Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 17:51 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> Il giorno ven, 29/10/2010 alle 12.12 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
> > 
> > Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
> > backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
> > version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.
> > 
> It vastly depends how "beta" the beta version is, so it's up to the
> maintainer deciding that.

Yup. But then, please, tell what were the reasons for this decision (in
ChangeLog or inside ebuild). If there are no reasons - hard mask it.

Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this package
quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list and I've never
heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all users.

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 19:29 +0200, Michał Górny пишет:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
> Peter Volkov  wrote:

> > Please, hard mask beta versions.
> 
> I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that.
> If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version
> changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to
> it, then I would agree.

If the package is not popular there is even more reasons to rely on the
upstream's judgment and hard mask betas.

> Please notice that 'beta' is not the same for each upstream. There are
> indeed packages which are in 'beta' state for the time being -- would
> you like all of them to be hard masked? 

Until you have explicit "go for it" from upstream or there is no real
pressure to use betas, please, hard mask them.

> Or maybe you're fine with them because they don't put 'beta' in their PV?

I'm fine in case upstream released package for general usage and we use
them. I'm not fine in case package name suggests that package is for
testing but we push it on users. Beta is beta.

And for the sake of discussion I already had not so nice talks with
upstream about Gentoo and beta versions we push on users... So this
request is not out of the air.

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 15:46 Fri 29 Oct , Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Which raises the question, if those people, who want to install a 
> minimal server will mostly use apache or something different. And 
> especially for minimal setups, i dont think that apache will be the 
> first choice, so i agree with the removal of those USE flags from 
> default IUSE. The profile is intended to have a minimal set of flags, 
> i would call apache an additional optional flag, not a default option 
> for minimal server setups.

I'm not sure when this transition happened, as profile USE flags have 
traditionally been a reasonable default set rather than a minimal set. 
This gives people who don't have much experience with Gentoo a decent 
chance at getting a working system on their first try. For people who 
have more experience, it's not exactly difficult to change things.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


pgpQAHDuZpo80.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 20:54 Thu 28 Oct , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 07:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have
> > something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you
> > didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions.
> 
> ChangeLog is for users. The package content didn't change at all. There
> was nothing to log in for.

I like to see a ChangeLog message for everything. If an ebuild suddenly 
breaks and a user sees no ChangeLog message, the assumption would then 
be that he somehow broke his system. The QA team is not superhuman in 
its ability to avoid mistakes...

> > I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I
> > actually start looking into what you committed.
> 
> When I see someone skipping ChangeLog, I take it as "something so minor,
> not worth looking into at all". Quite the opposite.

I take it as "making my job as a maintainer more difficult" because it 
gives me more places I have to look to track down what happened and why.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


pgpEGmKYbwb3i.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Support for Python 3

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 29-10-2010 23:24, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-10-26 02:45:10 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto napisał(a):
>> On 25-10-2010 13:37, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> I would like to suggest that setting Python 3.1 as main active version of 
>>> Python be officially
>>> supported and recommended for Gentoo developers since 2010-12-01. Majority 
>>> of packages supporting
>>> only Python 2.* have been prepared to work correctly in situation when 
>>> Python 3.* is set as main
>>> active version of Python. I would like to encourage other developers to 
>>> work on fixing remaining
>>> packages.
>>
>> Until we're certain that will not cause automatic weekly stages and cds
>> to fail to build again, please don't.
> 
> I suggest some changes for Gentoo developers (so that they can find, report 
> and potentially
> fix bugs before other users would reproduce these bugs), not weekly stages or 
> cds.

If your proposal is only about telling people, starting by developers,
to use Python-3.1 as their default python version so they can test it
and help iron out any bugs and no change is going to be committed to the
tree any time soon to make python-3.1 as default, then the proposal is
of no consequence and I dare to say no interest to the Release
Engineering team.
However, if you're trying to force the use of python-3.1 in the tree and
plan to commit changes that will do so, then yours is not an acceptable
answer, in particular given recent history. Consumers of the stable tree
are not and should not be treated as "guinea pigs".
Given the previous effects on the automated builds, in this case, I'll
request for the Release Engineering team a moratorium on making
Python-3.1 the default python version on a system until the releng team
can test and ensure that won't break the automated builds.

Gentoo developers need to take into consideration users of the stable
tree and should remember that the automated weekly cds and stages are
built from stable ebuilds. Thus any breakage on a stable ebuild can kill
the automated builds or lead to unusable cds and or stages.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=MAN6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

[William Hubbs]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 07:29:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
> Peter Volkov  wrote:
> 
> > Please, hard mask beta versions.
> 
> I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that.
> If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version
> changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to
> it, then I would agree.

I don't know or use this package, but I agree.  Just because something
is beta doesn't mean it should be automatically hard masked.  That
decision should be left to the maintainer.

William



pgpsGU0GuTPuQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Support for Python 3

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

2010-10-26 02:45:10 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto napisał(a):
> On 25-10-2010 13:37, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > I would like to suggest that setting Python 3.1 as main active version of 
> > Python be officially
> > supported and recommended for Gentoo developers since 2010-12-01. Majority 
> > of packages supporting
> > only Python 2.* have been prepared to work correctly in situation when 
> > Python 3.* is set as main
> > active version of Python. I would like to encourage other developers to 
> > work on fixing remaining
> > packages.
> 
> Until we're certain that will not cause automatic weekly stages and cds
> to fail to build again, please don't.

I suggest some changes for Gentoo developers (so that they can find, report and 
potentially
fix bugs before other users would reproduce these bugs), not weekly stages or 
cds.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Support for Python 3

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

2010-10-25 19:16:56 Thilo Bangert napisał(a):
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis  said:
> > 2010-10-25 15:50:23 Peter Volkov napisał(a):
> > > В Пнд, 25/10/2010 в 15:37 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 
> пишет:
> > > > I would like to suggest that setting Python 3.1 as main active
> > > > version of Python be officially supported and recommended for
> > > > Gentoo developers since 2010-12-01. Majority of packages
> > > > supporting only Python 2.* have been prepared to work correctly in
> > > > situation when Python 3.* is set as main active version of Python.
> > > 
> > > How many packages left?
> > 
> > Currently I don't know. I would have to perform some grep checks to try
> > to calculate it.
> > 
> > I think that each developer could start using Python 3.1 as main active
> > version of Python now, 
> 
> awesome! how do I do that?

eselect python set python3.1

> i assume recent portage versions support python3, correct?

Yes.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: qdevelop and hmake

[Samuli Suominen]

# Samuli Suominen  (29 Oct 2010)
# Fails to compile with Qt 4.7, project appears dead
# http://bugs.gentoo.org/338489
# Removal in 30 days
dev-util/qdevelop

# Samuli Suominen  (29 Oct 2010)
# Bugs 124544, 241624 and 255822
# Masked for removal in 30 days
dev-haskell/hmake

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code-In: 13-18 year olds in open source

[Serkan Kaba]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 29-10-2010 20:46, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> As you can see in the link for the current proposals, I've proposed a
> general task of providing translations of our documentation for Portuguese.
> I have a very strong suspicion that most if not all of our non-english
> docs could either benefit from a review or are in need of major work.
> Are there any developers from non english speaking countries that are
> willing to serve as contacts for candidates wanting to translate any of
> the docs on http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ to your locale?
As said on IRC I'd love to help Turkish translation if any student
volunteers.

- -- 
Sincerely,
Serkan KABA
Gentoo Developer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzLE0cACgkQRh6X64ivZaK7ywCeP5VROErro7b8ZwrVPpG5L1tA
pu4AmwXRL2GBxZlI99mfZrprdC/WeGtn
=uP9w
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code-In: 13-18 year olds in open source

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 26-10-2010 04:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Hi all,

> We're looking for tasks that would take a student 13-18 years old 
> roughly 1-3 days to complete. Ideas might include writing man pages, 
> translating a few webpages, perhaps some relatively straightforward 
> bugfixes, etc. More general ideas are on our ideas page and the GCI 
> homepage. Because tasks are so short, mentoring will not be a major 
> burden, so don't let that hold you back.
> 
> I look forward to seeing all your cool ideas!
> 
> 3. http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Google_Code_In_2010_ideas

As you can see in the link for the current proposals, I've proposed a
general task of providing translations of our documentation for Portuguese.
I have a very strong suspicion that most if not all of our non-english
docs could either benefit from a review or are in need of major work.
Are there any developers from non english speaking countries that are
willing to serve as contacts for candidates wanting to translate any of
the docs on http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ to your locale?

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMywiFAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPfRwP/jtNV68kpZQ14/ezQ6Bu3v5N
6DP/ETzwSe/la3KYPjKKQESiW+X2qjIPicFo8LXLOn/zlxYt0vaXmKTTHjhcdpSf
kQMdfc7DnJP0ZTnfMzQXomgrf4foBvWhh0MFkdcliZgzam4eusikr5geQu3zNTgD
6PhJYzoKR+hJVhDa02kSqo4/rhRcVEu4pp7Q4tb+3pRdvrLovIZtvmPCSc+S/vLA
T9MUw0YMjaladelB2bLQL4Fy7xsG2+aEkx7lK9e6u0gaXsF/pE2bcNPL9ROOkBjb
2yHS7XrOlP0x9LI/0DjB0yVdtElasJC/s9Ukrd0qVh8kjsjsnNiMUprQBRUr4BEC
a7jiqQpJwp7v+tyJJNYlyydfZ15KvEGmnvP5anMQU8xGyZE3duQMZxnYhseKWRnv
E7dq3qGaTLLzxQ/HxmpBh/8GwbiEoDz/Ik3YArnLkw9uepVsfwB9Up8+K5HoEW1O
Z7S/yZ+vuYZfRHa9NjeK3DRDYVk0/Xov0LMlyj/vZPRYWyKnOXxmsdeiLf32TJGe
xy+jfpg2ff3p/CE0W5f1zsPyZF0xjlJZc3ojEa6L2HGdV1tqKfMa2b9lhl58UJgo
D6sIl+mKPMGLw7sQTEDewBip68gtJife2i860pQeDB3+LVvZ365cZ7iKy45BHOJS
3OG/tMxPtNKc7lNhmO2I
=kmdt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
Peter Volkov  wrote:

