Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Alec Warner
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:28:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote However, my whole point wasn't to throw stones at the chromium team - I think that they've been doing a great job of fixing this problem, and will continue to

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

2012-05-04 Thread Jeff Horelick
On 2 May 2012 12:06, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote: the canonical pkg-config is getting fat.  it requires glib-2.  it runs pkg- we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but there is also pkg-config-lite and

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

2012-05-04 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee. for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable a lighter alternative for

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Steven J Long
Walter Dnes wrote: Steven J Long wrote dberkholz who's going to either port udev as necessary, or maintain an old version forever? Chainsaw I will keep an old version going until the end of time. Chainsaw dberkholz: My plan is to patch reasonable behaviour back into udev, and going with

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Steven J Long
Mike Gilbert wrote: On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs. I hope that settles that particular issue. Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that.

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Steven J Long
Zac Medico wrote: On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: From the first reply: To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs. I hope that settles that particular issue.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 04 May 2012 05:30:31 Jeff Horelick wrote: If anyone would like to help me converting random packages/categories, it would be GREATLY appreciated. This is difficult work and it has literally taken up almost all of my free time for the past 2 days or so, but I have well over half the

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Steven J Long
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 11 April 2012 12:10:05 Steven J Long wrote: William Hubbs wrote: Another issue to consider is binaries that want to access things in /usr/share/*. I'm ignorant of which binaries do that? off the top of my head: Ah thanks, this is what I was after:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 04 May 2012 12:36:20 Steven J Long wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: - this is why /etc/localtime is no longer a symlink to /usr/share/zoneinfo/ - don't think that makes any difference to rescue situation. no, but that isn't the driving factor here. programs get executed before /usr

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

2012-05-04 Thread Steven J Long
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:04:11 +0100 Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't already been explained, I say how to fix it. Oh? Where on Earth did you do that in this

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Steven J Long
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 04 May 2012 12:36:20 Steven J Long wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: - this is why /etc/localtime is no longer a symlink to /usr/share/zoneinfo/ - don't think that makes any difference to rescue situation. no, but that isn't the driving factor here.

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

2012-05-04 Thread Johannes Huber
Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 18:30:10 schrieb hasufell: # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE # @DESCRIPTION: # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation. By default this is deactivated which is inconvenient imo and results in pastes having minimum information. I have to tell users every

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Luca Barbato
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/05/12 18:22, Mike Frysinger wrote: (As soon I have some time I might dabble with a dbus integration for mdev) we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want busybox itself linking against anything beyond the C

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Luca Barbato
On 04/05/12 01:37, Alec Warner wrote: I would argue that the Chrome Team's idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is and your idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is are vastly divergent. That is totally OK and you are free to use whatever software you prefer. I somehow doubt Chrom{e,ium} is losing tons of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/05/12 01:37, Alec Warner wrote: I would argue that the Chrome Team's idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is and your idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is are vastly divergent. That is totally OK and you are free to use whatever

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

2012-05-04 Thread hasufell
On 05/04/2012 08:00 PM, Johannes Huber wrote: Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 18:30:10 schrieb hasufell: # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE # @DESCRIPTION: # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation. By default this is deactivated which is inconvenient imo and results in pastes having

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 5/4/12 8:02 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: I consider dbus still not reliable for core services. Just curious - why? I just have no idea about how dbus works or what are possible problems with it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/04/2012 08:00 PM, Johannes Huber wrote: Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 18:30:10 schrieb hasufell: # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE # @DESCRIPTION: # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation. By default this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they target a given version of Ubuntu. I think a patch to make them optional might be accepted, but it probably isn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Luca Barbato
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/05/12 11:35, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 5/4/12 8:02 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: I consider dbus still not reliable for core services. Just curious - why? I just have no idea about how dbus works or what are possible problems with it. About

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

2012-05-04 Thread Johannes Huber
Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 14:41:42 schrieb Mike Gilbert: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/04/2012 08:00 PM, Johannes Huber wrote: Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 18:30:10 schrieb hasufell: # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE # @DESCRIPTION: # Set to enable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread David Leverton
Luca Barbato wrote: On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote: you need to think bigger. Chromium supports joystick inputs (which come and go) for playing games in the browser, so udev makes sense. So is it using libudev to get that information? I guess would be possible to patch it out,

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 04 May 2012 05:43:55 Samuli Suominen wrote: =dev-util/pkgconfig- with USE=internal-glib in Portage. I'm hoping this will render the pkg-config-lite useless so we can drop it. I'm very much intrested in knowing if this matches the requirements for doing so, so I can decide

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 14:41:42 schrieb Mike Gilbert: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/04/2012 08:00 PM, Johannes Huber wrote: Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 18:30:10 schrieb hasufell:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Luca Barbato
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/05/12 11:37, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they target a given version of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 04 May 2012 15:25:58 David Leverton wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote: you need to think bigger. Chromium supports joystick inputs (which come and go) for playing games in the browser, so udev makes sense. So is it using libudev to get that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread David Leverton
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 04 May 2012 15:25:58 David Leverton wrote: If it really is just for joysticks etc it might be worth seeing if it can be made to use XInput instead. Maybe upstream had a specific reason not do it that way in the first place, but in general, X apps really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Zac Medico
On 05/04/2012 08:20 AM, Steven J Long wrote: Zac Medico wrote: On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: From the first reply: To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: epatch_user usage

2012-05-04 Thread Michał Górny
On Fri, 4 May 2012 06:50:12 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:08 -0700 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/25/2012 09:45 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: Could we detect user patches touching autoconf files somehow, maybe by hashing them beforehand

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Walter Dnes
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:22:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want busybox itself linking against anything beyond the C library. Busybox, including its mdev functionality, is targetted at small and embedded systems. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Luca Barbato
On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote: What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets called, and pre-processes requests and forwards them to mdev. That's my idea =) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: On 04/05/12 11:37, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they target

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote: What could work is a shim or compatability layer that gets called, and pre-processes requests and forwards them to mdev. That's my idea =) and then, look, you have reimplemented udev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:02:01AM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: On 03/05/12 18:22, Mike Frysinger wrote: (As soon I have some time I might dabble with a dbus integration for mdev) we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want busybox itself linking against

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-05-04 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:50:24PM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs: dberkholz sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new udev that says if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old udev, mask new, or whatever

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: On 04/05/12 11:37, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to make it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Richard Yao
On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote: Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core, base libaries of the Linux stack. I was under the impression that in order for there to be a Linux stack, the Linux tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote: Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core, base libaries of the Linux stack. I was under the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Greg KH schrieb: On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote: Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core, base libaries of the Linux stack. I was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 04 May 2012 21:06:52 Greg KH wrote: On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Remember, you are passing the complexity of insisting that you do not want these things to the people managing the packages and trying to support the system in so many different

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: I'd say that Android is an operating system based on Linux. It is not 'the Linux stack'. I think he was wondering whether the lock-in between dbus, udev and the Linux kernel will reach proportions where

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

2012-05-04 Thread Dale
Greg KH wrote: On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:02:01AM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: On 03/05/12 18:22, Mike Frysinger wrote: (As soon I have some time I might dabble with a dbus integration for mdev) we would have to make mdev available as a sep package then ... don't want busybox itself linking

[gentoo-dev] Re: epatch_user usage

2012-05-04 Thread Ryan Hill
On Fri, 4 May 2012 22:23:31 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: There's all kinds of reasons to not use autotools-utils.eclass. I wouldn't want to see another python.eclass bullying around the tree. 504 autotools-utils.eclass 3186 python.eclass Do you have any real