[gentoo-dev] Re: So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 07:51:09 +0100 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 00:51:17 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: How many times have you needed to request build logs in english since the last time you brought this up? How many times have you had to

Re: [gentoo-dev] So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:50:00 +0100 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: Subject says it all. More and more bug attachments appear that have been generated with non-English locales, and it's a nuisance for both bug reporters and bug wranglers to request/provide the sane alternative that every

[gentoo-dev] euscan-0.1.0 released

2011-12-04 Thread Corentin Chary
I released eucsan-0.1.0 last week and hwoarang uploaded the associated ebuild. You can now emerge it instead of euscan-. Note that this is only the standalone utility, not the web interface. I you have an overlay, you can run eix --in-overlay my-overlay --only-names | xargs euscan to scan

Re: [gentoo-dev] So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Mike Frysinger schrieb: and in reality, you're complaining only about LC_MESSAGES, not LC_ALL or any other locale category ... I too think it is sufficient to have LC_MESSAGES=C in the default make.conf (or somewhere else where the user can easily change it), with a comment to leave it like

Re: [gentoo-dev] So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Rich Freeman
2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org: I too think it is sufficient to have LC_MESSAGES=C in the default make.conf (or somewhere else where the user can easily change it), with a comment to leave it like this for build.log when reporting bugs. ++ Or if that goes too far

Re: [gentoo-dev] So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 12/4/11 12:58 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Mike Frysinger schrieb: and in reality, you're complaining only about LC_MESSAGES, not LC_ALL or any other locale category ... I too think it is sufficient to have LC_MESSAGES=C in the default make.conf (or somewhere else where the

Re: [gentoo-dev] So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_MESSAGES=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: Can we  just translate the error messages? That seems pretty impractical to me. Google Translate is about your only option here, and somehow I doubt it is up to parsing build logs. Hand translation could work if we increases

[gentoo-dev] Re: So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:58:06 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: I too think it is sufficient to have LC_MESSAGES=C in the default make.conf (or somewhere else where the user can easily change it), with a comment to leave it like this for build.log when reporting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread James Broadhead
On 4 December 2011 06:51, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:50:00 +0100 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: Subject says it all. More and more bug attachments appear that have been generated with non-English locales, and it's a nuisance for both bug reporters and

Re: [gentoo-dev] user management mitigation

2011-12-04 Thread Leho Kraav
So after a reading through a bunch of stuff [1][2][3][4][5], what I'm going to do for the goal above is: * move to sys-apps/shadow trunk [6] * fork my own user.eclass from v1.17, modify it to use --root $ROOT when calling shadow stuff * stick my user.eclass into myoverlay/eclass/ * # echo

Re: [gentoo-dev] user management mitigation

2011-12-04 Thread Mike Gilbert
On 12/04/2011 09:44 AM, Leho Kraav wrote: So after a reading through a bunch of stuff [1][2][3][4][5], what I'm going to do for the goal above is: * move to sys-apps/shadow trunk [6] * fork my own user.eclass from v1.17, modify it to use --root $ROOT when calling shadow stuff I think a

[gentoo-dev] News item for KDEPIM-4.7 stabilization

2011-12-04 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Hi everyone, we're about to stabilize KDEPIM-4.7 for the first time (last stable KDEPIM suite is 4.4.11.1). Below is a news item for that, which I'd like to get out in 48hours as long as there are no major problems. The news item can also be found (in possibly updated form) at

Re: [gentoo-dev] user management mitigation

2011-12-04 Thread Zac Medico
On 12/04/2011 06:44 AM, Leho Kraav wrote: So after a reading through a bunch of stuff [1][2][3][4][5], what I'm going to do for the goal above is: * move to sys-apps/shadow trunk [6] * fork my own user.eclass from v1.17, modify it to use --root $ROOT when calling shadow stuff * stick

Re: [gentoo-dev] So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread James Cloos
As someone who leaves root w/o LANG, I would note that there are a few packages which cannot build unless LANG is set to a UTF-8 locale. What we really need is C.UTF-8 and/or POSIX.UTF-8, and to force *that* in emerge(1), ebuild(1), etc. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP:

Re: [gentoo-dev] So now that we have --quiet-build as default, can we talk about a forced LC_ALL=C again?

