[gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-04-12 Thread Duncan
Joonas Niilola posted on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:21:39 +0300 as excerpted: > I just want to point out you > may not have to edit ebuilds at all. If xz-utils is package.provided > portage should ignore the dependency without you removing the dep from > an ebuild. package.provided: YMMV, but here

[gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-04-03 Thread Duncan
Michael Orlitzky posted on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 12:40:26 -0400 as excerpted: > On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 16:30 +0100, Eddie Chapman wrote: >> It does involve a relatively small hack and functionality previously >> provided by xz-utils is replaced by app-arch/p7zip. > > I did the same thing with

[gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-04-03 Thread Duncan
Kévin GASPARD DE RENEFORT posted on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:22:18 +0200 as excerpted: > Fork Gentoo, or any other distros, start a LFS… In fact, Gentoo has been forked in this way at least three times. The first time was over 20 years ago, before 2004 as I remember researching it before I switched

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-04-03 Thread Kévin GASPARD DE RENEFORT
Sorry but I wanted to add something to what is written below: I'll insist as other did before: An other alternative would be to start your own overlay, push something to help Gentoo's dev, anything, because saying more or less "Do that because actually it's bad" is something rarely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-04-03 Thread Kévin GASPARD DE RENEFORT
Helping with any of these three would certainly be reasonable. But demanding a *LOT* of work to alternative-force an already attack-reverted package, when we actually KNOW about that one, it's reverted to pre-attack and there's likely to be no more mischief there /because/ everybody's looking

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-04-03 Thread Sam James
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> writes: > Eddie Chapman posted on Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:32:41 +0100 as excerpted: > >> Yes, I have no issue with the format at all, just with the xz utils >> project. > > FWIW, feel free to do that bug-fix or package-bump if you'd rather instead > of reading this long

[gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-04-03 Thread Duncan
Eddie Chapman posted on Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:32:41 +0100 as excerpted: > Yes, I have no issue with the format at all, just with the xz utils > project. FWIW, feel free to do that bug-fix or package-bump if you'd rather instead of reading this long thing! I won't complain! =:^) IMO... The thing

[gentoo-dev] Re: Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

2024-03-30 Thread Duncan
Dale posted on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 02:06:26 -0500 as excerpted: > Gentoo has some awesome devs. Agreed with the whole thing and the above is a bit of an aside from the thread, but it's worth repeating! Thanks devs! (And security contributors, infra providers, testers, tinder-box runners, bug