Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper installation path for efi binaries (.efi)
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Martin Pluskal wrote: > I am thinking about creating ebuild for shim. I was wondering if there > is any policy or suggestion where to place .efi binaries or how to > handle them in gentoo - it seems that there is none so perhaps there > should be agreed on what best practice is (install directly into > /boot/efi or install else and let user manually copy .efi to /boot/efi > or something completely different (eselect efi ...)). I think that you will most certainly need to separate installation and configuration (e.g., with a "shim-install" script or similar), because configuration depends on the environment. For instance, with removable media you will need to: 1. Drop shim.efi and MokManager.efi into [/boot/]EFI/BOOT. 2. Rename BOOTx64.EFI to grubx64.efi, and then rename shim.efi to BOOTx64.EFI. (Copied from http://dee.su/liberte-install — this has been tested with OVMF and real Secure Boot hardware.) -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Stefan Ehret wrote: > > * * > * PLEACE SAFE THE SOURCE * > * * > > > Annnd banned. -A
[gentoo-dev] SRC
* * * PLEACE SAFE THE SOURCE * * *
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:41:04 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Thursday 07 of February 2013 06:52:44 Peter Stuge wrote: > > > Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > > we as gentoo will provide both while preffered default will be > > > what major distros use. > > > > What kind of careless mainstream attitude is that? Really? > > Quite the opposite, decision to use implementation A over B was taken > with utmost care for user in mind. Not really. I was promised a discussion that hasn't happened yet. [...] > > > If you disagree with that and you don't want your lead to make > > > that decision > > Hm? Where can I learn more about the "lead" ? So it is a single > > person's decision, and not "we as gentoo" that decides? I'd like to > > understand how this decision making process actually works. Does > > anyone know? > > It depends - in distro-wide, package-tree-wide matters we have Gentoo > Council. In local matters like this - who does the job decides. Tomáš > does the job - he decides. Everyone can do the job to switch defaults :) A.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild
On Thursday 07 of February 2013 06:52:44 Peter Stuge wrote: > Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > we as gentoo will provide both while preffered default will be what > > major distros use. > > What kind of careless mainstream attitude is that? Really? Quite the opposite, decision to use implementation A over B was taken with utmost care for user in mind. > I mean: You are saying that given two options, Gentoo will do > whatever "major distros" are doing. > > (Never mind that Gentoo *is* a major distro, and whatever Gentoo does > generates collective bias just like whatever any other distro does.) We are not, let's not go too far, please. > Oops, I forgot - that would mean actually having to *get informed* first. > > "We as gentoo" must certainly avoid getting informed at all > cost111oneone > > Are you *really* quite serious? Please explain yourself. > > > If you disagree with that and you don't want your lead to make that > > decision > Hm? Where can I learn more about the "lead" ? So it is a single > person's decision, and not "we as gentoo" that decides? I'd like to > understand how this decision making process actually works. Does > anyone know? It depends - in distro-wide, package-tree-wide matters we have Gentoo Council. In local matters like this - who does the job decides. Tomáš does the job - he decides. > > which you and I both don't want. > > Guess what - I have been on the receiving end of the arguably > insanely lame mainstream attitude that you support, and honestly > > it fucking broke my heart > that people working on Linux distributions (it wasn't just Gentoo, > it was *every* distro) would be so genuinely uninterested in what > happens upstream, especially at a time where a downstream decision > may carry a bit of extra weight. > > I do not want that. > > (Around the time this happened to me I wrote roughly the same in a > private email to developers of another distribution which shall > remain unnamed. I found that email in a pastebin a few days later.) > > > It is long since clear to me that I have much too high expectations > on people. > > But are you *REALLY* not able to do *any* better than "default will > be what major distros use" ? > > Seriously? Seriously you should take a deep breath, walk a dog maybe :) regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] How to publish an overlay
Rich Freeman wrote: > any tag in Github can be downloaded as a tarball with a constant md5 Note that gitweb also offers snapshot links. Many upstream gitwebs have that feature enabled, saving even the work of mirroring to github. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/02/13 01:14 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò : >> On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> >>> Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask? >> >> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if >> the newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one. >> > That should be probably the best approach, to actually kill of the > lone ones and keep the linux-firmware only. > > Tom > There aren't cases where a user with older hardware would want to have access to the older (lone) firmwares, is there? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlEVQMkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAqVwD/S9mjN2lGoQbffIRZqraAg5SI NxsksQcjwS0EgtTQ2MYBAKeCzrLhtXRpQSn6i2fXlDLFk3W1Qa/RhiPQmWfU3iCw =SPkG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory
El vie, 08-02-2013 a las 19:01 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió: > On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > > Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask? > > I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the > newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one. > Would prefer this option for maintainer-needed firmwares and fix the rest if possible signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò : > On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> >> Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask? > > I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the > newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one. > That should be probably the best approach, to actually kill of the lone ones and keep the linux-firmware only. Tom
Re: [gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory
On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask? I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
[gentoo-dev] Half of the firmware packages in tree install to wrong directory
Any objections if I slap a generic package.mask on every firmware package installing to wrong directory? Half of them install to /$(get_libdir)/firmware as opposed to correct /lib/firmware. Most of them are maintainer-needed@ and very old. Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask? - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] !!! ERROR !!!