2011-12-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 04 December 2011 12:37:15 James Cloos wrote: As someone who leaves root w/o LANG, I would note that there are a few packages which cannot build unless LANG is set to a UTF-8 locale. file a bug then What we really need is C.UTF-8 and/or POSIX.UTF-8, and to force *that* in emerge(1),

[gentoo-dev] dropping of ssp/pie support in gcc-4

2011-12-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
ssp used to be out-of-tree custom code that Gentoo added to older versions of gcc. eventually, mainline gcc pick it up. since hardened doen't support gcc-4 anymore (pre-mini-specs), i'm planning on dropping the custom code we have to support this. it allows me to simplify the common code a

Re: [gentoo-dev] dropping of ssp/pie support in gcc-4

2011-12-04 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 12/4/11 8:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: since hardened doen't support gcc-4 anymore (pre-mini-specs), i'm planning on dropping the custom code we have to support this. it allows me to simplify the common code a bit. Simplifying toolchain.eclass sounds great to me. :) signature.asc

[gentoo-dev] We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Sven Vermeulen
Hi guys 'n gals obligatory tl;dr: Please check your package below this list and see if it (the package) has a proper DEPEND and RDEPEND on the listed sec-policy/selinux-module package(s) Within the Gentoo Hardened project, we are working on getting the SELinux support into shape. Recent

Re: [gentoo-dev] We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Petteri Räty
On 04.12.2011 22:35, Sven Vermeulen wrote: Hi guys 'n gals obligatory tl;dr: Please check your package below this list and see if it (the package) has a proper DEPEND and RDEPEND on the listed sec-policy/selinux-module package(s) The list would be easier to read if it was sorted.

Re: [gentoo-dev] user management mitigation

2011-12-04 Thread Leho Kraav
On Sunday, December 4, 2011 4:50:02 PM UTC+2, Leho Kraav wrote: * fork my own user.eclass from v1.17, modify it to use --root $ROOT when calling shadow stuff So first thing I'm running into is replacing getent with something that supports chrooting. Only immediate thought for users is using

Re: [gentoo-dev] We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Fabio Erculiani
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] The dependency must be on both levels, because the SELinux module must be installed before the package is installed (and in theory, RDEPEND could trigger an installation afterwards): during the installation phase,

Re: [gentoo-dev] We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 04 December 2011 15:35:50 Sven Vermeulen wrote: Since there are quite a few packages that would need updates, I thought about first mailing gentoo-dev for feedback and perhaps a first chunk of work done. I also wouldn't mind creating bugreports for each of them, but that would still

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2011-12-04 23h59 UTC

2011-12-04 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2011-12-04 23h59 UTC. Removals: dev-scheme/plt-scheme 2011-11-28 18:33:44 ssuominen dev-java/netx 2011-11-28 19:13:19 fordfrog

Re: [gentoo-dev] We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:10:17PM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote: On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] The dependency must be on both levels, because the SELinux module must be installed before the package is installed (and in theory, RDEPEND could

Re: [gentoo-dev] We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote: I haven't really understood what you mean with RDEPENDs being scheduled after. RDEPEND must be always scheduled before the pkg requiring it, changing this behaviour would have disruptive effects on all the PMS out there

[gentoo-dev] sources.gentoo.org instability

2011-12-04 Thread Alec Warner
Hello, For a while sources.gentoo.org has been puttering along and its health has slowly declined. We migrated it to some newer shiny hardware in an attempt to mitigate the problem but that did not pan out. 90% (or more) of sources.gentoo.org traffic is crawler bots and not actual humans. That

[gentoo-dev] Re: We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Duncan
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:10:19 -0500 as excerpted: My sense is that none of the PMS versions really say quite what we want the behavior to be - as to be truly compliant ebuilds would have to require nothing outside of the base system in the pkg phases (other than pkg_config)

Re: [gentoo-dev] We need *you* for a USE=selinux dependency

2011-12-04 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 12/4/11 9:35 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: Within the Gentoo Hardened project, we are working on getting the SELinux support into shape. Recent evolutions are the stabilization of latest upstream userspace utilities and policies as well as documentation improvements and even some human