On 12 March 2012 15:20, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Pragmatic reality, the eapi function actually would work fine. As
pointed out elsewhere, bash parses as it goes- which isn't going to
change.
Unless the
On 12 March 2012 15:24, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
I will stab the next person who suggests 'xml-like ebuilds.'
State-fully coded ebuilds, while perhaps not to your liking, for some
code-types can be incredibly useful.
For example, 9/10 perl-module ebuilds don't need any code at all
On 03/11/2012 11:50 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env eapi-xml-5
would send the current file ( foo.ebuild ) to the process eapi-xml-5
( as defined by the current $PATH setting )
All we need is a way for the package manager to probe the EAPI. Spawning
a process to do that is just
On 12 March 2012 20:08, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/11/2012 11:50 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env eapi-xml-5
would send the current file ( foo.ebuild ) to the process eapi-xml-5
( as defined by the current $PATH setting )
All we need is a way for the package manager to
El dom, 11-03-2012 a las 13:01 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
After reading previous discussion:
http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/gentoo-dev-Deprecate-EAPIs--ftopict530567.html
Looks like preventing NEW commits from using eapi1 (via repoman) could
be done without major issues. This could even
On 11 March 2012 22:09, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote:
eg:
ircChannel #gentoo-guis on the freenode network/irc
or
irc#gentoo-guis on the freenode IRC network,
irc://irc.gentoo.org/gentoo-guis/irc
Though a freeform text field is probably better for humans, I'd
suggest having
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:08:46 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/11/2012 11:50 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env eapi-xml-5
would send the current file ( foo.ebuild ) to the process
eapi-xml-5 ( as defined by the current $PATH setting )
All we need is a way for the
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:27:11 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
eapi15-xml/eapi
and
- eapi: 15-yaml
You're carefully concocting your examples to make it look like it
should work. If you go the XML route, though, the EAPI would either be
in a DTD or as eapi value=15 /.
Part of the
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/11/2012 06:55 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:06:50AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Yeah. Another way of putting it is that the requirement to spawn a bash
process and source the ebuild adds a ridiculous amount
On 12 March 2012 21:27, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
And we could just use a good regex for that instead.
Something like: [eE][aA][pP][iI] whitespace-or-symbols [a-z0-9-+]+
and just require users for this to be the first thing declared in
an ebuild. Of course, this could make
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:52:20PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 11 March 2012 22:09, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote:
eg:
?? ??ircChannel #gentoo-guis on the freenode network/irc
or
?? ??irc#gentoo-guis on the freenode IRC network,
irc://irc.gentoo.org/gentoo-guis/irc
Robin H. Johnson posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:14:46 + as excerpted:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:03:50PM +, Duncan wrote:
Meanwhile, also note that there's PARTLABEL, PARTUUID and ID, that the
mount manpage promises to honor. I've not used these myself, but there
was a thread on the
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:30:19 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:27:11 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
eapi15-xml/eapi
and
- eapi: 15-yaml
You're carefully concocting your examples to make it look like it
should work.
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:39:52 +1300
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 21:27, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
And we could just use a good regex for that instead.
Something like: [eE][aA][pP][iI] whitespace-or-symbols [a-z0-9-+]+
and just require users for
On 12 March 2012 22:09, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
or as eapi value=15 /.
No, definitely not. That's not the XML style.
Sure, but these examples are just examples after all. And XML is only
being used for an example use case, but there are many more
structured formats than XML.
On 3/8/12 2:23 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
And then convert profiles to the new virtual (the relevant files; below
are all occurrences of sys-apps/shadow):
Because of no comments, I went ahead and checked in
sys-apps/hardened-shadow and virtual/shadow, and now made changes in
profiles/
Please
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:36:00 +0800
Ben yng...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 02:27, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Leho Kraav l...@kraav.com wrote:
On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote:
Right now, a quick
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:
I just find a top-down regexp solution dangerously naive, as its
infering that the first line that matches the regexp *is* the EAPI
requirement field, when depending on the actual format used, that
may not be the case.
There's little danger if we
On 12 March 2012 22:48, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:
There's little danger if we require the EAPI specification to be in
the first line of the ebuild. Of course the regexp should be general
enough to account for a non-bash comment syntax.