> Please, hard mask beta versions.

I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that.
If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version
changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to
it, then I would agree.

Please notice that 'beta' is not the same for each upstream. There are
indeed packages which are in 'beta' state for the time being -- would
you like all of them to be hard masked? Or maybe you're fine with them
because they don't put 'beta' in their PV?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

On 10/29/10 6:29 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Furthermore the message about glibc-2.4 and gcc-4.1 looks rather obsolete.
> At least this part has to be removed/changed

Fine for me.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Markos Chandras]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:11:33AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> 'Anyone wanting to run a secure server profile should use hardened'
> tends to imply that the server profile is insecure which is probably
> not what you intend to convey to users.  Hardened is likely more
> secure (which is all we can really say authoritatively...)  I don't
> think saying that *somewhere* is a bad idea.  The profile.bashrc is
> likely not the best place however.
I understand your concern and why someone might get confused about the
server/hardened thingie however I think that polluting this profile 
in this way is not acceptable. 
Furthermore the message about glibc-2.4 and gcc-4.1 looks rather obsolete.
At least this part has to be removed/changed
> 
> >> If so, I'd leave that warning alone until we get enough people working
> >> on the server profiles so we can make any promises about it.
> > How many? Work on what actually? It is just a profile with minimal use
> > flags. There is nothing to work on :-/ I don't understand that. Tell me
> > which areas of server profile need more attention so I can understand
> > what are you talking about
> 
> If it is a profile with minimal use flags why not call it minimal? :)
Cause 'server' is minimal by default.
> 
> >>
> >> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
> >> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
> >> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
> >> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
> >> about this.
> > Same for USE="apache2 ldap" on make.conf. That is not a valid argument
> > :)
> 
> 1) I don't believe anyone has any clear data on what flags are enabled
> or disabled by users.
> 2) Each of us users the server profile differently.
> 3) Each of us has a different idea of what is involved with running a server.
> 
> It is difficult to take the argument in any strong direction due to
> these types of problems (it is an obvious bikeshed..)
> 
> I will instead try a different tact.  I think it is advantageous to
> reduce the number of default flags.  There is a question of what will
> break though; so that is the question I pose to you.
> 
> Can I install a machine with the server profile and USE=-ldap, but
> still get ldap + pam working?
> Can I install a machine with the server profile and USE=-apache, but
> still get apache + php working?  apache + rails?
> How many packages support each USE flag?
> How many of those packages have IUSE defaults for +ldap or +apache already?
First of all, relying on specific package use flag choices is wrong by
default. What if these package change their default use flags some day?
Are you sure you want to engineer your profiles' behavior based on 
specific packages?
Using these flags by default you imply that the server profile is
optimised for web hosting/active directory usage. So why don't you add
ipv6, snmp, vhosts by default too, to include all those firewall/router
hosts running Gentoo? The server profile *imho* should have 
as few as possible USE flags. Users who use this profile should be well
educated on how to add more USE flags if needed. 

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411  3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410


pgpFeSJRtjh2I.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Markos Chandras  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:02:20PM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> On 29-10-2010 11:03, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I don't know how many of you are using these profiles. I would like to
>> > propose a couple of changes
>> >
>> > 1) I want to drop the warning message located on profile.bashrc files
>> > e.g $PORTDIR/default/linux/amd64/10.0/server/profile.bashrc
>> > It is more than obvious what this profile is for so I don't think this
>> > message makes any sense.
>>
>> I've always taken the message about the server profiles not being
>> properly tested as a warning that anyone wanting to run a "secure"
>> server profile should use one of the hardened profiles.
> But isn't that obvious? How is server profiles related to hardened
> anyway? Anyway, this can stay. The rest about GCC and Glibc I think is
> useless

I think there are two nagging things that this thread raises.

Jorge's comment leads me to:

'Anyone wanting to run a secure server profile should use hardened'
tends to imply that the server profile is insecure which is probably
not what you intend to convey to users.  Hardened is likely more
secure (which is all we can really say authoritatively...)  I don't
think saying that *somewhere* is a bad idea.  The profile.bashrc is
likely not the best place however.

