Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] new eselect module: compiler

On 10/08/16 06:08, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:52:29 +0100 > "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > >> On 10/08/16 01:39, Lei Zhang wrote: >>> 2016-08-09 13:58 GMT+08:00 Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org>: >>>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] new eselect module: compiler

On 10/08/16 01:39, Lei Zhang wrote: > 2016-08-09 13:58 GMT+08:00 Fabian Groffen : >> As a question to Lei, I'm wondering why you chose eselect compiler, and >> not gcc-config to manage the links. In a way, gcc-config is tailored >> towards gcc, but it does a lot of things also

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package up for grab

On 02/08/16 23:43, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 08/02/2016 04:15 PM, Amy Winston wrote: >> net-im/skype >> >> Anyone interested? >> >> > I feel like this is a trick question :P > +2 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenAFS on Gentoo Hardened

On 18/06/16 00:08, Deven Lahoti wrote: > I wrote a patch to make OpenAFS work with grsecurity kernels. I'm > working on getting it submitted upstream, but for now it would be nice > to have it in portage. > > http://web.mit.edu/deywos/www/openafs-grsec.patch > > deven At the risk of stating the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On 16/06/16 14:19, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >>> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It >>> would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already >>> RESOLVED, and it could be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. >> >> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. >> However, we use the two scarcely. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 16/06/16 13:04, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> Right now we have the following components: >> >> - Applications, >> - baselayout, >> - Core system, >> - Development, >> - Eclasses and Profiles, >> - Games, >> - GCC

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 15/06/16 07:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:15:03 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:12:40 +0200 >> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >> >>> Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 02:32:41 schrieb Peter Stuge: >>> I would personally be super

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 13/06/16 09:04, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 11/06/16 09:00, Michał Górny wrote: > > If you are not going to maintain your contribution, we can't > > guarantee it will be accepted. I'm certainly not interested in > > having to worry about 20 more maintainer-needed packages next month > >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 13/06/16 08:50, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > > I still think you're underestimating the need for centralization. > > What you call a "core/base" package is probably going to end up > > being anything listed in a dependency. That is a LOT of packages, > > actually - we're not just talking

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On 12/06/16 18:57, Mike Frysinger wrote: > please avoid html e-mails > -mike And PGP/MIME is your friend :] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

I'll see what I can do .. possibly not today .. Cheers, Michael. On 12/06/16 12:50, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > 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, >> >> Mic

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

Cheers Alon, Michael. On 12/06/16 12:43, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Hi, > I've revbumped this package. > Regards, > Alon > > On 6 June 2016 at 03:23, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: >> On 05/06/16 22:55, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> dev-util/

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 12/06/16 04:53, james wrote: > > So I read this bug, but it did not illuminate an active archive, but the > requests and subsequent problems encountered, or did i miss it? It > looks like the kinks are being worked out. PM having a ML is a great > idea. > > > Interesting. I found the ML @

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 10/06/16 17:16, james wrote: > > And this effort needs a documentation collection to support users, > post installation to their target (ideal stage-4?) collection of > packages; many of which they maintain themselves even if a strong-user > or dev > helps them assimilate those final packages.

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 10/06/16 08:33, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 09/06/16 12:28, Igor Savlook wrote: > > Ok how coordinate? Example: I install packageA in exherbo from > > repository1 and packageA denend on packageB on repository2. Now > > packageB removed from repository2 and exherbo crash on install > >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 10:58, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 09/06/16 11:55, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > According to Enigmail, it expired April 19th. > I suggest you refresh your keys. My signing subkey was signed April > 20th and expires in 2017. > Indeed, cache error, thanks. All square now. MJE

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 10:48, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 09/06/16 11:45, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > Btw, your key is showing up as expired, Alex. > It doesn't expire until next year. > > I'll blame it on Enigmail, but this is the information I'm seeing: "EXPIRED KEY Good si

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 10:37, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 08/06/16 16:39, Zac Medico wrote: > > The first obstacle that comes to my mind is how to discover the > > packages. There needs to be a central index of repositories which > > includes searchable metadata for all of the packages provided by > >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 00:08, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely > > superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where > > they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree > > would just focus on a high-quality

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 08/06/16 04:13, Matthew Marchese wrote: > On 06/07/2016 02:29 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> Its time to retire the project. Put out a last call for anyone to adopt >> it. If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive. >> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default DOCS for einstalldocs and HACKING file

On 07/06/16 23:50, NP-Hardass wrote: > From what I've seen, HACKING is a fairly common doc in FOSS projects. > It doesn't seem to have been included in the default DOCS for > einstalldocs in EAPI6. While going through the MATE packages, I noticed > that we have quite a few packages that include

