[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Dropping stable USE flags for 4.14

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 03:14:45PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:58:28PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: > > > > - Unbootable system with CONFIG_MCORE2 [6] This turns out to be a gentoo-specific bug, not much upstream can do about a broken compiler that some pro

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Dropping stable USE flags for 4.14

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:58:28PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: > Hello, > > We have recently started the stabilization of gentoo-sources-4.14.8. > > Very soon we received reports regarding broken e1000e driver [1] and moved > to gentoo-sources-4.14.8-r1. > > Since then we keep receiving new

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:08:13PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Forgive me, but I don't see why people have so much trouble with > copyright wrt Gentoo. I've simply assumed anything I wrote for Gentoo > would be attributed to me via git log information and/or metadata.xml > and should I leave

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the > >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, > > So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard > napisał(a): > >On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> This is from the last policy draft: > >> https://dev.gentoo.org/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > > > So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo, > > --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two. > > > > So I

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:44:43PM +0800, cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: > Don't be crazy - I know many developer groups which dislike merge > commits. That nonlinear work flow is just a mess long term. Really? What "mess" does it cause? Are things harder to bisect? Harder to determine what

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:15:55PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it. Developers who

Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi Markos, I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs

Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:27:18PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: Hi! El 29/03/14 05:13, Samuli Suominen escribió: I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my packages again unless they are broken. Udev is broken: * They have known off

Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team)

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:15:37PM +0700, C. Bergström wrote: At the end of the day we have one codebase which is engineered and another which has evolved. I'll take an evolved codebase over engineered anyday. You do realize that is exactly why Linux has succeeded, right? The kernel has

Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team)

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:42:00AM +0700, C. Bergström wrote: On 01/14/14 12:37 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:15:37PM +0700, C. Bergström wrote: At the end of the day we have one codebase which is engineered and another which has evolved. I'll take an evolved codebase over

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage QOS

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:10:18PM +0400, Igor wrote: Hello Chris, Friday, January 10, 2014, 1:08:39 AM, you wrote: Right here is the big problem: you're not looking at this from the perspective of the average Gentoo developer. We don't care about market share. We don't care whether

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:28:54PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:38:56 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: My sense is that Greg is using the term security bugs to refer to implementation errors that could be exploited to obtain unintended access to a system.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:32:45 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: I am not going

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:46:43PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:30:42 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: ... Just read the commits to find out what is resolved, ... ... Because it's extra work that is pointless. ... No classification is done

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:09AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: Greg KH wrote: See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Some kind of annotation with tags would make this kind of thing easy; I'm not saying it is your

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

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:40:00PM +0100, Mike Auty wrote: On 08/08/13 11:38, Samuli Suominen wrote: i'm not volunteering but I never really got why our GNOME maintainers insisted on staying with it instead of going with the distribution after it was clear logind is a dead end on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:09:11 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Please tell me exactly how you are going to evaluate which fixes I make are security fixes, and you know which to pick and choose from. Some kind

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: Greg KH wrote: See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway. I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always the one

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: Kernel Team vanilla-sources policy

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:53:35AM -0400, Mike Pagano wrote: All, Here is the vanilla-sources non stablizing policy news item. If all goes well, this will be committed to the tree on 08/07 UTC. Thanks for writing this all up, much appreciated. greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: Also, not all fixes are equal. The ones that are the biggest concern are security fixes. How do you _know_ which fixes are security fixes? If you tell me that the kernel has a new exploit 2x/week then I'll start to wonder when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

Almost all of this portion of the thread is off-topic for gentoo-dev, so I'll leave it alone, and will be more than willing to take it up somewhere else it is on-topic for, like linux-kernel, if you want to. But, there is one thing I do want to ask/comment on, as it is relevant to users of

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:41:49PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: This problem is not only visible for patches, but also in the config. Meet CONFIG_DEVTMPFS; forget to enable it, greet a failing boot. We're telling users to enable it in some places, in the handbook it's a single line you must

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in the upstream kernel tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Tom, you already know my opinion because we discussed it. I'm all for it. Just a reminder: there's always problems somewhere in the kernel which can be triggered by various options. The kernel is not one big take it or leave