On 12-03-2012 10:16:12 +0100, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 3/8/12 2:23 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
And then convert profiles to the new virtual (the relevant files; below
are all occurrences of sys-apps/shadow):
Because of no comments, I went ahead and checked in
sys-apps/hardened-shadow
On 3/12/12 11:27 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
My rsync0 now spits out this message:
Virtual package in package.provided: virtual/shadow-0
See portage(5) for correct package.provided usage.
I did not forsee this happening, but each and every Prefix user now gets
this complaint on each and
On 12-03-2012 11:35:43 +0100, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 3/12/12 11:27 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
My rsync0 now spits out this message:
Virtual package in package.provided: virtual/shadow-0
See portage(5) for correct package.provided usage.
I did not forsee this happening, but
12 Mar 2012; Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org package.mask:
Lastrite dev-ada/qtada as per request from yngwin.
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (12 Mar 2012)
# Severely broken wrt bugs #227171, #286550 and #287483
# Removal in 30 days
dev-ada/qtada
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:15 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was thinking of another news item once we are ready to go stable.
What do you think?
I think that makes the most sense. That news item can include links
to the documentation that gets written over the next few
On Sunday 11 March 2012 21:08:47 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:49:11AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:27:06 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
An initramfs which does this is created by =sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25
or
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
There's the obvious case of compiled-binaries where that might not be
possible, but thats definately strawman stuff and I wouldn't support
that sort of nonsense anyway. Compiled binaries for ebuilds can gtfo.
Why do I
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:36:12 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Also note that with the sole exception of g55
...
and does so at the same robustness as everything sans g55
...
G55 is the sole exception.
Interesting pattern, huh?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call
it an 'ebuild' is dumb,
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as
to how best to implement EAPI declarations.
Is it really so fixed that .ebuild will only ever be bash ?
What version of bash are we talking
On 03/12/2012 01:36 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
1) User downloads an overlay that doesn't provide cache. We want the
package manager to give a pretty EAPI unsupported message, rather than
spit out some bash syntax errors.
This
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:05:26 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's just a symptom of people not abiding by the KISS principle.
Abiding by the KISS principle is what got us into this mess in the
first place. EAPI as a metadata variable is too simple to allow us to
do what we want to do.
On 03/12/2012 09:12 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:05:26 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's just a symptom of people not abiding by the KISS principle.
Abiding by the KISS principle is what got us into this mess in the
first place. EAPI as a metadata variable
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (12 Mar 2012)
# Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
# #372839, #380155, #380627, #381055, #383515, #383553, #384687,
# and #403399. Search bugzilla with keyword lilypond. Nothing
# left in tree that builds. Removal in 30 days.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as
to how best to implement EAPI declarations.
Is it really
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:
Is it really so fixed that .ebuild will only ever be bash ?
Certainly it would make sense to change the file extension when an
EAPI will require something different than bash. For example, some
editors (Emacs and XEmacs at least) recognise the .ebuild
Rich Freeman wrote:
I think that makes the most sense. That news item can include links
to the documentation that gets written over the next few months.
In the German (not Gentoo-specific) newsgroup de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc,
someone mentioned that he upgraded to udev-180 and lost the
On 03/12/2012 02:16 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
I just find a top-down regexp solution dangerously naive, as its
infering that the first line that matches the regexp *is* the EAPI
requirement field, when depending on the actual format used, that may
not be the case.
If for example, a format is
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but
making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out
rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work
with bash. Then if we ever switched to some other
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.
...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we
don't do
On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.
...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
definitely works, whereas
On 03/12/2012 10:12 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.
...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
definitely works,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:17:15 -0400
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not
to use GLEP 55.
Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical
arguments against it?
The person who wrote it is one
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (12 Mar 2012)
# Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
# #372839, #380155, #380627, #381055, #383515, #383553, #384687,
# and #403399. Search bugzilla with
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
It would be very fragile without the sanity check / feedback mechanism
that's already been suggested.
Another obvious check is to have repoman run a grep with the regexp
and give an error if there is not exactly one match.
On 03/12/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.
...but we might as well go with GLEP 55
On 03/12/2012 10:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
It would be very fragile without the sanity check / feedback mechanism
that's already been suggested.
Another obvious check is to have repoman run a grep with the regexp
and
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.