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 07/06/16 16:37, Michał Górny wrote: > I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering > the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with > similar breakage were already removed. > In which case, we should get a notice out post-haste ... My concern

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote: > On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same >> effect? >> >> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so >> people can get the newest ebuilds. > > Perhaps a deprecation

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 07/06/16 10:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Its time to retire the project. Put out a last call for anyone to adopt > it. If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive. > Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so. > > +1 - This sounds like a fairly sensible

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

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? if not we'll > start a last rite process for it. > > [critical security bug filed against it] >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: dev-util/{...}

On 05/06/16 20:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:47:48PM +0200, Patrice Clement wrote: >> dev-util/cdecl >> dev-util/dwarves >> dev-util/intel2gas >> dev-util/lsuio >> dev-util/mock >> dev-util/par >> dev-util/tinlink >> dev-util/usb-robot > I've used the above subset of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Repo mirror & CI project news: 'stable' gentoo branch, new repo stats, faster CI

On 05/06/16 18:09, rindeal wrote: > On 5 June 2016 at 18:53, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: >> On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote: >>> On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 21:17, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > We've still got 5.x stable, but that's because there's a security bug > for PHP every 20 days and it takes 30 days to stabilize an ebuild. > > Here's a status report: > > * We've got the "eselect php..." stuff sorted out already so you can >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 20:59, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 06/04/2016 03:50 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> What's the migration path/timeline look like .. I'da thought it would be >> months/years to move everything that's centred on php5 up to php7 if >> that's the way things are going.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 20:45, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > would a REQUIRED_USE in newer versions make sense to force the new use > flag for people upgrading as a deprecation period? > What's the migration path/timeline look like .. I'da thought it would be months/years to move everything that's centred on

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 20:39, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 06/04/2016 03:30 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> The existing use description might be considered slightly confusing, >> potentially .. >> > I changed them to, > > Enable webp support for GD in php-5.x > Enable webp

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 18:14, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 06/04/2016 12:29 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: >> dev-lang/php:vpx - Enable webp suppoprt for GD >> >> ?!?!?!?! Is that a typo? >> > Half and half. The "suppoprt" is obviously a typo, but unfortunately, > PHP uses a bundled copy of GD, so that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 03/06/16 21:13, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Walter, > > I think you're missing where the devs want to take this and what USE > is all about. It's about *features*, not about dependencies. > > USE="gtk" is a dependency. > USE="gui" is a feature. > You only need enable a specific graphics lib flag

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation

On 27/05/16 16:40, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 05:21:06PM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Despite it being 2016 and gtk2 pretty much dead, buried and forgotten >> upstream, many applications still support only gtk2, have subtle issues >> with their gtk3 port, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] please remove me off your mailing list

On 23/05/16 22:37, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 24 May 2016 at 09:22, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> give a man a fish and he has food for a day, teach a man to fish and he >> has food for a lifetime > > But if you feed a man while you teach him, he's better equipped to learn. :p >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for enhancement to PMS/EAPI7+

On 18/05/16 07:43, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2016 04:07:07 +0100 > "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > >> I've just been party to a discussion over in the Proxy Maintainers >> channel .. and the subject of correct ways to install docum

[gentoo-dev] Proposal for enhancement to PMS/EAPI7+

I've just been party to a discussion over in the Proxy Maintainers channel .. and the subject of correct ways to install documentation popped up. It seems to me rather quirky, that there is no middle ground in (for example) EAPI6 to have the default documentation installed per

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

On 18/05/16 01:44, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 18 May 2016 at 12:35, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: >> Yes, whilst that's a special case, it would be desirable to collaborate >> with another maintainer/team/project to devise a test schedule that was >> independe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

On 18/05/16 01:14, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 18 May 2016 at 04:05, Sébastien Fabbro wrote: >> Basically CI for ebuilds: it could be implemented as a script living >> in the package directory, something like a .travis.yml in the GitHub >> repositories or may be an EAPI change.

Re: [gentoo-dev] NEW: split portage/repoman releases now in the tree

On 16/05/16 02:39, Brian Dolbec wrote: > portage-2.3.0_rc1 and repoman-2.3.0_rc1 are now in the tree. w00t :D > portage-2.3.0_rc1 is essentially the portage 2.2.28 release with only a > few small patches applied. It mostly just installs less code, namely > the repoman code. > > So, now servers

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

On 15/05/16 23:55, Duncan wrote: > Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:04:57 -0700 as excerpted: > >> If the dev in question hasn't done that before, then it's entirely >> possible they *thought* they tested, or tested it *before* making some >> other edit and absent-mindedly committed.

