[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-util/chromium-tools

2012-01-17 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
# Determined by the maintaining team to be no longer useful. # Removal in 30 days (02/16/2012). dev-util/chromium-tools signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/16/12 12:36 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: I agree but, why not *also* make portage warn people when they are exporting some known to break variables in their make.conf? That'd require coming up with such list of known bad variable names, and generally I don't think blacklisting is very effective.

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Zac Medico
On 01/16/2012 02:54 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: People frequently break their systems by exporting weird variables like SYSTEM from /etc/make.conf (USE variable grouping). Example here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=6915550#6915550 What do you think about adding list of

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/17/12 6:35 PM, Zac Medico wrote: On 01/16/2012 02:54 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: People frequently break their systems by exporting weird variables like SYSTEM from /etc/make.conf (USE variable grouping). Example here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=6915550#6915550 What do

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:41:47 +0100 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: Not really. Even the example SYSTEM is not listed there, and as said before we can't put every possible, now and in the future, bad variable name there. Wouldn't the environment file reveal these bad variables?

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mar, 17-01-2012 a las 18:23 +0100, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. escribió: On 1/16/12 12:36 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: I agree but, why not *also* make portage warn people when they are exporting some known to break variables in their make.conf? That'd require coming up with such list of known bad

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Cyprien Nicolas
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 1/17/12 6:35 PM, Zac Medico wrote: I think what want already exists: http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/info_vars Am I right? Not really. Even the example SYSTEM is not listed there, and as said before we can't put every possible,

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Steven J Long
Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górny mgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Steven J Long
Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:56:11 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: How much time does it take when the initramfs fails? The same when rootfs fails? Only the fact that initramfs is less likely to break than rootfs, Seems to me for the average desktop user (who all this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: The shifting nature of the arguments and the solutions makes me more uncomfortable that this hasn't been thought through even with the amount of feedback, and more importantly proper consideration to that

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Dale
Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de  wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org  schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Dale
Mike Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.dewrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.orgschrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Dale
Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote: * Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages