El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 05:43 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 06/15/2012 05:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2012 21:16:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
So how about renaming USE=gs consumers to USE=ps and making USE=ps
global flag with the proposed description?
merging is
El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this
adds
On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should I worry about this and
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this
adds pointless overhead to
Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not
On 06/15/2012 10:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Using all 3 vars would also likely mean that the diff's for xfce-overlay
* vars - phases
silly typing error. sorry.
Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan:
Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
Gentoo right now and just focus on the other
On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/2012 03:49 AM, Florian Philipp wrote:
Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58,
Am 15.06.2012 10:06, schrieb Richard Farina:
On 06/15/2012 03:49 AM, Florian Philipp wrote:
Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58,
Am 15.06.2012 09:58, schrieb Richard Farina:
On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
As per the discussion in bug #328245, we would like to propose a
new global useflag, to replace both ass and libass local useflags
currently in media-video/{ffmpeg,mplayer,mplayer2,vlc}.
The proposed description is
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
Minor details like, do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to
sign our bootloader? is one
On 15 June 2012 15:58, Richard Farina sidh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan
Am 15.06.2012 12:14, schrieb Rich Freeman:
[...]
+1 for your assessment so far.
I'd be personally interested in pointers to info on what the powers
that be do and don't allow with UEFI. I've seen lots of
sky-is-falling blog entries and discussion but little in the way of
specs, and more
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:37:02AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote
Besides, it wouldn't work long. They can blacklist keys.
Question... how would blacklisting work on linux machines? Let's
say Joe Blow gets a signing key and then passes it around. I can see
that if you want to build an
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Question... how would blacklisting work on linux machines? Let's
say Joe Blow gets a signing key and then passes it around. I can see
that if you want to build an executable (*.exe) to run under Windows,
you'll run
On 06/15/2012 06:57 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Greg KH schrieb:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
Minor details like, do
On 06/15/2012 12:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
5. If somebody (perhaps under the umbrella of hardened) wanted to
create a Gentoo project around a fully trusted Gentoo I'd be
completely supportive of that. It would take work. In the spirit of
Gentoo we should allow anybody to build their own
On 06/15/2012 09:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables,
DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare, and XFCONF for src_configure
No way we will add all 3 phases to every Xfce ebuild since that would
defeat the purpose of the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote
I guess anti-trust is not an issue since MS is not even close to having
a monopoly in ARM.
Will you be able to get an ARM machine without their UEFI? If MS
ever gets huge in the ARM arena, and 95% of ARM cpus go into Windows
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/15/2012 06:57 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
If you have influence on UEFI secure boot spec, you could suggest that
they mandate a UI which lists all boot images known to the EFI boot
manager, and the user
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:24:54 +0200
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/15/2012 09:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3
variables, DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare, and
XFCONF for src_configure
No way we will add
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
If we want to try to get serious on 5, we could try to gather the
hardened/security people across distributions and setup the whole chain
to be parallel and cut deals with OEM to store this trust-chain keys
along with MS.
Am 15.06.2012 14:01, schrieb Rich Freeman:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Question... how would blacklisting work on linux machines? Let's
say Joe Blow gets a signing key and then passes it around. I can see
that if you want to build an executable
Am 15.06.2012 14:28, schrieb Walter Dnes:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote
I guess anti-trust is not an issue since MS is not even close to having
a monopoly in ARM.
Will you be able to get an ARM machine without their UEFI? If MS
ever gets huge in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/06/12 04:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2012 15:35:40 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
--- user.eclass [some timestamp] +++
user.eclass.esethome [some other timestamp] @@ -388,3 +388,63
@@ }
fi + +# @FUNCTION:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/06/12 06:30 PM, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
Good evening,
As per bug #421037, there is a demand to make multiple voicemail
storage backends switchable within the ebuild. The USE_EXPAND
mechanism would automatically provide an explanation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/06/12 07:58 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
9'ish consumers. I propose Enable support for the PostScript
language
Perhaps ps or postscript instead of the implementation-centric
gs ?