>> If so, I'd leave that warning alone until we get enough people working
>> on the server profiles so we can make any promises about it.
> How many? Work on what actually? It is just a profile with minimal use
> flags. There is nothing to work on :-/ I don't understand that. Tell me
> which areas of server profile need more attention so I can understand
> what are you talking about

If it is a profile with minimal use flags why not call it minimal? :)

>>
>> > 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
>> > IUSE
>> >
>> > -apache2
>> > -ldap
>> >
>> > A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap
>>
>> Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the
>> server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled.
> So you assume that the most common server configuration is for active
> directory or web hosting

I think the values are there as a CYA thing to replace auto-use.  I
think when someone installs LDAP they generally want the ldap use flag
(so optionally LDAP support is compiled into apps.  The same thing is
true of apache.  Now sadly I removed support for auto-use around 2006
because it was a giant mess so instead we have default profile use
flags.

>> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
>> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
>> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
>> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
>> about this.
> Same for USE="apache2 ldap" on make.conf. That is not a valid argument
> :)

1) I don't believe anyone has any clear data on what flags are enabled
or disabled by users.
2) Each of us users the server profile differently.
3) Each of us has a different idea of what is involved with running a server.

It is difficult to take the argument in any strong direction due to
these types of problems (it is an obvious bikeshed..)

I will instead try a different tact.  I think it is advantageous to
reduce the number of default flags.  There is a question of what will
break though; so that is the question I pose to you.

Can I install a machine with the server profile and USE=-ldap, but
still get ldap + pam working?
Can I install a machine with the server profile and USE=-apache, but
still get apache + php working?  apache + rails?
How many packages support each USE flag?
How many of those packages have IUSE defaults for +ldap or +apache already?

-A

>>
>> - --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
>> Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMyrfMAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP1AMQANVKK4f1T041WrHMJ7gXM4sI
>> hEhoH25GkoxjEEztxdaQ7TI+fxPRqbAHv6AWYNsTd7C6c0RwgTQa8TwNATvmWdCT
>> tyTge9SWO1lubiwdNUu5AoamZkzyvWibK5hwP6cd/4OWP02aFZ/BYICeL5G3IQ1I
>> YBXwjzf6f6Nyae8/SKCQalU0Zlse1Cx6A58siS2Uqz63DqPglQqhiN10PB4S496y
>> fvA84h8B0FUtexFn8Ho0nFVHh5Lea6qo4YZfhDemjMSio9daPMfcAK63za5M/vq+
>> AEjLOmFuj5yg3hppE+5tqc4R+Qt3mDklRHT/p3tdhMTgw0aXHSA/23NSqdKs7NTK
>> 4w/HJ+k5S5BXUUrb3VjNByO5vOKm7A4ROLBAuDZFgu/dah3A3OwtoolEEooWMHDG
>> Bgo4aRX0cvNGTdVFnUQp7aDO/idi61ONV/G9cqPsl5nmD0K/1JhujLmR9oU26ctk
>> sEv/ZxAbUWBYiPx08y6u7lm2g2uUnC0VmJS6rLeHKpp501I8ulTuNRlc1U8EvmPn
>> aQHLG+6IvBpifFml3nDIG64LwsXqkEmwc67vcHvYRJqyzcxyHkORl2qTH19zsV1B
>> PAa9bN9jRYssdLvDLdsrBc1S3LSGftWihu5ITwkdf3DK6uo7UUViSeesiESsP0sa
>> +

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
Peter Volkov  wrote:

> В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 06:03 +, Jeroen Roovers (jer) пишет:
> > jer 10/10/29 06:03:08
> > 
> >   Modified: ChangeLog
> >   Added:tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
> >   Log:
> >   Beta version bump, fixes buffer overflow (bug #336605).
> 
> Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
> backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
> version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.

I see you've done that already.


 jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Kfir Lavi]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
 wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Sachau  wrote:
>> Am 29.10.2010 14:13, schrieb Petteri Räty:
>>> On 29.10.2010 15.02, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>>

> 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
> IUSE

> -apache2
> -ldap

> A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap

 Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the
 server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled.
 If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
 apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
 preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
 don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
 about this.

>>>
>>> And enabling a use flag should be question of is it wanted when a
>>> package actually support those flags. On a server when you are
>>> installing a package with a apache use flag it's certainly possible to
>>> you would like to have it enabled more often than not.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Petteri
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which raises the question, if those people, who want to install a minimal 
>> server will mostly use
>> apache or something different. And especially for minimal setups, i dont 
>> think that apache will be
>> the first choice, so i agree with the removal of those USE flags from 
>> default IUSE.
>> The profile is intended to have a minimal set of flags, i would call apache 
>> an additional optional
>> flag, not a default option for minimal server setups.
>>
>
> Totally agreed!
>
> Best regards.
>
> --
> Rafael Goncalves Martins
> Gentoo Linux developer
> http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/
>
>

I use the server profile and I would also like a minimal set of use flags.
I don't think you need to force sysadmins, that know what they want,
to have those flags.

