[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-gfx/graphviz: ChangeLog

2012-06-19 Thread Naohiro Aota
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org writes: On 06/17/2012 10:12 AM, Naohiro Aota (naota) wrote: naota 12/06/17 07:12:19 Modified: ChangeLog Log: Add ~x86-fbsd. #419621 (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha110/cvs/Linux x86_64) Revision ChangesPath 1.261

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-gfx/graphviz: ChangeLog

2012-06-19 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/19/2012 10:10 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote: Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org writes: On 06/17/2012 10:12 AM, Naohiro Aota (naota) wrote: naota 12/06/17 07:12:19 Modified: ChangeLog Log: Add ~x86-fbsd. #419621 (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha110/cvs/Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Dynamic SLOTs

2012-06-19 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:42:55 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: Bleh; wish your attachment had been text/plain for inline commenting; pardon any mangling... Sorry, forgot to change the type before sending. 3. Defining dynamic SLOT groups ---

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

2012-06-19 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:04:48 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:31:59PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: 4. flags listed in ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` may be referred through USE dependencies by other packages' ``DEPEND``, ``RDEPEND`` and ``PDEPEND``

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

2012-06-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:43:47 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: - being package-oriented rather than feature-oriented, No; use flags are our configuration space, and they turn on/off sections of the given pkgs graph. Your proposal relies on the same concept; bluntly, what

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Dynamic SLOTs

2012-06-19 Thread Luca Barbato
On 06/17/2012 05:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote: But Python doesn't have one. Bindings built using other languages don't have that either. That seems something interesting to tackle with the python community. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

2012-06-19 Thread hasufell
On 06/17/2012 10:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form. Both attached and published as a gist: https://gist.github.com/2945569 (please note that github doesn't render GLEP headers correctly) This looks very nice, imo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

2012-06-19 Thread hasufell
On 06/17/2012 10:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form. Both attached and published as a gist: https://gist.github.com/2945569 (please note that github doesn't render GLEP headers correctly) As already stated I like this idea,

Re: [gentoo-dev] spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Luca Barbato
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/16/2012 12:31 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: Since i am not that sure about my ability to write formal specs, i am presenting my first draft for further review and suggestions for improvement. Currently I'm experimenting with evil hack with

Re: [gentoo-dev] spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Thomas Sachau
Luca Barbato schrieb: On 06/16/2012 12:31 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: Since i am not that sure about my ability to write formal specs, i am presenting my first draft for further review and suggestions for improvement. Currently I'm experimenting with evil hack with qemu-static (hopefully that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Thomas Sachau
Thomas Sachau schrieb: Duncan schrieb: Thomas Sachau posted on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:31:40 +0200 as excerpted: Since i am not that sure about my ability to write formal specs, i am presenting my first draft for further review and suggestions for improvement. Just a format suggestion. Call

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council agenda for EAPI-5 addition. Got a diff for PMS? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Thomas Sachau
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council agenda for EAPI-5 addition. Got a diff for PMS? Last time

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:54:07 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok with this, so i will propose to add this to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote: Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok with this, so i will propose to add this to the next

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)

2012-06-19 Thread Thomas Sachau
Brian Harring schrieb: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote: Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok with this, so i will propose to add

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately

[gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot

2012-06-19 Thread Richard Yao
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the firmware, Secure Boot issues disappear. With that in mind, I believe we can solve the Secure Boot problem

Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot

2012-06-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but their development process is slow and their approach seems to make the boot process more complicated than it needs to be. Since Secure Boot will force us to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot

2012-06-19 Thread Richard Yao
On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but their development process is slow and their approach seems to make the boot process more complicated than it needs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot

2012-06-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: Core Boot is a Linux distribution. I do not think that we should boot Gentoo using their distribution any more than we boot Gentoo using RHEL. Well, maybe it is a distro in the sense

Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot

2012-06-19 Thread Richard Yao
On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: In theory, the kernel could be modified to only execute signed binaries and portage could be modified to produce signed binaries. The user could build a system that required everything to be signed with the private key of his choice. A hardened

Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot

2012-06-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: We would gain a faster boot process. We would also enable people to avoid paying money for keys that can be revoked without a refund. While I have no doubt that a determined team

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into pkg_setup that

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 17:35:00 Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to call the respective src_* func

Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot

2012-06-19 Thread Peter Stuge
Hi, I have about 11 years of experience with coreboot. I got involved while developing a custom BIOS for an embedded system. You may already have caught some presentation I or one of the other developers have made about the project. There's a bunch of links over at

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: i've noticed a growing trend where people

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Doug Goldstein
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote: On

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tuesday 19 June 2012 17:35:00 Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into pkg_setup that only matter to src_*

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

2012-06-19 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/20/2012 06:46 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 15 June