Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

On 11/04/2015 09:56 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:53:20 +0100 hasufell wrote: >>>> You shouldn't use rsync anymore, it is inherently insecure. The git >>>> tree is _properly_ gpg signed so you can verify it's correctness. >>>> >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

On 11/04/2015 05:33 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > hasufell schrieb: >> On 11/04/2015 09:56 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> No, it is not. The whole git tree is insecure and no better than >>> rsync or CVS in terms of data security because SHA1 is vulnera

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

On 11/04/2015 05:44 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > hasufell schrieb: > >> If you want to improve the situation, go talk to git upstream >> and send patches. > > Or do what Andrew suggested should happen. > > If you want to break the whole git workflow yes. Good suggestion.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

On 11/03/2015 04:04 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Matt Turner schrieb: >> The git transition had been 9 years in the making and has massively >> improved Gentoo development. Look at the graph of contributions per >> month: https://www.openhub.net/p/gentoo > > I'd like to point out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Depending on a range of slots

On 11/02/2015 09:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/02/2015 02:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:33:57 -0500 >> Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> Followup question, which of these is less dumb? >>> >>> Option 1: berkdb? ( >=sys-libs/db-4:* > >> This doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

On 11/02/2015 10:54 PM, Dale wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:00:18 -0600 >> Dale wrote: >>> Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Dale wrote: > Then perhaps all this should have been worked out BEFORE

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

On 11/01/2015 01:16 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ahoi, > > I'm getting mildly very irritated with the lack of easily accessible > ChangeLogs for our packages. > > Apparently updating them stopped some time in August, so now there are > some outdated ChangeLogs that don't really serve any purpose,

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

On 11/01/2015 02:47 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:33:07 +0100 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> git log -- app-misc/foo >>>> or >>>> git log -- eclass/autotools.eclass >>>> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull > requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator > instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work. > > Here's a few examples of how things

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

gt;> tree directly from git: >> https://github.com/hasufell/portage-gentoo-git-config >> >> At some point, rsync schould be deprecated completely. > > Nice try, but sometimes (say, in case of very unstable internet connection) > it is IMPOSSIBLE to properly sync git repo (

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

??? > You shouldn't use rsync anymore, it is inherently insecure. The git tree is _properly_ gpg signed so you can verify it's correctness. With the following portage configuration/hooks, any user can run the tree directly from git: https://github.com/hasufell/portage-gentoo-git-config At some point, rsync schould be deprecated completely.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

On 11/01/2015 08:50 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > On 01.11.2015 20:23, hasufell wrote: >> On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull >>> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabr

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

On 10/30/2015 10:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then >>> libressl, and never openssl'. >> I don't think this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

On 10/30/2015 11:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:40:28 +0100 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 10/30/2015 10:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>> On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote: >>>> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM,

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then > libressl, and never openssl'. I don't think this is something that can be reasonably supported and it sounds awfully automagic. And I don't see how this is possible right now, so I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

On 10/28/2015 12:23 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > A properly designed sub-USE flag would be useful here and clearly better > than our REQUIRED_USE. I think REQUIRED_USE is fine for heterogeneous > cases, but not when you have something like curl where you can either > turn ssl on or off. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

On 10/28/2015 09:36 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 03:06:59 +0100 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> A is not that difficult. Most uses of 'openssl' can just be replaced >> with 'ssl', others probably with '!gnutls?' even. A few exotic ones >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

On 10/28/2015 07:23 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > > Agreed. If there's one choice then "ssl" should be used. > openssl/libressl/etc > should really be considered sub-flags of ssl. > > I really wish we had some way of specifying this to make things clearer to the > user, so they could see exactly how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

On 10/28/2015 12:20 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/28/2015 07:23 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > > >> Agreed. If there's one choice then "ssl" should be used. >> openssl/libressl/etc should really be considered sub-flags of ssl. > > > If we are introducing a new and proper way to define this

[gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

I've seen a lot of ebuilds lately that use 'openssl' USE flag for the purpose of enabling ssl features. I think this should be discouraged since it introduces inconsistency and is especially confusing for packages like media-video/ffmpeg, where'd you expect to get ssl support by having the global

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-fast-forward push to gentoo repository

On 10/23/2015 09:59 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Wednesday, someone seems to have done a --force'd push to the gentoo > repository. The commits > * 5e04009 sci-mathematics/minisat: rev-bump and build fixes for latest, > QA cleanup > * 9c9fce9 media-libs/urt: build fixes, QA cleanups, new shared