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:25:42PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:09:57 -0500 Matthew Summers quantumsumm...@gentoo.org wrote: If the patchset patches the kernel's core, it doesn't matter what CONFIG_* option is set the core kernel code _has_now_been_changed_. This is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:36:21PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA

Re: [gentoo-dev] Temporary DevRel actions for CoC violations

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:35:49PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: For me, this problem is critical. Devrel is working on formalizing a new policy, and we will announce news on this soon. In the meantime, to prevent further escalations, I will use my lead powers to request immediate bans

Re: [gentoo-dev] evar_push/pop helpers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:46:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: here's v2 These changes look good to me, and quite useful, thanks for doing this work. greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote: On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote: [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the

[gentoo-dev] Re: Forming Gentoo Policy - Copyright Assignment and Attribution

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined, which includes a mandatory requirement to sign a contributor license agreement and an option to also sign an assignment-like document based on the FSFe FLA,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Forming Gentoo Policy - Copyright Assignment and Attribution

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:12:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: No change intended. This is what happens when you send a thirty second follow-up to a policy formed over two weeks, and then step away to eat... So,

Re: [gentoo-dev] maintainer-wanted: x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:44:33PM -0100, Carlos Silva wrote On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: I'm not a C programmer, let alone a developer, so this may be a stupid question, but here

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:51:15PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 20/02/2013 19:43, Greg KH wrote: Really? What firmware files are that way, I just did a quick scan through the upstream linux-firmware.git tree and didn't see anything that would prevent Gentoo from doing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:33:48PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Greg KH wrote: Ulrich Mueller (ulm) wrote this on the 16th: Look into the WHENCE file and be horrified. Taking just the first ten items (of a total 114): Unknown license (3 times

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:44:12PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Greg KH wrote: Has anyone asked the upstream linux-firmware developers about these files? I don't know. I haven't, for my part. But maybe we should first try to produce a more complete list, instead

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:03:47AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 20/02/2013 13:02, Rich Freeman wrote: I'm actually wondering if that makes sense with git when a specific commit is referenced, since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:25:14PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: Greg KH wrote: If there really are firmware blobs that are only available via git and which cannot be redistributed we might consider whether it makes sense to not support them entirely, or to force them to be masked. Did

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that /usr/lib64/efi or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:22PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: On 4.2.2013 23:34, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote: Hi I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:36:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Rich Freeman wrote: Not that anybody is taking requests, but it would be really handy if serial ports were deterministically labeled. Does /dev/serial/*

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 15/01/13 04:16 AM, Michael Weber wrote: Hi, This can have serious security implications [1] For whom? I think the idea there is that a user expects eth0 and eth1 to stay the same, writes iptables rules on a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Soliciting Feedback: Gentoo Copyright Assignments / Licensing

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 08:17:59PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: For further messages in this thread, please keep: Reply-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-...@lists.gentoo.org On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:08:45PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Soliciting Feedback: Gentoo Copyright Assignments / Licensing

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:01:00AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: 1. Are you party to any *copyright assignment* (eg FSF copyright assignment)? You need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Soliciting Feedback: Gentoo Copyright Assignments / Licensing

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:16:25PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: On a personal note, if any copyright assignment was in place, I would never have been able to become a Gentoo developer, and if it were to be put into place, I do

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: eudev project announcement

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: As I said

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Soliciting Feedback: Gentoo Copyright Assignments / Licensing

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:07:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: Announcing once to -dev-announce due to the general importance of this topic to the community, but ALL replies should go to -nfp, or to trustees@ if you must, or to /dev/null if you shouldn't. Before I start, yes, the trustees

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: eudev project announcement

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Summary Council meeting: Tuesday 11 December 2012

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: Handling separate /usr support == After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay of one month due to a new fork of udev was requested. We need an update on what's happened.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Summary Council meeting: Tuesday 11 December 2012

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: Handling separate /usr support == After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Summary Council meeting: Tuesday 11 December 2012

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:28:00PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Summary Council meeting: Tuesday 11 December 2012

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:00:56PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Greg, can you write back to this message with specific examples of what would need to be customized so that separate /usr would work right without an initramfs? I have tried to explain multiple times that this is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [e]udev , and please let's move this to a better location (was: Summary Council meeting: Tuesday 11 December 2012)

