[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs due lack of time

2013-02-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:42:11 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > I would justify it through keeping things split and bit-exact clean, > instead of tightly integrated. > > Separate ebuilds mean that: > > - each firmware has proper license, > > - each firmware can be installed separately and it is _clea

[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs due lack of time

2013-02-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:40:10 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Peter Stuge schrieb: > > linux-firmware is okey but not great. The high resolution is there, which > > was my main concern, but > it's not so easy to know how to create a savedconfig without installing > the package. > > Ju

[gentoo-dev] Re: The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Duncan
Markos Chandras posted on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:36:53 + as excerpted: > On 02/17/2013 09:30 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: >> On Sunday 17 February 2013 13:14:28 Alec Warner wrote: >>> It is not clear to me why you would email the -dev list about these >>> arches, vapier is pretty responsive over e

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds for nodejs apps - HOWTO?

2013-02-17 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 18/02/2013 00:46, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > rethinkdb is a young project and its build system is a 1.5k lines > makefile horror. I wouldn't reintroduce stuff that isn't used in tree > just for this. I, at least, am not interested in moving this to the > tree. I just added it to my overlay f

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2013-02-17 23h59 UTC

2013-02-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2013-02-17 23h59 UTC. Removals: media-tv/ivtv-firmware 2013-02-11 05:02:06 cardoe net-wireless/zd1201-firmware2013-02-11 14:15:51 ssuomine

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Qt category move

2013-02-17 Thread Davide Pesavento
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 17/02/2013 23:04, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> > >> We will use qt* instead of qt-*[1] to match the way upstream names the >> modules. So that would be dev-qt/qtcore etc > > Thanks, and thanks for the link, as I wouldn't have known how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds for nodejs apps - HOWTO?

2013-02-17 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le lundi 18 février 2013 à 00:42 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò a écrit : > On 18/02/2013 00:39, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > I have package some nodejs stuff related to rethinkdb in my overlay if > > you want to have a look. Namely lessc and coffee-script. There is close > > to no packaging (let al

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds for nodejs apps - HOWTO?

2013-02-17 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 18/02/2013 00:39, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > I have package some nodejs stuff related to rethinkdb in my overlay if > you want to have a look. Namely lessc and coffee-script. There is close > to no packaging (let alone decent) with nodejs apps but if you are > motivated enough, maybe there i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds for nodejs apps - HOWTO?

2013-02-17 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le dimanche 17 février 2013 à 21:08 +0200, Leho Kraav a écrit : > Hi all > > > I'm taking a look at etherpad-lite ebuild at > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=328897 > > It's a pretty big of a mess, but as I'm searching around, I can't really > find any guidelines on how nodejs / npm st

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 02/17/2013 11:03 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we ha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Qt category move

2013-02-17 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 17/02/2013 23:04, Markos Chandras wrote: >> > > We will use qt* instead of qt-*[1] to match the way upstream names the > modules. So that would be dev-qt/qtcore etc Thanks, and thanks for the link, as I wouldn't have known how to rename the deps myself otherwise... -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Fl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Qt category move

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 09:35 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 16/02/2013 13:08, Ben de Groot wrote: >> Questions can be directed to our IRC channel #gentoo-qt or email >> q...@gentoo.org > > So what's the final word on the move? dev-qt/core or dev-qt/qt-co

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 09:30 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > On Sunday 17 February 2013 13:14:28 Alec Warner wrote: >> It is not clear to me why you would email the -dev list about >> these arches, vapier is pretty responsive over email and irc. > > I don't gu

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 08:40 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > On Sunday 17 February 2013 20:22:00 Markos Chandras wrote: >> I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. > > I point out that there is not iso, no manual, no manpower. No manual does not mean

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Qt category move

2013-02-17 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 16/02/2013 13:08, Ben de Groot wrote: > Questions can be directed to our IRC channel #gentoo-qt or email > q...@gentoo.org So what's the final word on the move? dev-qt/core or dev-qt/qt-core ? -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.a

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 13:14:28 Alec Warner wrote: > It is not > clear to me why you would email the -dev list about these arches, > vapier is pretty responsive over email and irc. I don't guess is a good idea have a private conversation and then drop an arch... -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: >> First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered >> 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in >> my opinion, the ideal approach w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds for nodejs apps - HOWTO?

