On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu:
On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
Yes, definitely.
--
Georg Rudoy
LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu
On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
as we have many categories with
On 06/03/2013 10:15, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.
The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
mistakes.
How many more are you expecting? (and
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov maksbo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.
It's not *just* the number of
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu:
How many more are you expecting?
Six components are ready to be packaged in the nearest future, four
are being developed, and there are plans for, well, like a dozen more.
Also, keeping stuff in one category allows splitting several huge
On 6 March 2013 15:07, Maxim Koltsov maksbo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several
categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining
easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
So, two questions:
1) Do you agree
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 10:33:58 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
mistakes.
Um, what are you talking about, too many categories?
I am afraid, there is no fix in the form of lets not add any. Every
commits summary message has
2013/3/6 Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov maksbo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not that you have to explain it, but that leads me to wonder if (a)
there are other Gentoo devs who would maintain this stuff if you
become disinterested
Yep, Pinkbyte is also
On 06/03/2013 13:04, George Shapovalov wrote:
I am afraid, there is no fix in the form of lets not add any. Every
commits summary message has at least 3x more added packages vs removed ones.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
packages. If we're talking ~100 I'm
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
packages. If we're talking ~100 I'm fine with it.
Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to
The new function can be used to create per-variant copies of source
trees. Code based on python_copy_sources from python-r1.
---
gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass | 21 +
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass b/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass | 14 ++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
index c29b5df..66fb5a6 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
@@ -190,5
---
gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 30 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
index 934f32d..36b20dc 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
@@
On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
in the works. I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
some point in time popularity wanes and it needs
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu:
On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
in the works. I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
On 6 March 2013 15:12, Maxim Koltsov maksbo...@gentoo.org wrote:
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu:
On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
On 06/03/2013 16:19, Markos Chandras wrote:
I have no problem with the new category. We recently created a new
category for the Qt packages which has around 20 packages in it, so I
am not sure why Diego wants more than 100 packages for the new
category.
I wasn't too happy about that either,
On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu:
On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
Thanks. Do i have to do anything more that add it to
profiles/categories and
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:05:51 +0400
Maxim Koltsov maksbo...@gentoo.org wrote:
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu:
On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite
soon.
Then go for it. I'd suggest just
Hi guys,
I normally hang out on irc on #gentoo-kernel and a bunch of other #gentoo-*
channels. I stumble across the discussion of bug 447352 [1] that was
reported by a user that was enforcing module signatures on the kernel. This
made me to this patch (I talked to Mike before doing this).
Signed
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Silva r3...@r3pek.org
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] patch linux-mod.eclass to add support for
module signing
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:25:38 -0100
@@ -663,7 +696,7 @@
# This looks messy, but it is needed to handle multiple
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
# This looks messy, but it is needed to handle multiple variables
# being passed in the BUILD_* stuff where the variables also have
- # spaces that must be preserved. If don't do this, then the stuff
+ # spaces
Carlos Silva wrote:
If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
put it under /usr/src/linux.
Do you know if this is a sane default?
Where do most users of signed modules store keys so far?
//Peter
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Carlos Silva wrote:
If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
put it under /usr/src/linux.
Do you know if this is a sane
Carlos Silva wrote:
If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
put it under /usr/src/linux.
Do you know if this is a sane default?
Where do most users of signed modules store keys so
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Carlos Silva wrote:
If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
put it under /usr/src/linux.
Do you know if this is a
28 matches
Mail list logo