Regards,
Kfir

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dev-lang/v8 SONAME

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno ven, 29/10/2010 alle 11.02 +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." ha
scritto:
> 
> By the way, what do you think about
>  ? 

Last I checked it was unfortunately unreliable because it still relied
on developers describing their interface separately.

Since there are way too many details that are "hidden" with ABIs, it's a
bit complex dealing with it; and with C++ the problems are tenfold big.

It can help of course, but I have serious doubts in relying _solely_ on
that.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno ven, 29/10/2010 alle 12.12 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
> 
> Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
> backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
> version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.
> 
It vastly depends how "beta" the beta version is, so it's up to the
maintainer deciding that. Sometimes .0 versions are just as bugged as
_beta for others.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Rafael Goncalves Martins]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Sachau  wrote:
> Am 29.10.2010 14:13, schrieb Petteri Räty:
>> On 29.10.2010 15.02, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>
>>>
 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
 IUSE
>>>
 -apache2
 -ldap
>>>
 A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap
>>>
>>> Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the
>>> server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled.
>>> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
>>> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
>>> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
>>> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
>>> about this.
>>>
>>
>> And enabling a use flag should be question of is it wanted when a
>> package actually support those flags. On a server when you are
>> installing a package with a apache use flag it's certainly possible to
>> you would like to have it enabled more often than not.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petteri
>>
>>
>
> Which raises the question, if those people, who want to install a minimal 
> server will mostly use
> apache or something different. And especially for minimal setups, i dont 
> think that apache will be
> the first choice, so i agree with the removal of those USE flags from default 
> IUSE.
> The profile is intended to have a minimal set of flags, i would call apache 
> an additional optional
> flag, not a default option for minimal server setups.
>

Totally agreed!

Best regards.

-- 
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code-In: 13-18 year olds in open source

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 23:19 Mon 25 Oct , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Based on our participation in the Summer of Code, Google invited us to 
> apply for their revived program for 13-18 year olds called Google 
> Code-In [1-2]. The basic idea is that students will complete a series of 
> small tasks rather than one huge project, and the tasks don't even have 
> to be related (or even involve programming!).
> 
> One really neat feature about GCI is that projects can be anything -- 
> documentation, translation, coding, research, whatever. If you've been 
> feeling that your ideas are left out by GSoC, this is your chance.
> 
> After talking with a few devs, there seemed to be a lot of interest in 
> us getting involved. The application deadline is very soon -- this 
> Friday! We need a good ideas list by then if we're going to apply. I 
> created a draft ideas page [3]; please fill it in by the end of the day 
> on this Thursday.
> 
> We're looking for tasks that would take a student 13-18 years old 
> roughly 1-3 days to complete. Ideas might include writing man pages, 
> translating a few webpages, perhaps some relatively straightforward 
> bugfixes, etc. More general ideas are on our ideas page and the GCI 
> homepage. Because tasks are so short, mentoring will not be a major 
> burden, so don't let that hold you back.

We now have 2 ideas. It's not even worth applying unless we can get 
closer to 10. If nobody puts up more ideas in the next ~6 hours, we 
won't be participating this year.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


pgpHAjBShGZsC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Thomas Sachau]

Am 29.10.2010 14:13, schrieb Petteri Räty:
> On 29.10.2010 15.02, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> 
>>
>>> 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
>>> IUSE
>>
>>> -apache2
>>> -ldap
>>
>>> A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap 
>>
>> Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the
>> server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled.
>> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
>> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
>> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
>> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
>> about this.
>>
> 
> And enabling a use flag should be question of is it wanted when a
> package actually support those flags. On a server when you are
> installing a package with a apache use flag it's certainly possible to
> you would like to have it enabled more often than not.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 
> 

Which raises the question, if those people, who want to install a minimal 
server will mostly use
apache or something different. And especially for minimal setups, i dont think 
that apache will be
the first choice, so i agree with the removal of those USE flags from default 
IUSE.
The profile is intended to have a minimal set of flags, i would call apache an 
additional optional
flag, not a default option for minimal server setups.

