As there clearly was an interest (at least 2:1 yay's to nay's, counting in
feedback I got on irc) I have created the bug:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151118
where we can finalize some details. I described the way we can proceed in the
opening message. Please add yourself to the bug
Hi George,
On 10/13/06, George Shapovalov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The suggested projects are:
Projects to be moved (tentative, may opt out):
Common Lisp
java
perl
php
python
The PHP team will be opting out.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE
flags at
both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this
list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with
Hi Zac,
On 10/13/06, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE
flags at
both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this
list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with
Stuart Herbert wrote:
The PHP team will be opting out.
Confirmed, PHP will remain its own TLP.
--
Best regards,
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK
LongiTEKK Networks Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Dev: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SysCP Dev: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TILUG Supporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Zac Medico wrote:
Should we include support in portage for one or both types of per-package
default USE
flags? If support is included for IUSE defaults now, we won't be able to use
them in
the tree until after a waiting period or an EAPI bump [4].
Great, this will be very useful, so +1 on
On 2006.10.12 19:34, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed in the past that a lot of people come to irc with
problems
in some area (say networking) that are easy to solve just by first
asking a number of questions to identify the problem and then
providing
the solution.
I've always liked
Zac Medico wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE
flags at
both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this
list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with a +
prefix as
described
On 10/13/06, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to
wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the
supporting portage version is stable.
+1 from me on that.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to
wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the
supporting portage version is stable.
Err, EAPI was designed to assure that a supporting version is actually
used, no need to wait
I don't have more contact with the w4l guys. I tried to have new serials
for the new versions so i don't have any response. In addition them
seems to do not support more Gentoo Linux [1].
This product have a nice isntaller and is commercial so i will remove it
from portage :)
I will mask it today.
I've been working on getting together the tree-signing work, as a set of
GLEPs, and as part of doing so, I've been digging into all of the
archives I can find, and seeing just how many times the same good and
bad ideas have been brought up. The earliest mention of Manifest signing
is May 2002 so
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:53:27 +0200
Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart
to wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that
the supporting portage version is stable.
Err, EAPI was
Can I be the first to point out that drobbins is on the list, so it's a
fair guess that whenever Gentoo started was his start date...?
Aw, come on, there's one of us in every crowd. :)
--
-o()o--
Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed in the past that a lot of people come to irc with problems
in some area (say networking) that are easy to solve just by first
asking a number of questions to identify the problem and then providing
the solution.
I've always liked the way Microsoft
Howdy there Robin,
I joined around early 2004 and was interviewed by dmwaters. If there
is anything else, just lemme know. -- Bret (psi29a)
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
If your handle is on the following list, please send me a private email
(do not reply on the list), stating when you joined
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for
| default flags that should be
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for
|
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:52 -0500 Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Are you saying you like a bunch of php-only USE flags (I'm not picking
on php...it was just the first that came to mind) being in the default
USE in the profile?
Do you also like the nofoo flags? AFAIK, previous discussions said that
the per-ebuild default USE would go
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joshua Nichols wrote:
Maurice van der Pot wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed in the past that a lot of people come to irc with problems
in some area (say networking) that are easy to solve just by first
asking a number of questions to identify the problem
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| | which behaves like
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across
| zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly
| different data, which is how it'll end up...
|
| Apparently missed the whole point, so...
Zac Medico wrote:
The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for default flags that
should be enabled regardless of profile. Then, package.use will be used for
flags
that might vary depending on the profile.
I don't understand the reasoning of this. Could you expand on it?
What
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Am I misunderstanding something?
On re-reading this for the third or fourth time, I finally get it. IUSE
defaults from the ebuild (+foo, etc), not IUSE defaults at the profile
level.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across
| zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly
| different data, which is how it'll end up...
|
| Apparently
On 10/13/06, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, the big picture here is that make.defaults has been bloated by use
flags needed/relevant for one or two ebuilds only for quite some time
and users and devs alike have been ranting about the same for quite some
time...
I believe Ciaran's
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:00:07 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Those plain don't make sense in make.defaults.
So you'd rather stick them in lots of ebuilds rather than one profile
file?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web :
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:00:07 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those plain don't make sense in make.defaults.
