Re: [gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker

2012-04-11 Thread Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 14:53 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Maybe we should create a new mailing list, say, > > gentoo-usr-discuss...@lists.gentoo.org. > > Just to clarify, you are trolling right? s/trolling/joking/ It's is not the first tim

Re: [gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker

2012-04-11 Thread Alec Warner
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:53:45 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> All, >> >> here is what I see on the current udev situation: >> >> The council has made a decision that we will continue supporting >> split out /usr. >> >> This, however, was ne

Re: [gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker

2012-04-11 Thread Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 14:53 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > Does this answer any fears about trying to force an untimely > stabilization? It certainly helps me sleep at night, yes. Any... inconveniences forced on me have to be fixed over 40 times. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This

Re: [gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker

2012-04-11 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:58:47PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Maybe we should create a new mailing list, say, > gentoo-usr-discuss...@lists.gentoo.org. No. I'm on enough mailing lists as is. :-) William pgpG9pgrCd8Qa.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker

2012-04-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > To allay any fears of that happening, I have opened a tracker [1] for > issues which need to be resolved before newer udevs can go stable. > Probably wouldn't hurt for the initramfs maintainers to open a stablization tracking bug for whateve

Re: [gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker

2012-04-11 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:53:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > here is what I see on the current udev situation: > > The council has made a decision that we will continue supporting > split out /usr. > > This, however, was never in question. No one is planning to drop > support for separa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-04-11 Thread Zac Medico
On 04/11/2012 07:13 AM, Steven J Long wrote: Zac Medico wrote: On 04/10/2012 07:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote: I suppose you could script that, but again, it just seems like a lot of bother to implement an "alternative" that doesn't actually gain anything over the traditional setup (plus making s

[gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker

2012-04-11 Thread William Hubbs
All, here is what I see on the current udev situation: The council has made a decision that we will continue supporting split out /usr. This, however, was never in question. No one is planning to drop support for separate /usr. Also, no one is planning on trying to force stabilize udev-182 with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-04-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Steven J Long wrote: > That might be true for some Linux-only packages, but I really find it hard > to believe that any upstream targetting more than one OS (just adding a BSD > is enough) with software that could be considered critical (I for one would > include

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-04-11 Thread Steven J Long
William Hubbs wrote: > Another issue to consider is binaries that want to access things in > /usr/share/*. If a binary in /{bin,sbin} needs to access something in > /usr/share/*, you have two choices. move the binary to /usr or move the > thing it wants to access to / somewhere which would involve

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-04-11 Thread Steven J Long
Zac Medico wrote: > On 04/10/2012 07:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote: >> I suppose you could script that, but again, it just seems like a lot of >> bother to implement an "alternative" that doesn't actually gain anything >> over the traditional setup (plus making sure that partitions are mounted >> bef

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-04-11 Thread Steven J Long
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven J Long > wrote: >> As for the burden of ensuring that binaries installed to /{s,}bin don't >> link to libs in /usr, why not just automate a QA check for that, and let >> developers decide whether a fix is necessary? After all, core pa

Re: [gentoo-dev] thirdpartymirrors URL for bitbucket

2012-04-11 Thread Corentin Chary
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello all, > > Similarly to github, bitbucket does enforce SSL by default, and > downloads are redirected to another, non-https URI. Thus, I'd like to > add the following thirdpartymirrors entry: > > bitbucket       http://cdn.bitbucket.org >

Re: [gentoo-dev] pybugz call for testers

2012-04-11 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 4/10/12 11:17 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:45:14PM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> On 4/10/12 7:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> I can name a couple of issues that are api limitations that we can't do >>> anything about: >>> - you can't search on cc: or keywords fiel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-04-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote: > As for the burden of ensuring that binaries installed to /{s,}bin don't link > to libs in /usr, why not just automate a QA check for that, and let > developers decide whether a fix is necessary? After all, core packages that > do that even w

[gentoo-dev] thirdpartymirrors URL for bitbucket

2012-04-11 Thread Michał Górny
Hello all, Similarly to github, bitbucket does enforce SSL by default, and downloads are redirected to another, non-https URI. Thus, I'd like to add the following thirdpartymirrors entry: bitbucket http://cdn.bitbucket.org The path part of URI is consistent with the usual https://bitbucket

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

2012-04-11 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 04/11/2012 09:12 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:21:20 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: OK, looks like I misunderstood how wxwidgets work and most opinions point to enable wxwidgets by default in gnome profiles, ok with that solution? As I mentioned in the bug I'd like it default for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

2012-04-11 Thread Ralph Sennhauser
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:45:04 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:04:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > New udev and separate /usr partition > > > > > > Decide on whether a se