Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 must die

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:07 AM Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Hi all, > > for the package maintainers among you, here's the list of remaining EAPI=2 > packages. Please help getting the number down to zero soon!!! > > Cheers, > Andreas > > media-fonts/culmus-0.120-r4 > > Done.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Best way to create a GLEP 63 compliant GPG key on Nitrocard?

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:19 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > Well, in that case recommendations for how to generate a key that > complies in software would be helpful. There used to be a wiki > article on it, but it is marked with various warnings saying it isn't > recommended to follow it, and has

[gentoo-dev] app-crypt/openssl-tpm-engine mask for removal in 30 days

Upstream is dead. Package does not support openssl-1.1, significant change to package. Removal in 30 days.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:33 AM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > Richard Yao schrieb: > > >> To make code behave differently it needs substantial amount of code > >> to provide you an example. You need to him O2<->O3 behaviour delta > >> after all. But I will try (for a different warning,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 1:14 AM Richard Yao wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > > On 15-09-2018 00:07:12 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >>> > >>> Perhaps, if one persists on going this route, only do this for platforms >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:29 AM Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 15-09-2018 00:07:12 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps, if one persists on going this route, only do this for platforms > > > that upstream supports, such that arches which will suffer from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:02 AM Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 14-09-2018 16:29:43 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:20 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > > > > On 09/14/2018 03:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > > >> > > > >> No one has answered the question: what do you do when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:53 PM Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:40:13 +0300 > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > > No dependency of toolchain nor annotations. > > A strict policy of no warnings will require changes as dependencies > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 20:48 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > Let's do this the other way around and be react based on facts and not > > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > Let's do this the other way around and be react based on facts and not > > speculations. > > Let's change the policy for a year for selected packages as I > > outlined, monitor bugs and after a year see response times, affected > > users

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:16 PM Richard Yao wrote: > > On 09/14/2018 12:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:34 AM Sergei Trofimovich > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:44:38 +0300 > >> Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:34 AM Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:44:38 +0300 > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > I'm personally in favour of not allowing -Werror > to be in build system unconditionally. > > Maintainer is free to implement --enable-werror a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:20 PM Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > To illustrate harmless: > > > warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > > > The warning message already has it in it that it's just a pure guess. > > > > One that exposed a lot of unintentional fallthoughs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:51 PM Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 12-09-2018 17:46:03 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:11 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > > With new GCC comes new warnings, and harmless as the vast majority are > > they cause the build to break with Werror. > > To

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

Hi, I was the one that (re)trigger this discussion, I thank bircoph for opening this up. First, let me apologize that I did not test the capi USE for long time, as this option is not used for long time by users, I am also apologize of treating bug from anyone (may it be user, developer or even

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: sys-apps/fakechroot, sys-apps/fakeroot-ng

I can take them. On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:24 AM Jonas Stein wrote: > Dear all, > > The following packages are up for grabs: > > sys-apps/fakechroot > sys-apps/fakeroot-ng > > after retirement of the proxied maintainer. > It was defacto maintained by various gentoo devs. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v2)

On 26 January 2018 at 00:21, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:55:58PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> I did not looked into the detailed implementation, however, please >> make sure integrity check handles the same cases we have applied

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v2)

Hi, On 25 January 2018 at 14:35, Michał Górny wrote: > > Starting with sys-apps/portage-2.3.22, Portage enables cryptographic > verification of the Gentoo rsync repository distributed over rsync > by default. This aims to prevent malicious third parties from altering > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] profiles 17.0 hardened/no-multilib missing?

On 2 December 2017 at 23:08, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 22∶43 +0200, użytkownik Alon Bar-Lev > napisał: > > Hi, > > Any reason we do not publish hardened/no-multilib? > > I see we have[1] in place and is working

[gentoo-dev] profiles 17.0 hardened/no-multilib missing?

Hi, Any reason we do not publish hardened/no-multilib? I see we have[1] in place and is working if explicitly added. Thanks, Alon [1] profiles/features/hardened/amd64/no-multilib

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

On 8 September 2017 at 22:44, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream > > does not cooperate (Bug#630420). > > Remo

[gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream does not cooperate (Bug#630420). Removal in 30 days.