-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Markos Chandras]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:02:20PM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi.
> 
> On 29-10-2010 11:03, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > I don't know how many of you are using these profiles. I would like to
> > propose a couple of changes
> > 
> > 1) I want to drop the warning message located on profile.bashrc files
> > e.g $PORTDIR/default/linux/amd64/10.0/server/profile.bashrc
> > It is more than obvious what this profile is for so I don't think this
> > message makes any sense.
> 
> I've always taken the message about the server profiles not being
> properly tested as a warning that anyone wanting to run a "secure"
> server profile should use one of the hardened profiles.
But isn't that obvious? How is server profiles related to hardened
anyway? Anyway, this can stay. The rest about GCC and Glibc I think is
useless
> If so, I'd leave that warning alone until we get enough people working
> on the server profiles so we can make any promises about it.
How many? Work on what actually? It is just a profile with minimal use
flags. There is nothing to work on :-/ I don't understand that. Tell me
which areas of server profile need more attention so I can understand
what are you talking about
> 
> > 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
> > IUSE
> > 
> > -apache2
> > -ldap
> > 
> > A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap 
> 
> Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the
> server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled.
So you assume that the most common server configuration is for active
directory or web hosting
> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
> about this.
Same for USE="apache2 ldap" on make.conf. That is not a valid argument
:)
> 
> - -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
> Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMyrfMAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP1AMQANVKK4f1T041WrHMJ7gXM4sI
> hEhoH25GkoxjEEztxdaQ7TI+fxPRqbAHv6AWYNsTd7C6c0RwgTQa8TwNATvmWdCT
> tyTge9SWO1lubiwdNUu5AoamZkzyvWibK5hwP6cd/4OWP02aFZ/BYICeL5G3IQ1I
> YBXwjzf6f6Nyae8/SKCQalU0Zlse1Cx6A58siS2Uqz63DqPglQqhiN10PB4S496y
> fvA84h8B0FUtexFn8Ho0nFVHh5Lea6qo4YZfhDemjMSio9daPMfcAK63za5M/vq+
> AEjLOmFuj5yg3hppE+5tqc4R+Qt3mDklRHT/p3tdhMTgw0aXHSA/23NSqdKs7NTK
> 4w/HJ+k5S5BXUUrb3VjNByO5vOKm7A4ROLBAuDZFgu/dah3A3OwtoolEEooWMHDG
> Bgo4aRX0cvNGTdVFnUQp7aDO/idi61ONV/G9cqPsl5nmD0K/1JhujLmR9oU26ctk
> sEv/ZxAbUWBYiPx08y6u7lm2g2uUnC0VmJS6rLeHKpp501I8ulTuNRlc1U8EvmPn
> aQHLG+6IvBpifFml3nDIG64LwsXqkEmwc67vcHvYRJqyzcxyHkORl2qTH19zsV1B
> PAa9bN9jRYssdLvDLdsrBc1S3LSGftWihu5ITwkdf3DK6uo7UUViSeesiESsP0sa
> +maI98w1ehWNX2I8RZ7l
> =fHNt
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411  3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410


pgp1ka2LRRcJo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Petteri Räty]

On 29.10.2010 15.02, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:

> 
>> 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
>> IUSE
> 
>> -apache2
>> -ldap
> 
>> A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap 
> 
> Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the
> server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled.
> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
> about this.
> 

And enabling a use flag should be question of is it wanted when a
package actually support those flags. On a server when you are
installing a package with a apache use flag it's certainly possible to
you would like to have it enabled more often than not.

Regards,
Petteri

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: global USE lzma

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 14:02, justin  wrote:
> Currently there are ten packages using lzma in their USE and its always
> used for the same purpose, providing support for lzma compression. And
> as lzma compression gets more and more popular the number will increase.
> What do you think about moving the USE to a global scope?

+1.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

On 29-10-2010 11:03, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I don't know how many of you are using these profiles. I would like to
> propose a couple of changes
> 
> 1) I want to drop the warning message located on profile.bashrc files
> e.g $PORTDIR/default/linux/amd64/10.0/server/profile.bashrc
> It is more than obvious what this profile is for so I don't think this
> message makes any sense.

I've always taken the message about the server profiles not being
properly tested as a warning that anyone wanting to run a "secure"
server profile should use one of the hardened profiles.
If so, I'd leave that warning alone until we get enough people working
on the server profiles so we can make any promises about it.

> 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
> IUSE
> 
> -apache2
> -ldap
> 
> A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap 

Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the
server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled.
If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have
apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing
preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I
don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion
about this.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=fHNt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[gentoo-dev] RFC: global USE lzma

[justin]

Hi all,

Currently there are ten packages using lzma in their USE and its always
used for the same purpose, providing support for lzma compression. And
as lzma compression gets more and more popular the number will increase.
What do you think about moving the USE to a global scope?

justin


Current list:

 # euse -i lzma
global use flags (searching: lzma)

no matching entries found

local use flags (searching: lzma)

[-] lzma (app-arch/libarchive):
Allow accessing lzma-compressed archives through the lzma library
(app-arch/xz-utils). This only affects libarchive's native support:
bsdtar will keep using unlzma as a filter if that's not built-in.