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] data/gentoo-news:master commit in: 2015-10-21-future-support-of-hardened-sources-kernel/

On 10/21/2015 03:34 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > commit: 1ff602d951b09029917bcc5bf391cbe390772a7b > Author: Anthony G. Basile gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Wed Oct 21 01:31:55 2015 + > Commit: Anthony G. Basile gentoo org> > CommitDate: Wed Oct 21 01:40:43 2015 + > URL:

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

On 10/21/2015 07:21 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:25:53 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Also, my package manager chokes on it. Repoman not, so that looks >> like a bug. > > s/Repoman/Portage/ > > Portage will qu

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

On 10/20/2015 04:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > commit: a68f2479fba9422913cb760166316bf489d72ca8 > Author: Vincent Palatin chromium org> > AuthorDate: Tue Oct 20 14:01:34 2015 + > Commit: Mike Frysinger gentoo org> > CommitDate: Tue Oct 20 14:01:50 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

I'd like to discuss whether we should allow/encourage stabilization commits to be less atomic. They often bloat the history, make it hard to skim through the summaries list and people who are looking for stabilization probably do 'git log -- ' anyway, no? In addition, I'm not sure the bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > > It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and > hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits less > atomic" conversely. > > Just so i make sure i'm understanding t

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. > The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really > diminish the impact of each one. Any of them could break a system or > need to be reverted. > Since when do

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. >>> The fact

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple >> unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so >> comfortable with that idea.. > > Nor

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow SLOT documentation in metadata.xml

On 10/18/2015 08:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > btw, once this is committed, please consider adding or asking for a > repoman warning when subslot is defined but metadata.xml is not filled > Almost forgot: it has been committed yesterday:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/18/2015 01:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:37 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 10/17/2015 08:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 >>> hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 08:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. >> What's the problem? > > Running autorecrap. > You

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > 2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by > default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to > implement patch applying function anyway, we may as well make it public > to avoid unnecessary duplication. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and > eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? > IOW, it'd be nice if every package was, by default, patchable by the user. > IMO, eapply_user should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >>> >>> The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and >>&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:52 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: > >>> 2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by >>> default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to >>> implemen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 02:56 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:49 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> The other feature that is supposed to be in EAPI6 (I didn't read the >>> draft yet) is that the PM should refuse to install the package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 03:47 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > [...] >> You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. >> What's the problem? > > autoreconf > Can you elaborate why this would be a problem?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

On 10/17/2015 03:07 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: > >> And still doesn't give sufficient control to the user. Documenting >> proper hooks is more useful. > > Nothing prevents the PM from implementi

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On 10/15/2015 03:26 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 10/14/2015 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only >> installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require >> all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

On 10/13/2015 09:51 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > that would work too, but dtd provides standardization, and avoids > duplicating package-wide information (meaning of slot/subslot) in every > single ebuild. > Yeah, the only thing that I wasn't sure about is the subslots part. With the proposed

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 06:44 AM, wraeth wrote: > > I am aware of this and that it has been the way for quite > some time. However, while it may be the norm in the wider FOSS > community, it has not been the norm on the gentoo-dev list - certainly > people will post things specifically for review, or may

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 06:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > > So work with the reviewers to ensure the communication is tactful and > graceful. > That would be appreciated. So far, we mostly got people complaining (and some setting up sieve filters to throw all our mails to trash), but not people offering

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 04:12 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:47:19 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: >>> >>> Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > That's why I > suggested a top-5 list or something like that, which would have weeded > out false positives and focus more on resolutions and trends than > individual incidents. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Reviewers/Common_issues

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:58 PM, wraeth wrote: > I don't expect everything to have been within the N^th degree of > perfection from day one; and I honestly hope the Reviewers project > finds its feet and benefits the community; I just believe that it's > first day could have been handled better. > We've

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:41 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > They might have failed to notify it, I did that 2 hours ago already on this thread. What does that tell us ;) but I think they've taken into > account most, if not all, of the problems that had been pointed out: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: > > Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client to > communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this reads > as the user needs to adapt to the service that the client is offering > and appease the provider. What's

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata: add slots element

On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 > Julian Ospald wrote: > >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs >> and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied >> and documentation