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:09:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 14/12/12 03:02 PM, Greg KH wrote: I'm guessing that the result of the council meeting meant that things are progressing, right? If so, in what way? Sounds like you should join us in #gentoo-udev to discuss, or join

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:31:25AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Greg KH wrote Not necessarily, as I'm finding out with real hardware. My only options on the box I have is to either zero out all keys, or specifically tell the BIOS what binary to run

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:13:38PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes likew...@weboperative.com wrote: I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from using grub on the livedvd. Well, if some perceived legal constraint is

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 07:46:59PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Fernando Reyes schrieb: That's what meant since we use isolinux on the release media and until syslinux-6 we are forced to use another bootloader and grub seems out of the questions because of licensing issues.

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:35:57PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side. There's a statement

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:24:53AM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote: The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode, sorry. You will have to disable it in order to boot a Gentoo image, which is fine, but there's no reason why

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 07:52:16PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote: The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode, sorry. You will have to disable

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 08:08:01PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 10/12/2012 01:52, Rich Freeman wrote: The shim might work, but I'd hardly call it secure boot if every motherboard manufacturer and OEM in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] borked release media

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:21:29AM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Greg KH schrieb: No, all we need is to enable EFI stub support in the kernel, and integrate the initramfs using CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE and place it in some location where UEFI looks for it (/efi/boot/bootx64.efi

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote: The key misunderstanding here seems to be that initiation of a Gentoo project means that the council explicitly supports it, because in most distributions there is no choice available to end users at this level of detail.

[gentoo-dev] Re: An apology for some of my earlier comments

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:58:21PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: Dear Greg, The eudev project has suffered a fair number of psychological attacks against project members. I know that you are a strong supporter of systemd. When you emailed gentoo-dev@, I assumed that you were trying to harm the

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this? See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgraderedirect=no Comments? As I don't know who

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite what you said a few emails

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law, and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the major change to add your

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand why you are thinking that udev has anything to do with this issue at all. Before version 181, udev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:23:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: No one has to fight at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good set of rules

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:06:17PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, sure, go ahead and remove my name from the copyright

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió: Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal under all countries

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:22:14AM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote: In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev? I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that. I recall this was discussed on the systemd mailing list when it happened, so you might want to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:54:38AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I foresee a new udev fork then. Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I created

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are. It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by you. I think I would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:19:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are. It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation copyright all over all of the files

[gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: COPYRIGHT I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing on any of the really contentious points here. I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the world that (emphasis mine):

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote Yes, I know all about the firmware issue with media drivers. It's now resolved and fixed, in two different ways (the kernel now loads firmware directly, and on older

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

on non-systemd setups. I, and a lot of other people, would like to use a sane standalone udev (from the Greg KH days) without systemd's dependancies/restrictions. That is the target market for a udev fork. Heh, you really don't want udev from back in the Greg KH days. Seriously, if you want

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: an on-topic discussion about copyright thread response from me snipped We develop open source software in public repositories. A developer decided it would be helpful to change the software

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:42:11PM -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 18/11/2012 19:38, Joshua Kinard wrote: Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc? Then kmod was changed to link against libs in /usr/lib,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:29:35PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of a file, although it is generally considered something that you really should not do

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:21:20PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/18/2012 11:22 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: an on-topic discussion about copyright thread response from me snipped We develop

[gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: Handling separate /usr support == WilliamH requested approval for two methods to support separate /usr systems[2]. The discussion is closely related to recent opinons on udev, such as e.g. [1],

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng, really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked udev all those years ago, maybe

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote: I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng, really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit more original in your naming please, good thing I

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote: Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal under all countries that follow the normal body

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote: I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng, really? What happens

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:28:00AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote: Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:26:41PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: Thanks for clarifying that. It will be fixed before it goes into HEAD. I recommend deleting the branch and starting over, having that commit floating around like that could cause trouble. thanks, greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote: Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal under all countries that follow the normal body

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without knowing such goals, there's no way that

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:13:37AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: We do not need to justify the need for our project before it is announced or even after it is announced. It is free to conflict with RedHat's systemd project. If we find next year that we can reconcile with Kay Sievers and Lennart

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be accomplished by: - getting patches

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why; but I think that is not as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things. Well, if you completely

  1   2   3   >