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

On 15/05/16 02:04, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 12:48:12 AM JST Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 >>> >>> Aaron Bauman wrote: Please enlighten me as to what

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

On 15/05/16 01:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >> Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong language of >> "seriously" or definitively stating that the individual did not perform the >> necessary QA actions before

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

On 14/05/16 18:52, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:07 PM, landis blackwell > wrote: >> No fun allowed >> > Are you saying that you don't want people to have fun developing > Gentoo? Or are you trying to say that it is impossible to have fun > developing

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

On 14/05/16 18:06, Rich Freeman wrote: > > While this is certainly sensible, the irony here is that this whole > discussion was started by somebody making a sarcastic remark when > simply pointing out a mistake would have been just as functional. > > Nobody thinks it is ok to commit broken code.

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

On 14/05/16 17:53, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Gordon Pettey schrieb: > >> So, it's perfectly okay to make direct commits of obviously broken >> code that >> has no chance of working, because community something mumble... > > You may have missed some sarcasm in the post which you replied

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

On 14/05/16 12:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2016 11:55:42 +0200 >> Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016, 10:52:09 schrieb Ian Delaney: >>> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or reading diffs before committing? >>> Do you

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-writing/variables: better describe ROOT

On 10/05/16 16:08, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/08/2016 01:42 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> The current description of ROOT makes no sense and just confuses people. >> The new description is paraphrased from PMS. > The current version is bad, but the PMS version isn't great either. > > We really

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

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] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

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] On banning merge commits

On 08/05/16 12:13, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2016, 07:09:31 schrieb Michał Górny: >>> What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be >>> worded in a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is >>> avoided and we all are on the same page on this

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

On 07/05/16 16:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've been pushing out systemd stage3s for amd64 and x86 and putting them > under our official releases at [1] and [2]. I think all the bugs are > out and those stages are pretty tight. The next step is for me to > advertise them at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:53, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users > that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken. > To quote an old proverb .. "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" .. if you wish me to explain, I'll do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: > To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD > people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core > 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad. > > > Y'all have too much free time ... ;) > I'm inclined

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:17, Duncan wrote: > Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > >> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, >> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: >> >> What problem is being solved here? > For one

Re: [gentoo-dev] New gen-b0rk repository specifically for Q/A tools testing

On 02/05/16 00:53, Brian Dolbec wrote: > In order to further improve the chances of Q/A tools catching > errors. I have created a new repo (overlay) which will contain minimal > test case ebuilds. The idea is to have test case ebuilds to run > repoman code against. The outcome of these runs

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

On 20/04/16 19:17, Mike Frysinger wrote: > agreed ... we have kernel_Winnt & elibc_Winnt already. i think > those represent a mingw environment (vs a cygwin env). Surely 'winnt' is a somewhat out-of-date and potentially confusing flag? Can't we migrate to a win32 and win64 as pertaining to

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

On 18/04/16 16:47, Michał Górny wrote: > This is invalid. Replacing invalid package names with other invalid > names is no fix. It is ugly Gentoo-style hackery which proves that > developers prefer trying randomly changing something until QA check > doesn't trigger over reading the documentation.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 82 bugs

On 13/04/16 07:49, Austin English wrote: > On 04/11/2016 04:00 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: > > Our bug queue has 82 bugs! > > If you have some spare time, please help > > assign/sort a few bugs. > > > To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 > > Thanks! > I got it down to 6. Enjoy. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New eclass: mate

On 11/04/16 06:09, NP-Hardass wrote: > Greetings all, > > As all potential new eclasses are supposed to be discussed here, I > thought I'd file a message and see if anyone had anything to > contribute on the matter. > > I'm in the midst of a major version bump for the entirety of the MATE >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 04:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > 1. As you point out, its not a package. That means it works > differently than everything else, and it can't be used as a > dependency/etc. > 2. Genkernel's initramfs isn't all that great. Don't get me wrong - > it was very good back when it was new.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 04:08, Rich Freeman wrote: > I think the bigger issue with the kernel is the huge configuration > space it has. Chromium may have a ton of USE flags compared to most > packages, but those pale in comparison to the kernel. Obviously it > would not make sense to try to create a USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 03:06, Rich Freeman wrote: > > By that argument, when you run emerge chromium shouldn't it just dump > the chromium sources in /usr/src, so that you can build and install > your own chromium? > > The whole point of a source-based package manager is that it actually > BUILDs the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 02:14, Rich Freeman wrote: > Part of me also wonders if Gentoo would be better off having emerge > gentoo-sources actually BUILD the kernel and initramfs and not just > dump a bunch of sources on the disk. Most distros consider an > initramfs a no-brainer because it just ships already

