02PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:04:18 + "Elfyn McBratney"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
> | key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
> | key.
> Mm. As far as I can see from [1] (second key, not the ebuild signing
> one)... The key is listed as having both email addresses, with
> @ciaranm.org first... Not sure that I can safely revuid the @g.o
> address without causing problems for anyone trying to check anything
> signed by the old uid... *shrug* If anyone can confirm for sure (as in,
> not just guessing) that revuid won't break things then I'll use it...
> 
> In the mean time, sylpheed-claws shows my emails as "Good signature
> from Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"...
> 
> 1: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?search=ciaranm&op=vindex

Yup, it is safe to revuid on the 5350EEB9 key. Just make sure you add
another uid first. Very few apps actually use the uid , and those that
do are supposed to (for verification of old content) consider the uid as
valid from the date of it's creation to to date of it's expiry or
revocation (So old emails sent while you had an @gentoo.org would still
be valid compared to the From header).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgpz513GKak2p.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: Patent threat?

[Duncan]

"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on  Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:09:31 +:

> On 11/7/06, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No devs get paid directly for working on Gentoo -- they are all
>> volunteers.
> 
> That statement may or may not be true.  We don't require Gentoo
> developers to disclose this information, so it's always possible that
> some Gentoo developers are paid to work on Gentoo and the rest of us
> just don't know about it.
> 
> What is true is what Chris says - the Gentoo Foundation (owner of
> Gentoo's IPR) does not pay anyone to work on Gentoo.

Thanks for the correction.  The latter (not paid /by/ /Gentoo/) is what I
meant by "directly".  If they are paid by some third party to work on
Gentoo, that's an entirely different (and rightly private) matter, which I
would have classified as "indirectly".  I had thought that was apparent
from the context (where I discussed that possibility), but it seems not so
much.

Anyway, we both agree Chris's statement is the case.  Again, thanks for
the clarification.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

[I'm separating the ABI issue into the thread below from Marius Mauch]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I'm interested in providing binary packages for updating
> systems, yes - systems that are running seeds.  Whether they're
> provided through Gentoo or not hasn't yet been discussed at all.  We
> need to actually finish and release the LAMP Server seed first :)
> 
> I'm not interested in providing binary packages for a generic Gentoo
> 'binary' release.  My personal opinion is that this isn't what Gentoo
> is about.
Fair enough. It's your time, after all.

What I was wondering about was what mechanism you might use to provide those
binary packages; would other devs also be contributing? Or is there simply
nothing that might be useful for a binary distro?

> 
>> I accept that for the enterprise compiling from source may well be
>> better, based on Robin Johnson's reply. However this point about system
>> breakage is serious *for users*.
> 
> Yes - but binary packages on their own have nothing to do with
> preventing system breakage.  You're chasing completely the wrong bus
> to solve that problem.
> 
OK my bad.
I understand what you're saying in the sense that binary distros break too.
Is that what you mean?

Is it correct that versioning the tree would solve it by allowing various
releases to stick to lower versions of packages until they have been QAed
by the gentoo community?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

Marius Mauch wrote:
>> Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are
>> advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would
>> make your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags,
>> then at least the pkg is a start- if others want different settings
>> they can compile their own.
> 
> The (well, at least one) problem is that you're only thinking about
> individual packages. However to be of any real use you'd need all
> packages to use the same system configuration. Otherwise you'll get ABI
> breakages and other runtime errors.

Stuart mentioned the ABI problem as well:
> The binary packages need to be built as a set, to be sure that there is no
> ABI breakage going on.

I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for C++.
Is this such a problem for C? I thought that was the whole point of the
Linux ABI (so developers can in fact use the same binary for different
distros.)

I'm guessing you're going to point out all the posts about recompiling your
whole system after a toolchain upgrade.

So if I understand this right, we can't all compile for the same ABI since
it changes according to which version of the C compiler/ glibc you're
using.

> Oh, and people using those binaries 
> would ahve to use the same system configuration as well (or at least a
> very similar one).
> This pretty much rules out devs submitting home-build binary packages
> of ebuilds they maintain to a central repository.
> 
Fair do.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:47, Steve Long wrote:
> I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for
> C++. Is this such a problem for C?

i think you misread his e-mail

regardless, stable ABIs guarantee forward compatibility, not backwards

you're also not considering the fact that any ABI can have a bump in its 
version # and thus break things, not just C++
-mike


pgpJPoYeCWpoq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Harald van Dijk]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 08:47:18PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:32, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > I could be missing something, but:
> >
> > [[ $'\nwombat' =~ $'wombat' ]] && \
> > echo "These compare as equal, with or without the leading \n"
> 
> A working example in bash-3.2 :)
> 
> [[ $( && echo "Yay, I matched ^/dev/root "
> 
> I challenge you to get an exact match of /dev/root being on the first line 

You mean being first on a line, right?

> using the == operator and/or quoting.
> Remember, /dev/root/foo and /dev/foo /dev/root must not match either.
> 
> If you can you get credit in the ChangeLog :)

[[ "
$(

Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.13 going into ~ARCH soon

[Roy Marples]

On Wednesday 08 November 2006 06:57, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> [[ "
> $( /dev/root "* ]] && echo "Yay, I matched ^/dev/root"
>
> You can use $'\n' instead of actual newline characters, of course.

You get credit :)

I couldn't get that to work with bash-3.1 for some reason though, as I prefer 
== over =~ myself.

Thanks

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list