Sure they do. They should be enabled by default, so put them in the
place where the default USE flags are set.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 10/13/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure they do. They should be enabled by default, so put them in the
place where the default USE flags are set.
They should be enabled by default _only_ for the package that needs
them enabled. Support for package.use in profiles gives us
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:09:32 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The downside of it (and it's a big one) is that we'd be putting
| metadata about a package into a profile, instead of into the ebuild
| where arguably it belongs - and where the rest of the metadata already
| is.
Except
Jakub Moc wrote:
Yeah, the big picture here is that make.defaults has been bloated by use
flags needed/relevant for one or two ebuilds only for quite some time
and users and devs alike have been ranting about the same for quite some
time...
Bloated doesn't even apply here. Why does anyone
On Saturday 07 October 2006 4:19 pm, Tim Yamin wrote:
All,
I'm afraid that I find that my position with Gentoo is no longer
tenable. Over the past year and especially over the past few months
the ability to keep Gentoo a coherent and smooth environment has been
eroded and hindered at
My heart sank more and more as I read spider's retelling of Gentoo history.
He's right, you know. There are too many agendas, too much bickering,
crushing bureacracy and a declining number of personal relationships within
our community. Thankfully, the small group of people I call friends
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700,
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aside from being package specific, the per-package default USE flags
behave much like USE flags that are currently listed in profiles'
make.defaults. The flags are stacked incrementally as usual. The
ebuild level
On 10/13/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The examples he gave were of flags that should be enabled by default
for every package that uses them. Even if that's just one or two
packages, there's no reason not to put them in global defaults.
That's one way. I know some folks prefer
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:57:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone gave me a patch to mesa that uses bash-3 features,
The package or the ebuild?
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:57:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone gave me a patch to mesa that uses bash-3 features,
The package or the ebuild?
The ebuild.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hello everyone,
I think the time has come for me to leave this project after two and a
half years of service.
I used to have a job and situation that left me a lot of time to work
for Gentoo, and security work is something that takes a lot of time and
dedication. Now that I'm a father, that I
On Friday 13 October 2006 22:31, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I used to have a job and situation that left me a lot of time to work
for Gentoo, and security work is something that takes a lot of time and
dedication. Now that I'm a father, that I changed jobs and (recently)
houses, it's simply not
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:08:36 -0700,
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a flag is supposed to be resisant to -*, then
use.force/package.use.force are the existing ways to accomplish that.
Arrh, i had completly forgotten that you had added *use.force files
support already. Well, sorry for
Good luck with all the things you will be doing in future... You will be
missed.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hi Thierry,
On 10/13/06, Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone,
I think the time has come for me to leave this project after two and a
half years of service.
Congrats on the new family. And many thanks for everything you've
done for Gentoo during your time as a dev. Here's
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:04PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I used to have a job and situation that left me a lot of time to work
for Gentoo, and security work is something that takes a lot of time and
dedication. Now that I'm a father, that I changed jobs and (recently)
houses, it's
Thierry,
Thanks for your dedication to Gentoo, especially for your persistent
work on both the security team and the metastructure reorganisation.
I will always remember you for that (and the discussions during
FOSDEM '05).
Farewell, good bye and all the best to you and your family.
Danny
--
On Friday 13 October 2006 13:57, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
In a nutshell: Let's change profiles/base/packages from
*app-shells/bash to *=app-shells/bash-3.
works for me
-mike
pgpV2QMgtSUP3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 13 October 2006 09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:29:24 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:57:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone gave me a patch to mesa that uses bash-3 features,
The package or the ebuild?
The ebuild.
In that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
In that case adding =bash-3 to system isn't sufficient. I'll leave
the detailed explanation to Brian, but the only thing you can rely on
in the ebuild environment is what the used portage version has in it's
dep strings when it
Just a minor proposal to add a new setting to indicate interactive
ebuilds. Until it shows up on the webnodes as GLEP 52 you can also see
it on dev.gentoo.org/~genone/docs/interactive-restrict-glep.html
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
GLEP: 44
44 or 52? Make up your mind :P
Title: RESTRICT=interactive
I'd say it's good idea, although isn't RESTRICT=interactive a slight
misnomer? You are enforcing interactiveness, not restricting it :)
Although
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:50:36 +0200
Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
In that case adding =bash-3 to system isn't sufficient. I'll
leave the detailed explanation to Brian, but the only thing you can
rely on in the
Marius Mauch wrote:
In that case adding =bash-3 to system isn't sufficient. I'll leave
the detailed explanation to Brian, but the only thing you can rely on
in the ebuild environment is what the used portage version has in it's
dep strings when it was merged.