[gentoo-dev] sys-auth/pam_pkcs11 masked for removal in 30 days

Upstream no longer maintain (Bug#628908). Removal in 30 days.

[gentoo-dev] Call for help in testing - sparc + gnutls-3.5

Hello, I am looking for someone that is using gentoo on sparc and is willing to help out to resolve an issue[1] of gnutls-3.5 with sparc so that we can drop gnutls-3.3 from tree. I tried to create a bootable sparc qemu gentoo image and failed, so need someone with a live system. Regards, Alon

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/libressl: mingw-w64 build calls wine

On 18 May 2017 at 07:10, Marty Plummer <netz.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 06:53:48AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> On 18 May 2017 at 06:54, Marty Plummer <netz.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Greetings, >> > >> > As the subject st

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/libressl: mingw-w64 build calls wine

On 18 May 2017 at 06:54, Marty Plummer wrote: > Greetings, > > As the subject states, compiling dev-libs/libressl for x86_64-w64-mingw32 > target via crossdev ends up calling wine to run checks, which fails with > an access violation, and as such emerge cannot finish. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] mingw-w64 crossdev prefix?

On 18 May 2017 at 06:46, Matthias Maier wrote: > [2] I had to manually disable libsanitizer for gcc-6.3.0. Just set > EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-libsanitizer" via env/package.env for the > cross-x86_64-w64-mingw32/gcc package. Hi, You should use the USE flags and not apply

Re: [gentoo-dev] mingw-w64 crossdev prefix?

Hi, You can emerge crossdev and then run crossdev -t x86_64-w64-mingw32 or crossdev -t i686-w64-mingw32 Alon On 18 May 2017 at 01:25, Marty Plummer wrote: > > Greetings, > > So, I'm a relatively new gentoo user (as of 2016-12) coming from arch, > and one thing I've

[gentoo-dev] gnutls-3.5 last remaining issues - please assist

Hello, I would like to push gnutls-3.5 into stable per[1]. Below are known related issues we still have, please help to push these forward. If anyone wishes to help testing before we progress, please move to non-stable gnutls and report back any issue. Please also emerge using the following

[gentoo-dev] dev-libs/engine_pkcs11 masked for removal in 30 days

Replaced by dev-libs/libp11 unmaintained by upstream. Bug#609668. Removal in 30 days.

[gentoo-dev] net-misc/gnutls-3.4 stabilization

Hi, I would like to start stabilizing gnutls-3.4. If anyone is aware of an issue please speak up. Thanks! Alon

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Future EAPI version operator changes

On 6 November 2016 at 12:52, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > So, what are your comments? Hi, Just my 2 cents... I kinda love the prefix nature of the expressions which is consistent and easier to parse. Using infix only for versions and leaving all the rest prefix

[gentoo-dev] dev-python/pssi package masked for removal in 30 days

# Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> (05 Nov 2016) # Masked for removal in 30 days, bug#598982. # Upstream does not publish releases, no tags, last publish is on # google code, no dependencies. dev-python/pssi

[gentoo-dev] app-crypt/scl011-bin package masked for removal in 30 days

# No upstream, no maintainer (bug #592164) # Package will be removed from Gentoo in 30 days. app-crypt/scl011-bin

[gentoo-dev] app-crypt/bcrypt package masked for removal in 30 days

# Weak cryptography (bug #592114) # Package will be removed from Gentoo in 30 days. app-crypt/bcrypt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: kde-apps/ksnapshot

On 14 July 2016 at 23:15, Johannes Huber <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Am Donnerstag 14 Juli 2016, 21:47:10 schrieb Alon Bar-Lev: >> I have only three: Application, Global, Web >> Shouldn't it be integrated into Global? > > Maybe this helps: > https://bbs.archlinux.org/v

