[gentoo-dev] Data Collection and Survey
Hi everyone, I am attempting to gather data for my Simulation course at Columbia University. The data will be used for my Simulation project where my aim is to estimate the work load of developers related to the maintenance of the portage tree. The Simulation will generate fake package releases and bug reports in simulation time, and compute the number of hours each developer spends working as well as other interesting information. There are two pieces of data that I am attempting to gather: 1) emerge.logs from all developers maintaining packages (to determine the respective compile times of all maintained packages in portage tree), preferably multiple ones from each (to gauge the effect of multiple workstations). 2) A rough estimate from all developers maintaining packages of how many times they have to recompile (i.e. test their ebuilds) a package before committing a new ebuild. The more data I can collect, the more accurate the Simulation will be. Thank you all in advance for your cooperation. And thank you for spending the time making a great distribution. Best regards, Andrey Falko -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] openssh sftplogging patch
* Rumi Szabolcs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-14 07:42]: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:15:46 +0100 > Wolfram Schlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In what ChangeLog, the portage package ChangeLog? > > Yeah, I also had to look at the OpenSSH ChangeLog to find out that > > SFTP logging has been added as a new feature. > > Yep, of course I meant the openssh package ChangeLog in portage > which IMHO should contain a word about why a USE flag has been > removed. Ok. Well, I don't know of any "standard procedure" to notify the user of a reason for a USE flag removal... :( > > > To me this doesn't look like as if it would have been integrated... > > > > The sftp-server(8) binary has new command line options that influence > > SFTP logging: > > > > -f log_facility > > -l log_level > > > > The sftplogging also contains functionality to control umask and permit > > chmod and chgrp, which the upstream sftp-server does not provide. > > Hmm... do I understand correctly that the sftplogging patch has not > been integrated but only a part of it's functions has been implemented > in a different way than it is in the patch? Yes. > Well, the syslog logging is useful but those settings about umask and > chmod/chgrp are essential in managing an sftp-based file repository with > multiuser access which is a great alternative to cleartext FTP access. > Using the settings the sftplogging patch provides I can set up an sftp > server in a usable and secure way which would otherwise be impossible. > > So here is a big PLEASE to keep/put back the sftplogging patch and > the use flag in the openssh ebuild! Well, the patch was called "sftplogging". umask+chmod/chgrp has absolutely *nothing* to do with "SFTP logging". I believe this code was misplaced in a patch called "sftplogging". So, I see it in a similar way as vapier does: Get the OpenSSH developers to include such functionality -OR- produce a patch that doesn't touch upstream SFTP logging but just adds umask+chmod/chgrp control features, maybe we can think about adding such a small patch as long as upstream does not provide such features. Just an idea. -- Regards, Wolfram Schlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux * http://dev.gentoo.org/~wschlich/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking
Alin Nastac wrote: Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: We (gnome) are not going to maintain gtk+-1. We would very much prefer it get removed. If some other person or group wants to maintain it, I guess it's fine with me; it will only cause Jakub and company headaches for re-assigning all the bugs that mistakenly get assigned to gnome. Note that maintaining it basically means being upstream, as there is no upstream for it. I have at least one package depending on it. Feel free to make me the maintainer of the gtk+-1. I will join you with that and whatever gnome-1 packages I need for gtk-canvas (appears to be gnome-libs, bonobo, gnome-print, oaf, gdk-pixbuf). I hope to look into porting gtk-canvas to not require gnome-libs so I then only require gtk-1, but I'm not overly optimistic on that. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking
Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > We (gnome) are not going to maintain gtk+-1. We would very much prefer > it get removed. If some other person or group wants to maintain it, I > guess it's fine with me; it will only cause Jakub and company headaches > for re-assigning all the bugs that mistakenly get assigned to gnome. > > Note that maintaining it basically means being upstream, as there is no > upstream for it. > I have at least one package depending on it. Feel free to make me the maintainer of the gtk+-1. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 22:55 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > >> > >>> Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason > >>> to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps. > >>> However I'm still waiting for the explanation why it is on that list. > >>> (I don't mind if it's masked for a good reason, but I need to know > >>> that reason). > >>> > >> There is no immediate reason, of course. However, gtk+-1 and glib-1 > >> will be removed as soon after the big cleanup as is feasible, and > >> sylpheed-clasws-1.x is a gtk+-1 app, and therefore must go as well. I > >> didn't generate the list, but my understanding was that it was intended > >> to include all packages with a hard dep on gtk+-1, in addition to gnome > >> 1.x. > >> > > > > Gtk1 actually is broken for --as-needed. It's linking is broken thanks to a > > libtool which refuses to link against a non-installed libgdk. > > > > > I think gtk+-1.2.10-r12 solved this problem. > > Hope you guys aren't seriously considering dropping gtk+1. As long as we > have packages that depend on it (packages that has nothing to do with > gnome herd/team), gtk+1 should stay in the tree. > We (gnome) are not going to maintain gtk+-1. We would very much prefer it get removed. If some other person or group wants to maintain it, I guess it's fine with me; it will only cause Jakub and company headaches for re-assigning all the bugs that mistakenly get assigned to gnome. Note that maintaining it basically means being upstream, as there is no upstream for it. Daniel signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Alon Bar-Lev (alonbl)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 06 October 2006 16:07, Christian Heim wrote: > Its my pleasure to introduce to you Alon "alonbl" Bar-Lev, the latest > addition joining to help out with the crypto herd. welcome and thanks for your help to date. - -- - -- Benjamin Smee (strerror) crypto/forensics/netmail/netmon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFLO+kAEpm7USL54wRAozRAJ4xIjN3wJX9FYboQ09Aw0ENb6ZQKACeMlDp aaV39FRUIrN7snn3N9hZu+A= =7SHO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] openssh sftplogging patch
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 01:40, Rumi Szabolcs wrote: > So here is a big PLEASE to keep/put back the sftplogging patch and > the use flag in the openssh ebuild! no, get it upgraded upstream -mike pgpU36Lk8RBk9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Anonymous CVS and SVN now available
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 02:54 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Thanks go to: kengland, robbat2, kingtaco, ramereth, and > several others for helping this to happen. Thanks to all involved!! -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