...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
definitely works, whereas
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:29:47PM -0500, Matthew Summers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org
wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (12 Mar 2012)
# Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
# #372839, #380155, #380627,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:22:57 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/12/2012 10:12 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.
...but
El 12/03/12 17:29, Samuli Suominen escribió:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (12 Mar 2012)
# media-sound/lilypond required for this is masked in ../package.mask
# for removal
app-text/asciidoc test
asciidoc only depends with the test use flag set so why don't just
remove the test USE
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that uses a
constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string just after the
version component of the name. For example:
foo-1.0-r1-eapi5.ebuild
This is so ugly... I guess I'll
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
since such a
On 13 March 2012 06:53, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
There are very good reasons not to embed this information in the
filename. That it makes the filename harder to parse for the human eye
and more difficult to type is one of them.
Besides, we already have a council decision about
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that
uses a constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string
just after the version component of the name. For
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that
uses a constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:17:31 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
The person who wrote it is one of Satan's little minions. Also,
change is bad.
And you think that this is better?
Those *are* the arguments against GLEP 55 that we've had so far. You're
adding in someone already said
On 13 March 2012 07:17, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Note the smiley in my posting. And yes, it _is_ ugly.
It may be ugly, but I'll take ugly over doesn't work and serious
technical limitations any day ;)
Binary executables are ugly, you don't see many people complaining ;)
--
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:49:11AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
We should really have some documentation on how to create a minimal initramfs
that mounts /usr (if we don't already, I haven't looked). I've never needed
one until now and don't have the foggiest idea how it's done. I can't be the
On 2012-03-12 Mon 10:54, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (12 Mar 2012)
# Severely broken wrt bugs #179178, #331181, #334835, #350059,
# #372839, #380155, #380627, #381055, #383515, #383553, #384687,
# and #403399. Search bugzilla with keyword
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including the
version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it doesn't
require us to guess what's going to happen next and it can be
implemented immediately. That's a rather big deal.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/03/12 02:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including
the version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it
doesn't require us to guess
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:50:36 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including the
version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it doesn't
require us to guess what's going to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:58:01 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
If the answer to this is no, that there should always be only one
ebuild per package version
That's already not the way things work, since different version
strings can be
On 03/12/2012 07:59 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
El 12/03/12 17:29, Samuli Suominen escribió:
# Samuli Suominenssuomi...@gentoo.org (12 Mar 2012)
# media-sound/lilypond required for this is masked in ../package.mask
# for removal
app-text/asciidoc test
asciidoc only
I thought we had this discussion already. USE=static-libs is for
controlling the build of static libraries, not the install alone.
Changed it the way it was.
On 03/12/2012 07:57 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
scarabeus12/03/12 17:57:41
Modified: jbigkit-2.0-r1.ebuild
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
If we want to handle every possible screwup, including stray EAPI
assignments inside inherited eclasses, we still need to compare the
probed value to the value that's obtained from bash.
Well, I wasn't intending to suggest
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
The header comment solution solves all these issues too, without
embedding unrelated information in the filename [1].
It can be implemented immediately, too.
No it can't, since existing package managers
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:09:39PM +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
The quickest initramfs, assuming that ALL kernel modules you need to
boot are already compiled into your kernel:
genkernel --install --no-ramdisk-modules initramfs
But this will not mount /usr. At least it did not for me.
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:38:21 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
The performance argument is in GLEP 55 itself:
| Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild
|
| Properties:
|Can be used right away: no
|Hurts performance: yes
Sure. And it's a benefit, if your package mangler
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:58:01 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
If the answer to this is no, that there should always be only one
ebuild per package version
Right.
That's already not the way things work, since different version
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:49:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's already not the way things work, since different version
strings can be equal versions (and it's illegal to do this),
so it's not relevant to the discussion.
This is a design flaw in our versioning system, and
ssmtp has been quiet project for quite a while, where as msmtp is
maintained one.
sure, ssmtp might be just mature, but msmtp is equally small and has
more features.
any thoughts?
- Samuli
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:07:48PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssmtp has been quiet project for quite a while, where as msmtp is
maintained one.
sure, ssmtp might be just mature, but msmtp is equally small and has
more features.
any thoughts?