Not that it has much practical
X.Org 7.1 has been released from its binary driver jail to the
(un?)stable masses! Does it build? Only on Tuesdays! Does it run?
Often! Will it damage your system? I like cheese!
A summary of new features, quoted from the GWN:
This release features the addition of accelerated indirect GLX
Note that this applies to AMD64/x86 only. Many platforms have had this
stable for awhile, and some still have 7.1 in the testing tree.
Joshua Baergen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:10:33 +0200
Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
GLEP: 44
44 or 52? Make up your mind :P
The one on glep.gentoo.org has the right number.
Title: RESTRICT=interactive
I'd say it's good
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:17:33 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
In that case adding =bash-3 to system isn't sufficient. I'll
leave the detailed explanation to Brian, but the only thing you can
rely on in the ebuild environment is what the used portage
Title: RESTRICT=interactive
I'd say it's good idea, although isn't RESTRICT=interactive a slight
misnomer? You are enforcing interactiveness, not restricting it :)
Although RESTRICT=non-interactive sounds weird too, and introducing
new variable would be bloating.
If you look at every other
On Friday 13 October 2006 20:05, Marius Mauch wrote:
a) don't do anything and assume that everyone is already on bash-3. Not
exactly nice but pragmatic.
if they arent, then they're running wicked old baselayout which means their
system is horribly outdated anyways ... to be honest, i want to
Alec Warner wrote:
Title: RESTRICT=interactive
I'd say it's good idea, although isn't RESTRICT=interactive a slight
misnomer? You are enforcing interactiveness, not restricting it :)
Although RESTRICT=non-interactive sounds weird too, and introducing
new variable would be bloating.
If you
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. Restricting any other feature disallows it.
Restricting interaction allows it. Find a word that's the antonym of
interactive, and restrict that.
RESTRICT=automate or similar should work, as this flags the ebuild as
interactive and so wont
X.Org 7.1 has been released from its binary driver jail to the
(un?)stable masses! Does it build? Only on Tuesdays! Does it run?
Often! Will it damage your system? I like cheese!
Hmm, xorg-server-1.1* is stable now, but xorg-x11-7.1 is not. Did you
forget that ebuild? ;-)
signature.asc
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:00:05 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the GLEP itself; I'd like to see some patches, particularly
for the resolver to show the restriction up front. Also a patch to
the ebuild.5 manpage for RESTRICT=interactive prior to seeing the
glep get approved.
Sven Köhler wrote:
Hmm, xorg-server-1.1* is stable now, but xorg-x11-7.1 is not. Did you
forget that ebuild? ;-)
Sure did! I fixed it a while ago though, so re-syncing now should get
you the right keywords on the meta-ebuild.
Joshua Baergen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. Restricting any other feature disallows it.
Restricting interaction allows it. Find a word that's the antonym of
interactive, and restrict that.
Perhaps unattended, since interactive ebuilds
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package
default USE flags at both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a
couple of months ago
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Forwarding here in case anyone isn't subscribed to gentoo-dev.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFL2E9/ejvha5XGaMRAmRoAKDiwYChPwHBhMLXaXAhExP9ndp4KQCfex+w
EUJa+X8LjRT+DOu94Ew2wxw=
=CzYX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
On Friday 13 October 2006 22:17, Zach Medico wrote:
- tar cpvf - ./ | bzip2 -f ${pkg_tmp} || die Failed to create
tarball
+ tar -cf - . | bzip2 -f ${pkg_tmp} || die Failed to create tarball
dropping the v is ok but dropping the p is not
-mike
pgp4dbQp2cZOG.pgp
Description: PGP
On Friday 13 October 2006 23:59, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 22:17, Zach Medico wrote:
- tar cpvf - ./ | bzip2 -f ${pkg_tmp} || die Failed to create
tarball + tar -cf - . | bzip2 -f ${pkg_tmp} || die Failed to create
tarball
dropping the v is ok but dropping the p
72 matches
Mail list logo
