Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:51:50 +0800 as excerpted:
> When upstream moved the udev sources to the systemd repo, they promised
> that udev would continue to be able to be used separately from systemd.
> We should hold them to that promise.
>
> If they break their promise (as it se
On 11 July 2012 03:23, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
>> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
>> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
> list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.
Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked >=181 because of
bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> Just a few more packages that I'm no longer using or for which I no
> longer have hardware or so on so forth. Yes I'm still cleaning this
> stuff up.
>
> Notes in brackets below a list.
> * indicates a dependency of the described package
> I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no
> guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all
> but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also
> about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way
> back t
> I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no
> guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all
> but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also
> about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way
> back t
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
> which wou
Michał Górny schrieb:
> Hello, all.
>
> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
> which would pull in either of those two.
>
> The
All,
the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.
I know that all versions before 133 must go because openrc has a
requirement for at least that version.
I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, bu
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 07:57:50PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:54:31 -0400
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:00 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag,
> > > and the third was uncondition
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:54:31 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:00 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag,
> > and the third was unconditional.
>
> since udev-171 seems to be going stable, why not simply drop the
> 'e
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:00 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag,
> and the third was unconditional.
since udev-171 seems to be going stable, why not simply drop the
'extras' compatibility ?
then you could just use 'gudev?' usedeps it seems
A
Il 10/07/2012 18:44, James Cloos ha scritto:
> I'm embarrased to have to say that I hadn't noticed that gentoo lacked power
> lines in its inittab(5).
They _are_ deprecated after all.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
> "DEP" == Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
DEP> To have a better support for Gentoo lxc guests, it would be nice if our
DEP> default inittab contained a line for handling SIGPWR sent to PID 1 to
DEP> shut the system down.
I'm embarrased to have to say that I hadn't noticed that gentoo lacked powe
Hello, all.
Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
which would pull in either of those two.
There are three USE flags used in conditi
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 10 July 2012 11:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> You keep saying that, but do you have any actual data to back up
>> that claim? There is no doubt that Chromium is a mainstream and
>> p
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 10 July 2012 11:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> You keep saying that, but do you have any actual data to back up
> that claim? There is no doubt that Chromium is a mainstream and
> popular package, but I doubt if it is quite *that* popular as
On 10 July 2012 11:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Yup, this issue hit anybody who has qt-webkit and chromium installed.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if that is half of the entire userbase.
I would be.
> We ran into another confusing icu-related issue with qt-core a few
> weeks ago (bug 413541). I can
On 10 July 2012 09:41, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 06:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> So, seems like there is still room for improvement...
>
> Aside from the obvious need to improve the portage behavior, we might
> also want to consider enabling USE=icu by default in the profile.
Enabling ic
19 matches
Mail list logo