+1 to getting rid of ssmtp. But I'm not
On 12 March 2012 20:10, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:49:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's already not the way things work, since different version
strings can be equal versions (and it's illegal to do this),
so it's not
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
An initramfs which does this is created by =sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25 or
=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
Minor tweak:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version
basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all.
You can find a recent discussion in bug 402167, comment #4
On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version
basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
against embedding the EAPI on a
Hello gentoo-dev team,
scarabeus recently posted on his blog [1] about submission of stabilization
requests from users. Since using bugzilla could be a mess of duplicated
entries, I was thinking about a Stabilization Party once a month for example,
in order to have a coherent list of
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
I'm sure that it's been considered
On 12 March 2012 21:14, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version
basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, James Broadhead
jamesbroadh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2012 21:14, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
against embedding the EAPI on a
On 2012-03-12 10:20 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
One of the greatest things that bugs me about ssmtp is that if the
mailserver is not available, it hangs for a while, and then it loses the
email.
To be fair, a queue-less design does keep it simple.
Where I need a simple mail relay, I've gone
On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
going to the council again (decisions are not forever.)
Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not
allowed somehow (or is perhaps
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
going to the council again (decisions are not forever.)
Some folks seem to think that
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Can somebody present a real ( or even theoretical ) problem that could
arise from having the EAPI in the filename that isn't some abstract
hand-waving?
Not trying to be a troll here, but really, I still haven't seen any.
This
On 03/13/12 01:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
still not needed.
...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55
definitely works, whereas
On 03/13/12 02:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[snip lots of political rhetoric]
GLEP 55 is simple,
No.
it solves all the problems we have
No, it just tries to shove them under the carpet
(including the
version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring),
Say what?
it doesn't require us
On 03/11/2012 13:33, William Hubbs wrote:
I highly discourage moving more things to /. If you google for things
like, case for usr merge, understanding bin split, etc, you will
find much information that is very enlightening about the /usr merge and
the reasons for the /bin, /lib, /sbin -
On 13 March 2012 14:22, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
I thought this up on a whim, it hasn't been tested nor vetted. It's largely
meant as a joke, but also to provoke discussion on the current filesystem
design and the direction we're getting pulled in with Fedora's declaration
that
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:34:37 +
Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:49:11AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
We should really have some documentation on how to create a minimal
initramfs
that mounts /usr (if we don't already, I haven't looked). I've never needed
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:08:47 +
Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
The quickest initramfs, assuming that ALL kernel modules you need to
boot are already compiled into your kernel:
genkernel --install --no-ramdisk-modules initramfs
Plus optionally, If you know you don't need any
Marco Paolone posted on Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:58:37 + as excerpted:
Hello gentoo-dev team,
scarabeus recently posted on his blog [1] about submission of
stabilization requests from users. Since using bugzilla could be a mess
of duplicated entries, I was thinking about a Stabilization Party
On 03/12/2012 21:37, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 13 March 2012 14:22, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
I thought this up on a whim, it hasn't been tested nor vetted. It's largely
meant as a joke, but also to provoke discussion on the current filesystem
design and the direction we're getting
On 2012-03-12, at 9:22 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
And yes, I've already tested out udev-181 on a VM with a
separate /usr. With devtmpfs, the system fully boots just fine, no
initramfs needed. Guess what the only piece of software to mess up is?
Udev. I largely think it's
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:14:23PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Yeah, I think it's an easy fix either in openrc or in an initscript
somewhere. I changed nothing except my kernel (was missing devtmpfs -- it's
not under Filesystems!), uninstalled module-init-tools, and installed kmod +
udev-181.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote:
If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that
On 3/11/12 10:33 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:28:41PM -0800, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 3/10/12 6:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
neither the genkernel nor dracut docs have specific instructions about
I guess we could pour more effort in getting dracut more easy to use
and/or
On 13 March 2012 17:31, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Worse, it actually makes parsing _worse_ than it already is. What G55
had going for it was ease of filtering out unsupported eapi's.
Literally just filter the readdir results. This behemoth Zac is
proposing basically requires
On 3/12/12 8:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:14:23PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Yeah, I think it's an easy fix either in openrc or in an initscript
somewhere. I changed nothing except my kernel (was missing devtmpfs -- it's
not under Filesystems!), uninstalled
100 matches
Mail list logo
