Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread Nathan Zachary
On 09/05/16 19:12, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 10/05/16 00:08, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Anthony G. Basile >> wrote: >>> oh okay. sorry if i misunderstood. nonetheless, doesn't the fedora >>> installation cd double as a rescue cd? i think

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 10/05/16 00:08, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: >> oh okay. sorry if i misunderstood. nonetheless, doesn't the fedora >> installation cd double as a rescue cd? i think that uses systemd. >> > It might - no idea.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-09 Thread Doug Goldstein
On 5/7/16 4:25 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2016 21:19:31 + (UTC) > "Joerg Bornkessel" wrote: > >> commit: 66afcab271f65b97330e610040ad3acc1b812a03 >> Author: Joerg Bornkessel gentoo org> >> AuthorDate: Sat May 7 21:18:48 2016 + >> Commit:

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > oh okay. sorry if i misunderstood. nonetheless, doesn't the fedora > installation cd double as a rescue cd? i think that uses systemd. > It might - no idea. I'm not sure if it is as loaded with useful

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 5/9/16 4:20 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 09/05/16 21:08, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> >>> Is there actually a decent systemd-based rescue CD out there? >>> >> while i can see some merits to this, eg. running systemd-nspawn from a >> live cd, this is a lower priority. i don't have any desire to

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 09/05/16 21:08, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> Is there actually a decent systemd-based rescue CD out there? >> > while i can see some merits to this, eg. running systemd-nspawn from a > live cd, this is a lower priority. i don't have any desire to maintain > this. > I rather thought this

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 5/9/16 8:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Matthew Marchese > wrote: >> Looks good. Nice work, fellas. > > ++ > >> >> I'll do some testing of my own on those stage tarballs so that I can write >> some docs, unless you'd like to write them,

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is the procedure for requesting a new eselect module?

2016-05-09 Thread waltdnes
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:17:06PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote > > On Mon, 9 May 2016, waltdnes wrote: > > > I've cobbled together a bash script that resembles an eselect > > module, to list/set cpu speeds on my netbook and notebook. It may be > > useful to a lot of other people. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is the procedure for requesting a new eselect module?

2016-05-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 9 May 2016, waltdnes wrote: > I've cobbled together a bash script that resembles an eselect > module, to list/set cpu speeds on my netbook and notebook. It may be > useful to a lot of other people. The script is a bit ugly looking, > but it has done the job for me for several

[gentoo-dev] What is the procedure for requesting a new eselect module?

2016-05-09 Thread waltdnes
I've cobbled together a bash script that resembles an eselect module, to list/set cpu speeds on my netbook and notebook. It may be useful to a lot of other people. The script is a bit ugly looking, but it has done the job for me for several months. Some may prefer to treat it as "proof of

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > While you can in theory rebase merge commits with rebase --preserve, > my experience has shown me that its very difficult to get right, and > the presence of merge collisions in the "preserved" rebase risks > getting

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Kent Fredric
On 10 May 2016 at 00:23, Rich Freeman wrote: > which introduces some of the uncleanliness of non-rebased > merge commits. In general I'm a fan of rebasing merge commits. Non-rebased merge commits are worst when the merge involves a collision resolution. While you can in

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Matthew Marchese wrote: > Looks good. Nice work, fellas. ++ > > I'll do some testing of my own on those stage tarballs so that I can write > some docs, unless you'd like to write them, blueness. This should ease the > path on the systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 05/08/2016 07:07 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve >>> commit signatures when

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 05/08/2016 07:07 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve >> commit signatures when e.g. merging someone else's work. > > > Correct, but if the person applying the