2013-02-17 Thread Peter Stuge
Leho Kraav wrote: > I'm taking a look at etherpad-lite ebuild at > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=328897 > > It's a pretty big of a mess, but as I'm searching around, I can't really > find any guidelines on how nodejs / npm stuff is supposed fit in with > Portage. dev-nodejs/ doesn't ev

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 20:22:00 Markos Chandras wrote: > I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. I point out that there is not iso, no manual, no manpower. > No project page does not mean the arch is minor or dead or whatever. For me this means that there is no enough support. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 07:43 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: >> First you need to tell us what arches you think they are >> considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document >> that. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: > First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered > 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in > my opinion, the ideal approach would be to just drop the stable > keywords for them. http://www

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 04:03 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I > have no interest) because they appears understaffed. > > Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since > th

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Joking aside, I can imagine architectures where it's preferable to set up a > stage directly from a running maintenance system (maybs s390???). Also, none > of my arm gadgets comes with a CD drive, so I had to e.g. prepare the stage on

[gentoo-dev] Ebuilds for nodejs apps - HOWTO?

2013-02-17 Thread Leho Kraav
Hi all I'm taking a look at etherpad-lite ebuild at https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=328897 It's a pretty big of a mess, but as I'm searching around, I can't really find any guidelines on how nodejs / npm stuff is supposed fit in with Portage. dev-nodejs/ doesn't even exist. Is thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Sonntag, 17. Februar 2013, 17:03:43 schrieb Agostino Sarubbo: > In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no > interest) because they appears understaffed. > > Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- > machine[1] is a bit slow;

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time

2013-02-17 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Peter Stuge schrieb: > linux-firmware is okey but not great. The high resolution is there, which was > my main concern, but it's not so easy to know how to create a savedconfig without installing the package. Just create a text file /etc/portage/savedconfig/sys-kernel/linux-firmware with the desi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time

2013-02-17 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb: > On 16/02/2013 14:08, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> sys-firmware/iwl3945-ucode >> sys-firmware/iwl4965-ucode > > Are these included in linux-firmware (i.e. could we just remove them) or > not? These are included in linux-firmware. And because Intel has EOL'ed the chipsets, it

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

2013-02-17 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb: > What is everyone's opinion of adding a USE=firmware option to pull in > PDEPEND="linux-firmware" in linux-2.eclass? No, USE flags that trigger only dependencies and do not change the package should be restricted to virtuals or metapackages, with as few exception

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

2013-02-17 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Maxim Kammerer schrieb: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > wrote: Kernel sources providing /lib/firmware itself shouldn't be a problem either, as that's just a dir, which many packages may own. The individual firmware files would be a problem, but the USE

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

2013-02-17 Thread Maxim Kammerer
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > 1.) No new firmware is being added to the linux kernel anymore, so this > doesn't apply at all. Of course it applies — interaction of "make modules_install" with emerging linux-firmware can result in collisions. And before you wri

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > Now, imho, we have 2 choice: > > 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook > 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. We also have another choice if there is so little interest

[gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we have no ISO[2] available and there is no handbook[

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time

2013-02-17 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:09:22 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 17/02/13 12:05, Michał Górny wrote: > > savedconfig is a cheap hack. It lacks all the features USE flags have. > > Really. We're talking here about replacing well-organized packages with > > one cheap hack for the laziness of a few de

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

2013-02-17 Thread Pacho Ramos
Regarding licensing issues, maybe we could take fedora package as reference for clarifying firmware licenses and so: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/linux-firmware.git/tree/linux-firmware.spec signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time

2013-02-17 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 17/02/13 12:05, Michał Górny wrote: savedconfig is a cheap hack. It lacks all the features USE flags have. Really. We're talking here about replacing well-organized packages with one cheap hack for the laziness of a few developers. But that's how Gentoo worked for a long time. This is how yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time

2013-02-17 Thread Michał Górny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:06:19 -0500 "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/16/2013 10:11 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Can we please stop removing individual firmware packages until > > sys-k

[gentoo-dev] linux-firmware (was: Re: Packages up for grabs due lack of time)

2013-02-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Rick \"Zero Chaos\" Farina wrote: > I would be very happy to have the licensing issues fixed, it looks > like it won't be fun, however I was originally told that redist was > a required right for things to be added to linux-firmware at all so > I fear a lot of things may