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: kde-apps/ksnapshot

I have only three: Application, Global, Web Shouldn't it be integrated into Global? On 14 July 2016 at 21:44, Johannes Huber <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Please check systemsettings -> shortcuts -> 4th tab. > > Greetings, > Johannes > > Am Donnerstag 14 Juli 2016,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: kde-apps/ksnapshot

Just tried to switch. Print-Screen shortcut is not working, any idea why? Saw some similar issues, but could not find out what is wrong as most of the fixes are embedded. Thanks! On 14 July 2016 at 20:33, Johannes Huber wrote: > > # Johannes Huber (14 Jul 2016)

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-util/nsis: Maintainer request

Can you please check it out? I had no time nor setup. On 12 June 2016 at 14:49, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > Cheers Alon, > > Michael. > On 12/06/16 12:43, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> Hi, >> I've revbumped this package. >> Regards, >> Alon &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-util/nsis: Maintainer request

Hi, I've revbumped this package. Regards, Alon On 6 June 2016 at 03:23, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 05/06/16 22:55, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> dev-util/nsis curretly has no maintainer. It has a [critical security >> bug filed against it]. Does anyone want to pick it up?

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

On 20 April 2016 at 18:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Hi everyone: > > After doing some experimentation with a mingw crossdev, I found that I > needed to do a lot of EXTRA_ECONF settings in combination with > USE="aqua" in order to get packages supporting a win32 API to be >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 February 2016 at 22:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and > develops against. > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. I honestly don't understand this argument that pops over and over. No

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 9 February 2016 at 13:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: > > On 2/8/16 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users? > > > > gentoo is very unpopular as a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] name of smartcard support USE flag

On 13 December 2015 at 18:20, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > I was trying to cleanup my local USE flag settings and stumbled on the > following three: smartcard, pcsc-lite and pkcs11. > > Knowing all 3 are related, I greped use.local.desc to see what each > meant for different

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] name of smartcard support USE flag

On 13 December 2015 at 19:28, Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Le dimanche 13 décembre 2015 à 18:25 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev a écrit : >> On 13 December 2015 at 18:20, Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > I was

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] name of smartcard support USE flag

On 13 December 2015 at 19:30, Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 13 December 2015 at 19:28, Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Le dimanche 13 décembre 2015 à 18:25 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev a écrit : >>> On 13 December 2015 at 18:20, Gilles D

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

On 2 December 2015 at 21:52, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:48:24 +0200 > Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 2 December 2015 at 21:45, Brian Evans <grkni...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > >> > -BEGIN PGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

On 2 December 2015 at 21:45, Brian Evans <grkni...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 12/1/2015 1:45 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain. > > This is still not working because some pa

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain. On 1 December 2015 at 08:44, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 06:16:40 + (UTC) > "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> commit: 1519f072b810c69428badbe5fc54960f1a2a12b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: openrc mount service prototype

On 30 July 2015 at 19:15, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/07/15 01:55 AM, Duncan wrote: Patrick McLean posted on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:35:02 -0700 as excerpted: On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:11:30 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev alo

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc mount service prototype

On 29 July 2015 at 23:20, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, so that there is a better idea out there of what I'm talking about, the OpenRC github repository now has a mount-service branch. Nice! But I still trying to figure out why do we need to keep fstab around. It is pure

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc mount service prototype

On 30 July 2015 at 01:33, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:22:54PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:11:30AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On 29 July 2015 at 23:20, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, so

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc mount service prototype

On 30 July 2015 at 01:22, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:11:30AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On 29 July 2015 at 23:20, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, so that there is a better idea out there of what I'm talking about, the OpenRC github

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: improve file system mounting and unmounting in OpenRC

On 28 July 2015 at 01:26, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: The proposal in [3], on the other hand, is to create a mount script that works like netifrc. It would mount a single file system, which would be determined by the link it was called from, much like how netifrc determines which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

On 17 July 2015 at 15:36, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, the strongly recommended commit signing will become MANDATORY. So, we are at 50 devs with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow

On 4 July 2015 at 23:28, Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 02:16 +0700, C Bergström wrote: 2) I don't understand your comment about signatures. Gpg commit signatures [1] which are a requirement for any gentoo git workflow. Rebasing breaks the author's

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: SquashDelta syncing support

On 15 May 2015 at 17:51, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Please note that the current syncing code does not verify the OpenPGP signature to confirm the authenticity of fetched snapshots and deltas. This feature will be added as soon as gentoo-keys support in Portage is available. These

[gentoo-dev] bugs.gentoo.org and dnssec

is 204.187.15.4 --- Maybe it is local issue of the dns I am using (I have no access to it), but maybe there is a issue at infra. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] bugs.gentoo.org and dnssec

On 21 April 2015 at 20:40, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: AB == Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org writes: AB When using bugs.gentoo.org with dnsmasq and dnssec enabled, I cannot AB access attachments. It works here using a local unbound. But dnsmasq had some growth pains when it added

[gentoo-dev] New sysfs based battery monitor widget for kde

Hi, I had some time to resolve the long outstanding issue I had with loosing upower to systemd. The only feature I personally had was the battery monitor stopped working, yes, I did not install pm-utils either... So after few times my battery went empty while I worked... decided that enough is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: git security (SHA-1)

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Michał Górny wrote: Do you really consider keeping a key open for machine signing somewhat secure? You mean, as compared to manifests (or commits) signed by 250 different developers' keys? Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Samuli Suominen wrote: If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files at all (in these cases). I think this is a sane default. Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox network-sandbox by default

Hi, I do not know if this came up... glibc must be bumped first[1]. Alon [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504032

Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS or not (WAS: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-03-11)

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:03 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:57:15PM +, David Leverton wrote: William Hubbs wrote: The reason the split happened is pretty straight forward, and every other justification for continuing it was come up with after

[gentoo-dev] Commit into profiles fails

Hi, Long time since I done this... maybe something had been changed. $ cvs commit -m thirdpartymirrors: fixup gnupg mirros, bug#494842, thanks to Ben Kohler cvs commit: cannot exec /var/cvsroot/CVSROOT/cvslogdate: Permission denied cvs commit: cannot exec /var/cvsroot/CVSROOT/checkgroup.pl:

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our

Re: [gentoo-dev] open season on other-dev's packages -- policy change?

in as a developer? Or something else? Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] open season on other-dev's packages -- policy change?

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Alon Bar-Lev wrote: It matters a whole lot if I have to wait for someone else to unblock me, in practice that completely demotivates me to contribute back, and I would simply work around the block. To clarify this point

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?

/gnome is managed :) Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org wrote: Le dimanche 11 août 2013 à 22:09 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev a écrit : On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration, well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing and sends

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

, and you hide your intention in the argument of supporting multiple layouts, please do not hide and state so clearly. But do not claim that Gentoo with different layout than baselayout is still formal Gentoo, and is supported by the Gentoo developers. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

of developer/herd they get different level of support. I don't care if systemd is worked on by people, however it must be clearly mark as unstable as long as there is no decision to switch. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: You just removed the upgrade path for users

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team will not support any other configuration

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote: Moreover, the lvm problem is caused by a very ancient and ill decision about doing what upstream tells you to avoid: have mdev in the initramfs and udev on the final pivot rooted system. This was just looking for troubles

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

solution for layout. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/08/13 20:57, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user experience in general. It is not a statement

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:57:15 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user experience in general

Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations? (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8)

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, 20:57:18 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote: If from now on, a bug with systemd of new version of a package blocks that package stabilization, it means that all developers must support systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/08/13 21:23, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/08/13 20:57, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman ri

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking? You and I have had

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRc-0.12 and gentoo-oldnet-0.1 keywording question

going to obsolete this huge work? If we don't I suggest to remove the 'old' implication, to something like openrc-gentoo-net. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi all, I'm splitting the thread because this is a separate subject. On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:59:56AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: I do understand why Roy refer this as oldnet... but why in Gentoo do we keep the term

