On Friday, September 16, 2011 12:27:19 AM Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:13:15 +0200
Joost Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
I think systemd is nice for desktops/laptops. But on servers it seems
to be overkill to me and as I umount filesystems as part of my
backup-scripts,
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:32:49 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not
really that
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 08:32:17 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joost Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
Will the ebuild automatically add all the different modules into the
/etc/dracut.conf ?
Please note, I am asking these questions to put my mind at ease
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:25:12AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
I've found that dracut is pretty auto-magic by default and the config file
doesn't generally need tampering. Most of the options are to NOT load
modules or to minimize the initramfs size by figuring out what modules are
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:25:29 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:32:49 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32
x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have different
keywords for different mips abis (64bit and 32bit ones)
that'd be nice :)
Seems even
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32
x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have different
keywords for different mips abis (64bit and
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:58:01 +0300
Stratos Psomadakis pso...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32
x86_64 x86_x32 are only
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:54:47 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either
by its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and
because otherwise we'd end up with six or seven *DEPEND variables)
by switching to
On 09/15/2011 10:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs. but i can
see how some people wont want all three all the time. so the question is how
we want to make this available to users at the release/profile level.
background: x32 is a
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:18:27 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
See below on the existing udev retry queue that is hiding many of
the
issues from you. This hidden issues are also negatively affecting
boot
times
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:00:19PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:08:36AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:54:47 +0200
Micha?? G??rny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either
by its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and
because
Hello,
I'm working on a tiny project called install-mask[1] which is
supposedly a simple tool to enable/disable INSTALL_MASK.
One of its features would be a common list of named locations where
users may really want to consider INSTALL_MASK-ing; in a way similar to
USE flags (or even instead of
On 02:06 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
Specious argument; the point of controllable stacking was to avoid the
issue of overlay's forcing their eclasses upon gentoo-x86 ebuilds
(which may not support those modified eclasses) via the old
PORTDIR_OVERLAY behaviour. This is why
On 15:34 Thu 15 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs. but i can
see how some people wont want all three all the time. so the question is how
we want to make this available to users at the release/profile level.
background: x32 is
On 11:36 Fri 16 Sep , Michał Górny wrote:
The question is: where to store such a directory list?
Keeping it inside project sources doesn't seem right as it would
require me to bump and re-release project every time a directory is
added. Keeping it in separate package which would need
On 21:53 Tue 13 Sep , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
2011/9/13 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org:
---
eclass/autotools-utils.eclass | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
I don't think sending 9
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
It may be that this is already sorted on the gnome side, or that all this
talk of gnome-os is simply hot-air, but like I said, I'm a kde user, so I
wouldn't know, tho I'm concerned about its implications for the rest of
us
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Realistically I assume you're taking the stance EAPI gets in the
way, lets do away with it- if so, well, out with it, and I'll
dredge up the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI.
I see EAPI as a nice thing
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:36:32 -0500
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15:34 Thu 15 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs.
but i can see how some people wont want all three all the time. so
the question is how we want to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger
vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because
x86_32 x86_64 x86_x32
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11:36 Fri 16 Sep , Michał Górny wrote:
The question is: where to store such a directory list?
Keeping it inside project sources doesn't seem right as it would
require me to bump and re-release project
On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:14:28 Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I don't want this in my repo.
By *your* repo you mean dev overlay? Noone forces you to declare
additional paths.
i think he meant maintaining masks for pkgs in his repo for
On Friday, September 16, 2011 09:36:32 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
understanding is that it probably makes sense to switch to x32 no matter
what you're using now (x86 or amd64).
x32 needs a 64bit processor, so x86 cant go away as it's the only ABI that can
run on 32bit processors
but for 64bit
On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:06:07 Michał Górny wrote:
But doesn't switching mean we're going to hit LFS PITA once again?
LFS hasnt really been a pain in a long while. but it's something worth
raising on the x32 lists (which i'll do) since x32 has native 64bit support
(uint64_t == %rax).
On Friday, September 16, 2011 04:28:24 Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
Is a x86/amd64/x32 multilib profile just going to provide toolchain
support for x32 binaries (like x86 in a x86/amd64 multilib profile), or
do we want a 'full' x32 profile, where every package is built by default
as x32 code?
On Friday, September 16, 2011 12:01:43 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:06:07 Michał Górny wrote:
But doesn't switching mean we're going to hit LFS PITA once again?
LFS hasnt really been a pain in a long while. but it's something worth
raising on the x32 lists (which
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:42:59 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:14:28 Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I don't want this in my repo.
By *your* repo you mean dev overlay? Noone forces you to declare
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Realistically I assume you're taking the stance EAPI gets in the
way, lets do away with it- if so, well, out with it, and I'll
dredge up
On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:06:25 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because
x86_32 x86_64 x86_x32 are
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11:36 Fri 16 Sep , Michał Górny wrote:
The question is: where to store such a directory list?
Keeping it inside project sources
Joost Roeleveld posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:36:27 +0200 as excerpted:
I agree, I just used this example to explain that it shouldn't be
necessary to force an initramfs on all users just because there is a
small group who wants to have an extreme setup.
Careful with the extreme. As you no
On 09/16/2011 06:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger
vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because
x86_32 x86_64
On Friday, September 16, 2011 01:46:49 Duncan wrote:
Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:43 -0400 as excerpted:
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 17:03:07 Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/16/11 20:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:06:25 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Friday, September 16, 2011 04:28:24 Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
Is a x86/amd64/x32 multilib profile just going to provide toolchain
support for x32 binaries (like x86 in a x86/amd64 multilib profile), or
do we want a 'full' x32 profile, where every package is built by
On Friday, September 16, 2011 15:09:52 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Friday, September 16, 2011 04:28:24 Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
Is a x86/amd64/x32 multilib profile just going to provide toolchain
support for x32 binaries (like x86 in a x86/amd64 multilib profile), or
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 07:30:14AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 02:06 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
Specious argument; the point of controllable stacking was to avoid the
issue of overlay's forcing their eclasses upon gentoo-x86 ebuilds
(which may not support those modified
On 09/15/2011 05:20 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2011-09-16 01:54:44 Brian Harring napisał(a):
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis wrote:
2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał
Hi,
Thanks Matt!
Thanks, too! :) I've used MIPS before, and might set up an old octane
again...so thanks for your effort! :)
Greetings,
Craig
Markos Chandras posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:25:07 +0300 as excerpted:
that would be ideal, and drop amd64 in the process: x86/x86_64/
-mike
Ok so we will probably have the following multilib options
* x86(ABI=x86_32{/lib}) + amd64(ABI=x86_64{lib64/}) +
x32(ABI=x32{/libx32})
*
42 matches
Mail list logo