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 00:53, William Hubbs wrote: > > The original discussion was about the usr merge [1], which is taking the > binary parts of / and putting them in /usr, then inserting symlinks in / > to preserve backward compatibility. Yes, I'm pointing to a document on > fdo, but the systemd guys have

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 23:50, Philip Webb wrote: > 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >>> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : >>> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. >>> I do use recent

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 20:53, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : >> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. >> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > > The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the > Linux kernel. > > A linux system could consist of nothing but a kernel with > init=/usr/local/bin/hello-world. > > Most traditional linux distros are going to run policykit though.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: >> I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its >> predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system? >> > The only

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 15:20, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:06AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> 3) I still believe there is merit in distinguishing between binaries >> that can/should be run as root, and those that can/should not. Those >> that run as root 100% of

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 03:36, Damien Levac wrote: > Anybody who have this kind of misconception about 'usr merge' should > read this: > > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ > > Signed, > > a user who got scared by this thread and documented myself before > freaking out

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 07/04/16 17:36, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:22:16 PM CEST, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Again, I don't see this as a reason not to make it optional, but I >> suspect that we will find bugs here from time to time which users who >> run with the split /usr will have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: upgrading to Plasma 5

On 07/04/16 01:45, Jonathan Callen wrote: > On 04/06/2016 07:46 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > > In the event you're not explicitly using a desktop or KDE desktop > > profile, can you provide a summary of the changes that should be > > made manually when switching the the kde

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 06/04/16 17:06, Richard Yao wrote: > > That does not address the problems of supporting this configuration in a > rolling release. > > Formats in /etc can fall out of sync with software in /usr. If boot > options change, the stuff in /etc/init.d is not updated. If you add > software, the update

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share presently, with some bodgery-workarounds I did pre the udev notification about initramfs's which I have never got around to implementing (although I'm

[gentoo-dev] GPG key

For those having a minor panic, I've just imported my home email GPG key to my work PC .. so that's the reason I've sent out an erroneous email. Rest assured the key is -right- and thanks to K_F I have two properly functional Thunderbird/Enigmail installs working with kwalletcli from pinkbyte's

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: upgrading to Plasma 5

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 03/04/16 18:34, Michael Palimaka wrote: > Hi, > > KDE team intends to stabilise Plasma 5 shortly, so please review the > accompanying news items. > > Regards, > > Michael > > Title: KDE Plasma 5 Upgrade > Author: Michael Palimaka

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] general-concepts/herds-and-projects: update per GLEP 67 #572144 #549490

On 04/04/16 05:57, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 04/04/2016 12:34 AM, Göktürk Yüksek wrote: >> +sufficient for adding or removing a developer. Note that >> different +projects have different requirements and procedures for >> recruiting +developers, which may require prior arrangements to be >> made

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grab

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 16/03/16 19:48, Christian Ruppert wrote: > app-forensics/lynis > dev-libs/log4cplus > dev-vcs/colorsvn > dev-vcs/git-deploy > dev-vcs/topgit > sci-electronics/fritzing > sys-auth/libnss-cache > media-video/nvidia-settings > > Feel free. If you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 25/02/16 08:59, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 25 February 2016 at 21:02, Consus wrote: >> Well, we do have one >> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/dev-lang/perl >> >> I bet folks want to check out what's new in their local copy of >> Portage tree. > > > With a

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

On 17/02/16 13:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: >>> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of >>> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. >> He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd >>

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

On 15/02/16 05:28, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate >> 'udev' > > i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened. i > don't think it changes my point. -mike

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

On 15/02/16 02:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 14:32, Kent Fredric wrote: >> and has no support of per-category files (that I know of). > # /etc/portage/package.use/dev-qt > dev-qt/* qt3support > > ^ Legal, works > > Portage does, auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of working with a package.use folder not file ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 14:46, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 03:43, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: >> auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of >> working with a package.use folder not file ... > > auto-unmask consistently adds items t

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 12:55, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you >>> wouldn't disable it either.

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

On 09/02/16 23:38, Alex McWhirter wrote: > On 02/09/2016 05:39 PM, Duncan wrote: >> I'd agree, except that the way we're running udev is strongly discouraged >> and generally not supported by upstream, with a statement that it /will/ >> break in the future, it's simply a matter of time. >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 82 bugs

On 06/02/16 22:00, Alex Alexander wrote: > Our bug queue has 82 bugs! > > If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. > > To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 > > Thanks! > Only 82? that's not, like, 4k ... :) http://tinyurl.com/maintainer-wanted .

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages Up For Grabs

On 24/01/16 10:39, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: > Alex Brandt writes: >> * app-backup/rdiff-backup > Wasn't it meant for removal? > > -- Amadeusz Żołnowski Looks fine on p.g.o stable too. Upstream site is present.

<    1   2   3