[-] lzma (dev-libs/elfutils):
Support automatic decompression of LZMA-compressed files and kernel images.

[-] lzma (gnome-extra/yelp):
Enables support for LZMA compressed info and man pages

[-] lzma (kde-base/ark):
Enable LZMA/XZ archive support

[-] lzma (kde-base/kdebase-kioslaves):
Enable LZMA/XZ archive support

[-] lzma (kde-base/kdelibs):
Enable LZMA/XZ archive support

[-] lzma (sci-electronics/gtkwave):
Enables LZMA support for VZT

[-] lzma (sci-libs/getdata):
Support for encodings provided by liblzma

[-] lzma (sys-apps/man):
Uses app-arch/lzma-utils for the COMPRESS feature. Could also be used to
guarantee that lzma is on the system.

[-] lzma (sys-fs/squashfs-tools):
Support LZMA compression




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

On 10/29/10 1:24 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:18:14PM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>>> ewarn "This profile has not been tested thoroughly and is not considered to 
>>> be"
>>> ewarn "a supported server profile at this time.  For a supported server"

If the above is no longer true you can safely ignore my earlier
comments. :-D

Actually, removing the no-longer-true message sounds good.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Markos Chandras]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:18:14PM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 10/29/10 1:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > 1) I want to drop the warning message located on profile.bashrc files
> > e.g $PORTDIR/default/linux/amd64/10.0/server/profile.bashrc
> > It is more than obvious what this profile is for so I don't think this
> > message makes any sense.
> 
> > ewarn "This profile has not been tested thoroughly and is not considered to 
> > be"
> > ewarn "a supported server profile at this time.  For a supported server"
> 
> The above is definitely not obvious. Is this documented in any other place?
This is there for years. You think that anyone is working on that in
order to verify whether it is a *stable* server profile or not? I use it
since the very beginning on my servers and I say that it works!
> 
> > ewarn "the software being used on the server. This profile should also be 
> > used"
> > ewarn "if you require GCC 4.1 or Glibc 2.4 support. If you don't know if 
> > this"
> 
> That too.
> 
I use the latest stable for GCC+Glibc and never had an issue. Maybe some
people are confusing the server profiles with the hardened one?

> By the way, I think there was some way to mark a profile as
> "development", "unsupported", or something like that.
It's been in this state for years so I do not expect someone to actually
working on that
> 
> > 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
> > IUSE
> > 
> > -apache2
> > -ldap
> > 
> > A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap 
> 
> Sounds good (I'm not using a server profile though).
> 



-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411  3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410


pgpNu2r4IIumC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

On 10/29/10 1:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 1) I want to drop the warning message located on profile.bashrc files
> e.g $PORTDIR/default/linux/amd64/10.0/server/profile.bashrc
> It is more than obvious what this profile is for so I don't think this
> message makes any sense.

> ewarn "This profile has not been tested thoroughly and is not considered to 
> be"
> ewarn "a supported server profile at this time.  For a supported server"

The above is definitely not obvious. Is this documented in any other place?

> ewarn "the software being used on the server. This profile should also be 
> used"
> ewarn "if you require GCC 4.1 or Glibc 2.4 support. If you don't know if this"

That too.

By the way, I think there was some way to mark a profile as
"development", "unsupported", or something like that.

> 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
> IUSE
> 
> -apache2
> -ldap
> 
> A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap 

Sounds good (I'm not using a server profile though).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Changes in server profiles

[Markos Chandras]

Hi

I don't know how many of you are using these profiles. I would like to
propose a couple of changes

1) I want to drop the warning message located on profile.bashrc files
e.g $PORTDIR/default/linux/amd64/10.0/server/profile.bashrc
It is more than obvious what this profile is for so I don't think this
message makes any sense.

2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default
IUSE

-apache2
-ldap

A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap 

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410


pgplmiQx2kLCa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: freqtweak, mplinuxman, padevchooser

[Samuli Suominen]

# Samuli Suominen  (29 Oct 2010)
# freqtweak, bug 336160, uses obsolete exgtk
# mplinuxman, bug 338863, for old MP3 players, overflows buffers
# padevchooser, bug 341191, doesnt work with new pulseaudio
# Masked for removal in 30 days
media-sound/freqtweak
app-misc/mplinuxman
media-sound/padevchooser

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/v8 SONAME

[James Rowe]

* "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." (phajdan...@gentoo.org) wrote:
> I'm curious: do you have some more ebuilds using v8? It'd be great to
> add them to the portage tree at some point, if possible. Or maybe
> sunrise overlay...

  We took the easy way out and chose Debian because v8/nodejs were
packaged when we needed them, but we'd prefer to be using Gentoo.  That
is the reason I jumped straight in when I saw the mail subject.