[gentoo-dev] Goodbye

Hello, I guess I am tired of fighting with people here. I am too old for this crap. There are few brutal developers here that make Gentoo a terrible place to be. Well... I can handle few developers, but when devrel enters the picture with arguments such as volunteers can do crappy job as long as

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: qemu - add gcc-3.x dependency

On 5/5/08, Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Enrico, it is usually a good idea to search through the Bugzilla before asking for some feature, chances are that it has been already requested (in this case, you're looking for bug 190102). FYI, at least some of qemu's features were ported

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Markus Duft (mduft)

On 4/30/08, Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's my pleasure to introduce Markus Duft (mduft) as a new developer. He will go among us under the name of mduft, and will work in the Gentoo/Alt project porting Gentoo Prefix to Interix. Yes, people, that means Gentoo on Win32. Welcome!

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Markus Duft (mduft)

On 4/30/08, Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30-04-2008 19:51:42 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On 4/30/08, Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's my pleasure to introduce Markus Duft (mduft) as a new developer. He will go among us under the name of mduft, and will work

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Markus Duft (mduft)

On 4/30/08, Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think in that sense Cygwin is more Open Source, because how you get the primary shell/environment is available too. However, for me that doesn't matter, as the OS itself is inherently non-free in that sense, so that's what you have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: keyring

This may be confusing with Linux key store. I suggest gnome-something as it is gnome feature. Alon On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Peter Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless anyone has any objections, I'll magically turn 'keyring' into a global USE flag tomorrow evening: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: keyring

2008/4/20 Peter Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 18:32 +0300, Ali Polatel wrote: Alon Bar-Lev yazmış: I suggest gnome-something as it is gnome feature. How about gnome-keyring? :) Why? All the ebuilds currently using the 'keyring' use flag are using it for gnome

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: New global USE flag: keyring

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say we should convert it to a global use flag now with a good description and change it to gnome-keyring later in case we really have a package which needs 'keyring' for something else. If we know there may be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: keyring

On 4/20/08, Gilles Dartiguelongue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: for what it's worth, as a gnome dev I didn't see any convincing arguments as to why it should be renamed. Gnome makes things optional for other to reuse (like xfce) but afaik no other keyring like programs are optional deps of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [SECURITY] Minimizing the suid usage

On 3/24/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Diego and i were talking ... we're going to go with USE=filecaps because it's so new and doesnt require the libcap library in order to work at runtime. probably be worthwhile to put together a little eclass of functions to make people's

Re: [gentoo-dev] [SECURITY] Minimizing the suid usage

On 3/24/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how much do we want to help the user ? if they have USE=filecaps, then dont perform any checking ? we'll need a kernel with file capabilities turned on, otherwise the prog wont work unless it's setuid ... so do we perform checking and

[gentoo-dev] [SECURITY] Minimizing the suid usage

Hello All, linux-2.6.24 supports file based capabilities via: CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES This enables the use of filesystem attributes in order to store per executable capabilities list, more information at [1]. This enables improved security level for people who don't wish to move into

Re: [gentoo-dev] [SECURITY] Minimizing the suid usage

On 3/23/08, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:21:29 +0200 Alon Bar-Lev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: linux-2.6.24 supports file based capabilities via: CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES This will provide more secured installation for users with a little

Re: [gentoo-dev] [SECURITY] Minimizing the suid usage

On 3/23/08, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? A simple USE flag should be enough, if set use caps, if not use current. A user turns the use flag on, the ebuild creates files using caps rather than set*id, the package manager merges it by copying the file and the installed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming Infra maintenance/downtimes: anon{cvs,svn,git}, archives, bouncer, overlays

does not matter i think. The https solves man-in the middle for svn/git sync. There is an option for rsync people (not to use it): http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130039 Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming Infra maintenance/downtimes: anon{cvs,svn,git}, archives, bouncer, overlays

On 1/19/08, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I understand correctly, the performance of svn under apache is better than the svnserver The other way round. We are talking about read-only anonymous repository, right? But I will take your word for it :) Thanks!

  1   2   >