Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Michael Weber
On 02/13/2013 12:28 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12:35AM +0100, Michael Weber wrote: >> On 02/12/2013 10:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> If you have any questions on this, please feel free to let us >>> know. >> What is the rotation strategy for (near) outdated keys? >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:07:33 -0800 Alec Warner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Jeroen Roovers > wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:47:34 +0100 > > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > > >> It would help if repoman noticed when you have FEATURES=-sign. :-\ > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Alec Warner
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:47:34 +0100 > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > >> It would help if repoman noticed when you have FEATURES=-sign. :-\ > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=457034 We can do the opposite, and just complain if we see unsig

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:47:34 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > It would help if repoman noticed when you have FEATURES=-sign. :-\ https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=457034 jer

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:14:15 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > as preparation for the up-coming cvs->git migration of the portage > tree, the council is strongly suggesting that from this point forward > all developers sign their manifests with their gpg key as described > in the developer's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12:35AM +0100, Michael Weber wrote: > On 02/12/2013 10:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > If you have any questions on this, please feel free to let us > > know. > What is the rotation strategy for (near) outdated keys? > Alter the key or create a new one? Sign the new with

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Michael Weber
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/12/2013 10:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > If you have any questions on this, please feel free to let us > know. What is the rotation strategy for (near) outdated keys? Alter the key or create a new one? Sign the new with the old one? IMHO the a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Michael Weber
On 02/12/2013 09:43 PM, Duncan wrote: > Christopher Head posted on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:39:57 -0800 as excerpted: > >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:49:03 -0800 Alec Warner >> wrote: >> >>> Most external firmware is not needed to boot. If you need it to boot, >>> you will have to stow it in the initramfs

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] please sign your manifests

2013-02-12 Thread Michael Weber
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/12/2013 10:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > as preparation for the up-coming cvs->git migration of the portage > tree, the council is strongly suggesting that from this point > forward all developers sign their manifests with their gpg key as > de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Christopher Head
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:51:15 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Christopher Head posted on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:38:14 -0800 as > excerpted: > > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:02 +0100 Dirkjan Ochtman > > wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Fabio Erculiani > >> wrote: >

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Duncan
Christopher Head posted on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:38:14 -0800 as excerpted: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:02 +0100 Dirkjan Ochtman > wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Fabio Erculiani >> wrote: >> >> +1 from me; I've had a few machines break on kernel upgrades because >> >> I didn't have t

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Duncan
Christopher Head posted on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:39:57 -0800 as excerpted: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:49:03 -0800 Alec Warner > wrote: > >> Most external firmware is not needed to boot. If you need it to boot, >> you will have to stow it in the initramfs. > > For those of us who prefer monolithic k

Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Fabio Erculiani
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mar, 12-02-2013 a las 19:43 +, Fabio Erculiani escribió: >> I am starting to believe that this is yet another good reason for >> having official ebuilds building binaries off gentoo-sources through >> genkernel. Pretty much the same I do

Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mar, 12-02-2013 a las 19:43 +, Fabio Erculiani escribió: > I am starting to believe that this is yet another good reason for > having official ebuilds building binaries off gentoo-sources through > genkernel. Pretty much the same I do in Sabayon since 2007. > I think shouldn't have any pro

Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Fabio Erculiani
I am starting to believe that this is yet another good reason for having official ebuilds building binaries off gentoo-sources through genkernel. Pretty much the same I do in Sabayon since 2007. -- Fabio Erculiani

Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Christopher Head
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:49:03 -0800 Alec Warner wrote: > Most external firmware is not needed to boot. If you need it to boot, > you will have to stow it in the initramfs. For those of us who prefer monolithic kernels, virtually all firmware is needed to boot. Even if a network interface doesn't

Re: RFC: install linux-firmware with kernel sources (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: Firmware cleanup, part #1)

2013-02-12 Thread Christopher Head
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:02 +0100 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Fabio Erculiani > wrote: > >> +1 from me; I've had a few machines break on kernel upgrades > >> because I didn't have the proper firmware installed (I guess older > >> kernel sources came with the firmwa

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/PATCH] A cleaner API for virtualx.eclass

2013-02-12 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 2/11/13 11:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > My patches introduce a single wrapper with argv-as-parameter syntax. > That is, the fore-mentioned example would look like: > > virtualx run_tests --foo Maybe we can just adapt Ubuntu's (I think) xvfb-run? More standardization == profit. Thank you

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-12 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:16:22 +0100 Luca Barbato wrote: > On 12/02/13 08:21, Ian Whyman wrote: > > Guys, > > > > Can we not just have a developer wide vote or something? This > > instance clearly not going to resole itself. > > It is a little bikeshed. Originally the virtual was ordered in a >

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: package.mask

2013-02-12 Thread Markos Chandras
On 12 February 2013 12:45, Ian Delaney (idella4) wrote: > idella4 13/02/12 12:45:55 > > Modified: package.mask > Log: > xen-tools-4.2.1-r2.ebuild masked due to need for further refinement, adding > to virtualizarion overlay > > Revision ChangesPath > 1.14465

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Ian Whyman wrote: > > Can we not just have a developer wide vote or something? This instance > clearly not going to resole itself. I don't think the average developer is really in a good position to resolve this - it will just create a whole lot of fuss and who kn

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

2013-02-12 Thread Luca Barbato
On 12/02/13 08:21, Ian Whyman wrote: > Guys, > > Can we not just have a developer wide vote or something? This > instance clearly not going to resole itself. It is a little bikeshed. Originally the virtual was ordered in a way, then ordered in another and now we are discussing which one is bette