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/11/2015 09:52 AM, Ian Delaney wrote: > > To my observation the reaction to this has been between displeasure and > dismay. Yesterday the dev-ML was flooded with the first day's > publication of the members' reviews. Firstly the gentoo-commits ML to my > understanding is intended to be used

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/11/2015 09:19 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > This is good news. There are quite a few developers that manage a small > subset of packages while doing tremendous work for Gentoo within that > community. For instance, they focus on particular deliverables in > repositories which eventually get

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/10/2015 05:34 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > It is no secret that I don't care about "hats" :) > If someone is right, he's right, a QA hat doesn't make something wrong > magically right. Also, if you'd ask me, QA should be more about Quality > Assurance, meaning training people, writing

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

On 10/10/2015 04:27 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> The side goal is to review current Gentoo commits for major QA >> violations and other issues, aiming at improving the quality of >> ebuilds in Gentoo and helping other developers using bash, ebuilds >> and git effectively. > > This is completely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

On 10/10/2015 03:54 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > > Dear Julian, > > avoiding this mailing list for further reviews is great news. > Still, I'd like to opt-out from receiving any mails arising from project > "Reviewers". > If there are QA-related issues with packages, I maintain, please file a > bug

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

On 10/10/2015 11:29 AM, Andreas Hüttel wrote: > commit: a33ebdd225fcf82f3e81a81f676de007bdecd670 > Author: Andreas K. Huettel (dilfridge) gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sat Oct 10 09:30:20 2015 + > Commit: Andreas Hüttel gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sat Oct 10 09:30:20 2015 + >

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

On 10/10/2015 01:33 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >> You should (almost) never commit reverse-merges of git.gentoo.org >> master[0]. > >> Instead, you have to use >> git pull --rebase=preserve origin master > >> in case you get "push conflicts" [1] > > > Which I tried several times, but

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

On 10/10/2015 06:56 AM, Andrey Grozin wrote: > commit: 286567c6d64830eb810dee92bad0038b4b91f50d > Author: Andrey Grozin gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sat Oct 10 04:50:18 2015 + > Commit: Andrey Grozin gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sat Oct 10 04:50:18 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-sound/qmmp/

On 10/10/2015 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > commit: 7afe3acf2ff141d2940f2e02b6e232331d93f68e > Author: Markos Chandras gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sat Oct 10 10:51:13 2015 + > Commit: Markos Chandras gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sat Oct 10 10:51:37 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

On 10/10/2015 01:31 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > commit: 9d15a1c12b3c4f98445a45c051733eb2a67fdb28 > Author: Manuel Rüger gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sat Oct 10 11:30:54 2015 + > Commit: Manuel Rüger gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sat Oct 10 11:30:54 2015 + > URL:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

On 10/10/2015 02:24 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 10-10-2015 14:19:44 +0200, hasufell wrote: >>> +RDEPEND=" >>> + !libressl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0 ) >>> + libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl ) >>> + sys-libs/zlib >>> + net-libs/http-parser &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

On 10/10/2015 02:37 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:25:28 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 10/10/2015 02:24 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >>> On 10-10-2015 14:19:44 +0200, hasufell wrote: >>>>> +RDEP

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

On 10/10/2015 03:14 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > > Dear Michał, > > first of all, please stick to the truth. > > In #gentoo-dev: > mrueg: as i pointed out, it was because i see it in pull > requests and gentoo developers are teaching bad practices to new recruits > mgorny: please don't CC me in

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-sound/karlyriceditor/files/, media-sound/karlyriceditor/

On 10/09/2015 08:52 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > commit: 8db5c61ec2b1d9d5b37f1b14434f32342b4f0803 > Author: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 9 18:50:13 2015 + > Commit: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 9 18:51:51 2015 + > URL:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: net-analyzer/metasploit/

On 10/09/2015 05:42 PM, hasufell wrote: >> + >> +QA_PREBUILT=" >> +usr/$(get_libdir)/${PN}${SLOT}/data/templates/template_x86_linux.bin >> +usr/$(get_libdir)/${PN}${SLOT}/data/templates/template_armle_linux.bin >> +usr/$(get_libdir)/${PN}${SLOT}/data

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: x11-wm/jwm/

On 10/09/2015 04:45 PM, Ian Delaney wrote: > commit: 9a94bb3a771b84ec44d2359aa9af6e2fe9e9433d > Author: Ian Delaney gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 9 14:43:33 2015 + > Commit: Ian Delaney gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 9 14:44:52 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: net-analyzer/metasploit/