Thanks,

James



pgpFTKpE0SVMK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/v8 SONAME

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

On 10/27/10 8:59 PM, James Rowe wrote:
> * "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." (phajdan...@gentoo.org) wrote:
>> There is one issue that keeps dev-lang/v8 in hard mask and prevents its
>> broader usage (I think www-client/chromium could start using it).
> 
>   Thanks for working on this.  I use v8 quite a bit, and being able to
> simply depend on the ebuilds would make life easier.

You're welcome! I started the work because people asked for it.

I'm curious: do you have some more ebuilds using v8? It'd be great to
add them to the portage tree at some point, if possible. Or maybe
sunrise overlay...

>   One question: Are the v8 ebuilds going to be switched to use some kind
> of snapshot tarballs before they're unmasked?

Yes, I think it's going to stay hard masked until I resolve issues like
this. subversion shouldn't be required to install v8.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: dev-lang/v8 SONAME

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

On 10/27/10 1:05 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno mer, 27/10/2010 alle 12.49 +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." ha
> scritto:
>> Some context first. Upstream does not promise any binary compatibility
>> between releases, so each version has a different SONAME, if any.
> 
> That's a good approach (although a bothersome for its users)..

By the way, what do you think about
 ?

>> Currently dev-lang/v8 does not use SONAME (I think that's the default),
>> because I'm not sure what's the best way to handle it.
> 
> That's bad, it _has_ to have a SONAME, otherwise you're indicating that
> al the versions have the same ABI (which as you just said is not the
> case).

That's one of the reasons it's still hard masked.

> Okay now you're confusing the two concepts. The DT_SONAME tag has
> nothing to do with the name on the filesystem for what concerns the link
> editor, it's used by the dynamic loader.
> 
> The link above would be fine though, just let it link as libv8.so, and
> then be loaded as libv8-1.2.3.so.

Ah, thanks! I think I understand it much better now. Bumped v8, now with
SONAME and a symlink. I was able to compile www-client/chromium against
that, and added an experimental system-v8 USE flag to it.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Message could not be delivered

[Antoni Grzymala]

Patrick Nagel dixit (2010-10-29, 15:26):

> On 2010-10-29 18:05 UTC cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
> [garbage, malware attached]
> 
> Wow, that's a first, I think ;) Mydoom worm sent to the gentoo-dev list.

I only got information from spamassassin on my server. Was actually
quite surprised to see the sender :)

-- 
[a]


pgp1IXoRbBvJh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 06:03 +, Jeroen Roovers (jer) пишет:
> jer 10/10/29 06:03:08
> 
>   Modified: ChangeLog
>   Added:tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
>   Log:
>   Beta version bump, fixes buffer overflow (bug #336605).

Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eshowkw

[Tomáš Chvátal]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Dne 29.10.2010 05:51, Jeroen Roovers napsal(a):
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:33:09 +0200
> Tomáš Chvátal  wrote:
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> So now on the eshowkw is part of gentoolkit (in svn, and in next
>> release). If you want to test it and suggest more features/report
>> bugs you can use it as follows:
>>
>> eshowkw [something]
>> equery keywords something
> 
> gentoo-x86/sci-visualization/gnuplot $ eshowkw
> ('%s%s', ('Ambiguous package name "gnuplot".\n', "Possibilities:
> [u'dev-ruby/gnuplot', u'sci-visualization/gnuplot']"))
> 
> And there's this:
> 
> gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird $ cvs up
> j...@bastiaan gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird $ echo jerwashere >> 
> thunderbird-3.1.6.ebuild
> j...@bastiaan gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird $ eshowkw
>  * Digest verification failed:
>  * gentoo-x86/mail-client/thunderbird/thunderbird-3.1.6.ebuild
>  * Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
>  * Got: 7688
>  * Expected: 7677
> Failed to obtain metadata
>(paths abbreviated)
> 
> I can work around this problem by running repoman manifest or similar,
> only I don't see why that should be required.
> 
> 
>  jer
> 
It uses portage porttree.dbapi, so it generates metadata cache if not
availible -> It requires proper manifest to do so :)

Tom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzKfdcACgkQHB6c3gNBRYcnFwCgqWim1aherG0E2ykyzWWuMT+B
NZIAoKkTUUc05VB94frhtKOMLvXLBCgc
=aCSv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Message could not be delivered

[Patrick Nagel]

On 2010-10-29 18:05 UTC cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
[garbage, malware attached]

Wow, that's a first, I think ;) Mydoom worm sent to the gentoo-dev list.

-- 
Key ID: 0x86E346D4http://patrick-nagel.net/key.asc
Fingerprint: 7745 E1BE FA8B FBAD 76AB 2BFC C981 E686 86E3 46D4


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.