//Peter
I think based on the
Mike Frysinger wrote:
+ # lets see if the username already exists
+ if [[ ! -n $(egetent passwd ${euser}) ]] ; then
! -n - -z
Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
versions of bash actually have the string argument optional even
though that's not what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/06/12 10:43 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/15/2012 05:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2012 21:16:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
So how about renaming USE=gs consumers to USE=ps and making
USE=ps global flag with the proposed
It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when no
such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
---
eclass/eutils.eclass |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/eutils.eclass b/eclass/eutils.eclass
index 116f7bc..931d97d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/06/12 09:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
+ # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
! -n $(egetent passwd ${euser}) ]] ; then
! -n - -z
Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do
On 15-06-2012 09:35:38 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 15/06/12 09:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
+ # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
! -n $(egetent passwd ${euser}) ]] ; then
! -n - -z
Does the $() argument ever need to be double
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
+ # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
! -n $(egetent passwd ${euser}) ]] ; then
! -n - -z
Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
versions of bash actually have the string argument
On 15-06-2012 15:41:03 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
+ # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
! -n $(egetent passwd ${euser}) ]] ; then
! -n - -z
Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
Fabian Groffen wrote:
+ if [[ ! -n $(egetent passwd ${euser}) ]] ; then
! -n - -z
Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
versions of bash actually have the string argument optional even
though that's not what the man page reads?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Fabian Groffen wrote:
+ if [[ ! -n $(egetent passwd ${euser}) ]] ; then
! -n - -z
Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
versions of bash actually have the string argument
Mike Gilbert wrote:
[] is shorthand for test. Both test and [[]] in my man bash read:
--8--
Expressions are composed of the primaries described .. under
CONDITIONAL EXPRESSIONS.
--8--
And the next sentence is exactly what you wrote. :)
Word splitting and pathname expansion are not
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have
to call the respective src_* func from an
On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when no
such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
Why keep the -f?
---
eclass/eutils.eclass |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Friday 15 June 2012 09:32:18 Michał Górny wrote:
# Remove static libs we're not supposed to link against.
if grep -q '^shouldnotlink=yes$' ${f}; then
- einfo Removing unnecessary ${archivefile#${D%/}}
- rm -f ${archivefile}
On 06/15/2012 06:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
8. I think the bigger issue is with ARM, and I'm not personally clear
on what the exact policy is there. That really strikes me as
antitrust, but MS might argue that on ARM they have no monopoly
(instead we have a bunch of different vendors who
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 09:32:18 Michał Górny wrote:
# Remove static libs we're not supposed to link
against. if grep -q '^shouldnotlink=yes$' ${f}; then
- einfo Removing unnecessary
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:44 -0400
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when
no such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
Why keep the -f?
For rm?
-f,
El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 09:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
call the respective
On Friday 15 June 2012 12:52:56 Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:58 -0400 wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 09:32:18 Michał Górny wrote:
# Remove static libs we're not supposed to link
against. if grep -q '^shouldnotlink=yes$' ${f}; then
- einfo
On Friday 15 June 2012 12:54:16 Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:44 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when
no such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
Why
On 06/15/2012 12:24 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 10:26, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
On 06/14/2012 11:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:28:10PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
Minor details like, do we have a
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:57:06AM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
If you have influence on UEFI secure boot spec, you could suggest that
they mandate a UI which lists all boot images known to the EFI boot
manager, and the user can easily whitelist both individual loaders and
the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:49:01AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:35:28PM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
One of these days I'd like to pick your brain about some hardened UEFI
interactions I've seen (with pipacs watching).
Sure, be glad to talk about this anytime.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:48:05AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
120614 Greg KH wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo
or not worry about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
Minor details
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:03:24PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Minor details like, do we have a
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:26:07AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
The whole chain-of-trust is an interesting issue as the UEFI spec does
not require it at all, and some people on the UEFI committee have told
me that it is not
120615 Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:48:05AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
Does this affect those of us who build our own machines ?
Yes, it will be on your new motherboard in a matter of months.
I am going to build a new machine some time in the next 12 mth ,
but it looks as if all I
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 08:41:47PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
The whole chain-of-trust is an interesting issue as the UEFI spec does
not require it at all, and
61 matches
Mail list logo
