Re: [gentoo-dev] REQUIRED_USE, global USE flags, user-friendliness...

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:11:43 +0100 Róbert Čerňanský wrote: > If I may add a user opinion. I agree with you but I would choose > different solution for user-friendliness. Instead of _adding_ > interactivity to PM I would _remove_ it. So if there would be > multiple

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Introducing stable profiles for arm64 (aarch64)

Hello, I am working towards having a clean deptree for arm64 and afterwards marking the non-hardened 5 arm64 profiles stable (or 4 - I don't see value in the developer profile without the desktop specific subprofiles, until there are mix-ins). This e-mail is meant to make sure there are no other

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:59:34 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 03/02/17 02:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 02/03/2017 10:30 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > >> ok you lost me. Could you provide an explicit example of what you > >> would want to see enabled in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 03/02/17 02:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 10:30 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> ok you lost me. Could you provide an explicit example of what you >> would want to see enabled in the profile (while everything else is >> disabled) that you don't get when USE="-*" is set? > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:01:54 -0600 Gordon Pettey wrote: > If you want to keep this kind of thing in the ebuilds, IUSE="+blah" doesn't > allow any granularity. Another variable USE_PROFILE should be added > analogue to DEPENDS: > IUSE="gnome-keyring gtk-theme kwallet

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Friday, February 3, 2017 2:53:59 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 01:33 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > We might as well go back to before IUSE defaults then. Part of the > > advantage of IUSE defaults is maintainers don't all have to fiddle with > > the profiles, everything can be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 01:33 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > We might as well go back to before IUSE defaults then. Part of the > advantage of IUSE defaults is maintainers don't all have to fiddle with > the profiles, everything can be self-contained in the ebuild. This > drastically complicates

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 10:30 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > ok you lost me. Could you provide an explicit example of what you > would want to see enabled in the profile (while everything else is > disabled) that you don't get when USE="-*" is set? USE="hardened pax_kernel ..." > > It's sounding more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Requirements for UID/GID management

On 02/03/2017 09:51 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> The fact that all permission and ownership information is shared is >> precisely the problem. When you change ownership of the hardlink (which >> you'll never know is a hardlink), you change ownership of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 12:39 PM, james wrote: So imagine flags are a giant 'sparse matrix' that I need to 'mollify' individually periodically, then run CI on that complete-set of packages, and then test against automated attack vectors. So, were we to want to 'enhance' flag representation from a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:43:50 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 08:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > >> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists > >> who don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in > >> pursuit of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 01:12 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:01:52PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote Is there a better way we can have our cake and eat it too? I'll admit that a huge package.use on the minimal profile isn't a whole lot better than a huge package.use on all the other

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

2017-02-03 10:52 GMT+01:00 Lars Wendler : > On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:32:30 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > >On 02/03/2017 10:10 AM, Benda Xu wrote: > >> William Hubbs writes: > >> > >>> I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 03/02/17 08:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 08:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> >>> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists who >>> don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in pursuit >>> of "minimalism" we just strive to make

[gentoo-dev] Re: Requirements for UID/GID management

Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > The fact that all permission and ownership information is shared is > precisely the problem. When you change ownership of the hardlink (which > you'll never know is a hardlink), you change ownership of /etc/shadow. Why should this be a problem except

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 08:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists who >> don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in pursuit >> of "minimalism" we just strive to make USE="-*" mostly usable, so the >> minimalists can get what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/17 10:14 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky >>> wrote: If (base == minimal), then

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/17 08:21 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 06:41 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. >> >> On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: >>> " >>> I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, >>>

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Dinner@FOSDEM 2017

Hi, Here are the practifcal informations for the Gentoo Dinner. Place: Chez Léon, rue des Bouchers 18, 1000 Brussels (near the Grand Place) [2] Date: Sat 4 Feb, 20:15 Menu: 30,60 EUR 28 places are ordered, based on the wiki page list [1]. See you tomorrow, Xavier. Le 2017-01-24 20:28,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:32:30 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >On 02/03/2017 10:10 AM, Benda Xu wrote: >> William Hubbs writes: >> >>> I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like >>> what I see. >>> >>> I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 02/03/2017 10:10 AM, Benda Xu wrote: > William Hubbs writes: > >> I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I >> see. >> >> I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the >> meson build system [3]. >> >> As I said on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

William Hubbs writes: > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I > see. > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > meson build system [3]. > > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja

[gentoo-dev] Re: Guidelines for IUSE defaults

Michael Orlitzky posted on Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:49:41 -0500 as excerpted: > On 02/02/2017 09:56 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Michael Orlitzky >>> wrote: >>> >>> IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: >>> >>> 1 To ensure that critical