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 8 February 2013 09:38, Peter Stuge wrote: >>> !!! ERROR !!! SYSTEM ERROR !!! SYSTEM FAIL !!! >>> >>> >>> >>> Yikes. I didn't touch anything, honest! >>> >> >>> >> lets hope infra will ban him from the list >>> > >>> > What's with all the leniency? I thought we used the death penalty on >>> > the first offense? >>> >>> Oh I am sorry. I didn't realize you like spammers on this list. >> >> I think the first quoted line in this email is by far the least >> spammy. The second quoted line (with words) is also good. The rest >> is about something completely different; some nonsense boring mailing >> list policy. >> >> Live a little. Send a funny email to a list once. >> >> >> //Peter >> > > I think you are on the wrong list then. unsubscribe. > > -- > Regards, > Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer > http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang >
Re: [gentoo-dev] How to publish an overlay
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Kfir Lavi wrote: > How people serve binaries (tar.gz source files) to complement the > repository? > Github doesn't seem to have a way to have a binary repository and serve > single files. > Heroku maybe? Single files - not sure (maybe a raw URL?). However, any tag in Github can be downloaded as a tarball with a constant md5. I often use this feature when I have to have a SRC_URI for an upstream that doesn't provide tarballs. I just mirror them in Github and point to the mirror (the alternative is a masked scm ebuild, or a lot of manual tarball manipulation and hosting on dev.g.o). Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Rename Creative Commons license files?
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 8 February 2013 00:31, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> So, while in general I'm against renaming of licenses (e.g., >>> it would be pointless to rename our GPL-2 to GPL-2.0 in order >>> to conform to the SPDX list), I think that in this case we should >>> get rid of these long names which unnecessarily clutter the output >>> of various tools. >> >> ask for forgiveness, not permission ;) > Yes please! Done. @all: Please check if any ebuilds in your overlays must be updated to the new names. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] How to publish an overlay
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 09:03 +0200, Kfir Lavi wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm the author of bashlibs - general library framework and libraries > > for bash programing. > > I have created new overlay for bash libraries. > > https://github.com/kfirlavi/bashlibs/tree/master/gentoo/portage > > > > How do I publish it via layman or eix-remote? > > > > Regards, > > Kfir > > > > > Generally file a bug in bugzilla asking the overlay team to add it. > > Please supply all the info needed for creating the xml to add. You > could also pre-fill out the xml definition and attach it. Don't forget > to include all urls available, github can do git and http protocols. > > How people serve binaries (tar.gz source files) to complement the repository? Github doesn't seem to have a way to have a binary repository and serve single files. Heroku maybe? Thanks, Kfir > See the layman's man page for instructions on creating an xml defintion. > > http://layman.sourceforge.net/#_overlay_list_format > > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Rename Creative Commons license files?
On 8 February 2013 00:31, Alec Warner wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> I always wondered why we are using such bulky names like >> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 for the Creative Commons licenses, >> instead of CC-BY-SA-2.5 like everyone else. The latter also used by >> our documentation pages and is the name in the SPDX license list [1], >> >> So, while in general I'm against renaming of licenses (e.g., it would >> be pointless to rename our GPL-2 to GPL-2.0 in order to conform to the >> SPDX list), I think that in this case we should get rid of these long >> names which unnecessarily clutter the output of various tools. > > ask for forgiveness, not permission ;) > > -A > >> >> The plan would be as follows: >> >> CC0-1.0-Universal -> CC0-1.0 >> CCPL-Attribution-2.0 -> CC-BY-2.0 >> CCPL-Attribution-2.5 -> CC-BY-2.5 >> CCPL-Attribution-3.0 -> CC-BY-3.0 >> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-ND-2.5 >> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 -> CC-BY-ND-3.0 >> CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.0 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 >> CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 >> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 -> CC-BY-SA-2.0 >> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 -> CC-BY-SA-2.5 >> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0 -> CC-BY-SA-3.0 >> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 >> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-3.0 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 >> CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0-> CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 >> CCPL-ShareAlike-1.0 -> CC-SA-1.0 >> >> In total, about 100 packages are affected. so it's a minor effort. >> >> Ulrich >> >> [1] http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ >> > Yes please! -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: [gentoo-dev] !!! ERROR !!!
On 8 February 2013 09:38, Peter Stuge wrote: >> !!! ERROR !!! SYSTEM ERROR !!! SYSTEM FAIL !!! >> >>> >> >>> Yikes. I didn't touch anything, honest! >> >> >> >> lets hope infra will ban him from the list >> > >> > What's with all the leniency? I thought we used the death penalty on >> > the first offense? >> >> Oh I am sorry. I didn't realize you like spammers on this list. > > I think the first quoted line in this email is by far the least > spammy. The second quoted line (with words) is also good. The rest > is about something completely different; some nonsense boring mailing > list policy. > > Live a little. Send a funny email to a list once. > > > //Peter > I think you are on the wrong list then. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] !!! ERROR !!!
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Live a little. Send a funny email to a list once. aight boss
Re: [gentoo-dev] !!! ERROR !!!
> !!! ERROR !!! SYSTEM ERROR !!! SYSTEM FAIL !!! > >>> > >>> Yikes. I didn't touch anything, honest! > >> > >> lets hope infra will ban him from the list > > > > What's with all the leniency? I thought we used the death penalty on > > the first offense? > > Oh I am sorry. I didn't realize you like spammers on this list. I think the first quoted line in this email is by far the least spammy. The second quoted line (with words) is also good. The rest is about something completely different; some nonsense boring mailing list policy. Live a little. Send a funny email to a list once. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] !!! ERROR !!!
On 8 February 2013 02:27, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 02/07/2013 05:00 PM, Ian Whyman wrote: !!! ERROR !!! SYSTEM ERROR !!! SYSTEM FAIL !!! >>> >>> Yikes. I didn't touch anything, honest! >>> >> >> lets hope infra will ban him from the list > > What's with all the leniency? I thought we used the death penalty on > the first offense? > > Rich > Oh I am sorry. I didn't realize you like spammers on this list. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
