On 12/30/20 1:34 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 30. Dezember 2020, 19:53:25 EET schrieb Aisha Tammy:
>>
>> Yes, this sounds nice.
>> What about packages which rely on/give unicode support outside of this flag?
>> Like the global icu flag, which supposedly needs dev-libs/icu ?
>>
>
>
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:50 PM Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > I think the three main ways forward from here would be to either:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Keep LibreSSL for indefinite time (possibly masked)
> > > > 2. Eventually move LibreSSL to libressl overlay.
> > > > 3.
Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I think the three main ways forward from here would be to either:
> > >
> > > 1. Keep LibreSSL for indefinite time (possibly masked)
> > > 2. Eventually move LibreSSL to libressl overlay.
> > > 3. Eventually remove LibreSSL.
> >
> > 4. A libressl or libressl-libtls
there are not too many packages to look at:
:; git grep -P IUSE.+unicode.*\"|awk -F/ '{print $1 "/" $2}'|sort -u|wc -l
82
so it should ot take too uch effort.
and it definitely would be worth it!
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6
Hello, everyone.
I would like to issue one final reminder that Python 2.7 and 3.6
support in Gentoo is nearing its end. Per the timeline announced
earlier:
1. On 2021-01-01 the remaining blocker packages will be last rited,
with non-extensible 30 day removal time. This means specifically:
On 12/30/20 12:46 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> since utf8 encoding is everywhere by now, and since switching the useflag
> unicode off without taking precautions is a way to hose your installation, I
> would propose to medium-term get rid of this flag.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> 1)
Am Mittwoch, 30. Dezember 2020, 19:53:25 EET schrieb Aisha Tammy:
>
> Yes, this sounds nice.
> What about packages which rely on/give unicode support outside of this flag?
> Like the global icu flag, which supposedly needs dev-libs/icu ?
>
Hmmm... good point. I thought too simple.
1) We want
Hi all,
since utf8 encoding is everywhere by now, and since switching the useflag
unicode off without taking precautions is a way to hose your installation, I
would propose to medium-term get rid of this flag.
Suggestion:
1) use.force unicode now/soon in the default profiles
2) step by
On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 15:02 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > let's summarize what was said so far.
>
> Thanks for the good summary!
>
>
> > I think the three main ways forward from here would be to either:
> >
> > 1. Keep LibreSSL for indefinite time (possibly masked)
> > 2.
Michał Górny wrote:
> let's summarize what was said so far.
Thanks for the good summary!
> I think the three main ways forward from here would be to either:
>
> 1. Keep LibreSSL for indefinite time (possibly masked)
> 2. Eventually move LibreSSL to libressl overlay.
> 3. Eventually remove
On 12/29/20 6:06 PM, David Seifert wrote:
>
> If you want to provide an alternative, you have to subsume the API, not
> make it superficially compatible, only to find out that the you need to
> mask out a ton of stuff with macros.
Agreed. If libressl hadn't failed on this point, we would not
On 12/29/20 5:41 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> I would be happier if some other developers were able and willing to
>>> participate actively in the LibreSSL project.
>>
>> But why would they do that? What I'm really missing in all the replies
>> is a single reason why LibreSSL
> > a) The two cannot be installed concurrently. To fix that would require
> > even
> > more hacks.
>
> As we've discussed in another part of the thread, that's not really true.
> Both can for sure be installed, just not in the same place and/or
> with same names.
Exactly that is what would
On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 09:56 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> TL;DR: is there really a point in continuing the never-ending always-
> regressing struggle towards supporting LibreSSL in Gentoo?
Since the discussion has grown quite, let's summarize what was said so
far.
It seems that all respondents so
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 12:54:59 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> # Michał Górny (2020-12-30)
> # Unmaintained. Entirely replaced by media-libs/libjpeg-turbo,
> # to the point that reverse dependencies no longer build with
> # media-libs/jpeg. The two libraries are binary-incompatible,
> # and the
# Michał Górny (2020-12-30)
# Unmaintained. Entirely replaced by media-libs/libjpeg-turbo,
# to the point that reverse dependencies no longer build with
# media-libs/jpeg. The two libraries are binary-incompatible,
# and the current method of switching between them is incorrect.
# Removal in 30
On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 11:41 +0100, m1027 wrote:
> mgorny:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 16:12 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > > On 12/29/20 2:57 PM, m1027 wrote:
> > > > - removing libressl, installing openssl, maybe wget then, followed
> > > > by the rest?
> > > remove is sufficient b/c emerge
mgorny:
> On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 16:12 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > On 12/29/20 2:57 PM, m1027 wrote:
> > > - removing libressl, installing openssl, maybe wget then, followed
> > > by the rest?
> > remove is sufficient b/c emerge then immediately advices a
> > @preserved-rebuild - at least
On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 09:08 +0100, Marcel Schilling wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:31:32PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > What I'm really missing in all the replies is a single reason why
> > LibreSSL would be better for anyone. Not 'it's an alternative', not
> > 'I don't trust' but a real
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:31:32PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> What I'm really missing in all the replies is a single reason why
> LibreSSL would be better for anyone. Not 'it's an alternative', not
> 'I don't trust' but a real proper, verifiable argument 'LibreSSL is
> better in this regard'.
20 matches
Mail list logo