On 10/08/2015 11:04 PM, Richard Farina wrote: > commit: 408bb337f1207a7c844d99b70a0f5a164f0b990d > Author: Zero_Chaos gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Thu Oct 8 21:04:12 2015 + > Commit: Richard Farina gentoo org> > CommitDate: Thu Oct 8 21:04:48 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: net-im/dianara/

On 10/09/2015 03:26 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > commit: 40ef80d0fd08b05a21ca217310859f6d30b60ac2 > Author: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 9 13:25:45 2015 + > Commit: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 9 13:26:07 2015 + > URL:

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

On 10/09/2015 06:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> Ofc, I will expect people to jump in and say "the council hasn't >> decided on that yet", but well... it mostly works fine and is not >> really controversial. > > not sure if council approval is needed; uniformity and consistency is > way more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-ruby/metasploit-payloads/

On 10/09/2015 06:23 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> +# Copyright 1999-2015 Gentoo Foundation >>> +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 >>> +# >>> $Header: >>> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/dev-ruby/meterpreter_bins/meterpreter_bins-0.0.10.ebuild,v >>> 1.1 2014/10/19 23:24:24

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: media-sound/musique/files/, media-sound/musique/

On 10/09/2015 04:42 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > commit: 2f9b36011ada0104883275fad335084922f5c9c6 > Author: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 9 14:40:56 2015 + > Commit: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 9 14:42:22 2015 + > URL:

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

On 10/09/2015 06:37 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > commit: 4440cc9d950795eaae8f8b049bbf37c073ef5ea0 > Author: Alexis Ballier gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 9 16:37:18 2015 + > Commit: Alexis Ballier gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 9 16:37:18 2015 + > URL:

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

On 10/09/2015 07:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Doesn't python-r1 add this ? It seems not... > It should be added to ros-catkin.eclass when PYTHON_COMPAT is set. Any > hint on how to proceed ? > distutils-r1 adds it, python-r1 is a "low-level" eclass and not supposed to do a lot of magic.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: x11-misc/screengrab/

On 10/09/2015 07:17 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > commit: b55a3b89d938b403255a86329f364b8e4a5b5d72 > Author: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 9 17:16:25 2015 + > Commit: Michael Palimaka gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 9 17:17:29 2015 + > URL:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-fs/zfs-kmod/

On 10/09/2015 07:48 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jason Zaman wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:20:58PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Dnia 2015-10-09, o godz. 15:40:32 >>> "Richard Yao" napisał(a): >>> commit:

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

On 10/09/2015 01:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > commit: 5220bb29741e1685b42a6312c0b7bf2821672040 > Author: Alexis Ballier gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 9 11:16:38 2015 + > Commit: Alexis Ballier gentoo org> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 9 11:16:52 2015 + > URL:

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

On 10/08/2015 11:04 PM, Richard Farina wrote: > commit: f05eda22c275381c669e6f2a88dabd1356a3541f > Author: Zero_Chaos gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Thu Oct 8 20:45:33 2015 + > Commit: Richard Farina gentoo org> > CommitDate: Thu Oct 8 21:04:37 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-ruby/metasploit-payloads/

On 10/08/2015 11:04 PM, Richard Farina wrote: > commit: 8fe8aa173945158ebd3bd849b6304992eb29ddeb > Author: Zero_Chaos gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Thu Oct 8 20:48:03 2015 + > Commit: Richard Farina gentoo org> > CommitDate: Thu Oct 8 21:04:40 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-ruby/metasploit-payloads/

On 10/08/2015 11:04 PM, Richard Farina wrote: > commit: 8fe8aa173945158ebd3bd849b6304992eb29ddeb > Author: Zero_Chaos gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Thu Oct 8 20:48:03 2015 + > Commit: Richard Farina gentoo org> > CommitDate: Thu Oct 8 21:04:40 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-ruby/metasploit-credential/

On 10/08/2015 11:04 PM, Richard Farina wrote: > commit: 7c78113940300a9ca123133d2eb69647d5220300 > Author: Zero_Chaos gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Thu Oct 8 20:58:11 2015 + > Commit: Richard Farina gentoo org> > CommitDate: Thu Oct 8 21:04:44 2015 + > URL:

Re: [gentoo-dev] unnecessary revbump

On 10/06/2015 07:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 10/06/2015 09:33 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> I don't think the revbump of net-misc/openconnect-7.06-r1 to -r2 was >> necessary. When the change purely affects use flags, that is picked up >> by the pm and there is no need to force everyone to

Re: [gentoo-dev] unnecessary revbump

On 10/06/2015 09:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:23:31PM +0200, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/06/2015 07:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> On 10/06/2015 09:33 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >>>> I don't think the revbump of net-misc/openconnect-7.0

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL switch-over progress

On 10/05/2015 05:28 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Last night I tried to enable that flag globally, and then reemerge > everything relevant. Unfortunately, I got some unresolvable blockers. Yes, it is currently practically impossible to enable it. However, you can use the

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL switch-over progress

On 10/05/2015 05:28 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > I assume there are developers hard > at work adding the flag to each and every package. > Exactly one. And because of that it will take another few weeks (maybe even months) until we are there.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: net-dns/bind/files/, net-dns/bind/

On 10/04/2015 10:29 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > commit: 7f2d82c0ec3bea388511cf190c7426fa2815ea89 > Author: Pacho Ramos gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sun Oct 4 08:28:58 2015 + > Commit: Pacho Ramos gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sun Oct 4 08:28:58 2015 + > URL:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: www-misc/fcgiwrap/

On 10/04/2015 10:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > commit: c93f1bb8b49de29a60715ec6e9326ed619effbc4 > Author: Pacho Ramos gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sun Oct 4 08:38:36 2015 + > Commit: Pacho Ramos gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sun Oct 4 08:38:36 2015 + > URL:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: net-dns/bind/files/, net-dns/bind/

On 10/04/2015 11:44 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Please report to the right people, you can simply diff between the > ebuilds to see that I only touched the relevant systemd part. You can > also, of course, do the same as I needed to do for systemd part and go > ahead fixing the dies instead of trying

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: app-emulation/libvirt/

On 10/03/2015 08:29 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: > commit: a1015c1339068e9e942cb353f46a015b5612db1e > Author: Matthias Maier gentoo org> > AuthorDate: Sat Oct 3 18:26:45 2015 + > Commit: Matthias Maier gentoo org> > CommitDate: Sat Oct 3 18:29:30 2015 + > URL:

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-5 news item wrt C++ ABI

On 10/03/2015 04:13 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > Title: GCC 5 Defaults to the New C++11 ABI > Author: Mike Frysinger > Content-Type: text/plain > Posted: 2015-10-02 > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 1.0 > Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-5 > > GCC 5 uses the new C++ ABI

[gentoo-dev] getting openssl SLOT right

While adding libressl support I encountered a lot of ebuilds that do stuff like: ssl? ( dev-libs/openssl ) There are very few cases where this is actually correct. FYI: # cave contents dev-libs/openssl:0.9.8 /usr/lib64 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 /usr/lib64/libssl.so.0.9.8 There are no

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/30/2015 10:11 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/30/2015 08:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: >> On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves >>> in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing th

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/30/2015 08:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves >> in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing they think they're >> making the upgrade path easier by not changing their

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/30/2015 01:29 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 09/30/2015 01:27 PM, hasufell wrote: >> On 09/30/2015 01:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. >>> <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/30/2015 01:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. > wrote: >> On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves >>> in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/30/2015 02:10 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 09/30/2015 01:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I think it was fair to pause to see if somebody could come up with >> a better solution that allows co-existence, but absent that I >> don't see any benefit from keeping libressl out of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

No useful comments, so I will proceed as outlined in the transition plan.

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/29/2015 03:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > [...] I have waited 9 days. I don't see a reason to wait another few weeks, just because you like to bikeshed a lot. I honestly feel like you are wasting my time, unless _you_ can come up with a better solution and offer to do the actual work. So

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/29/2015 05:31 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> 2. slowly start migrating those ~550 packages with "libressl" USE flag >> which is similar to gnutls USE flag. >> There w

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/20/2015 08:07 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Greetings, > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 hasufell wrote: >> Friends, >> >> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages >> left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/20/2015 06:47 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote: >> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: >>> Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl. >> >> That's not possible, because in order to introduce the

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl. That's not possible, because in order to introduce the USE flag, we have to break the dep-graph on ~arch temporarily (for 'libressl' USE flag only ofc), because of circular deps. I

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >