On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 19:57 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Also, please note that we're being specifically talking about things
that are not 'deprecated' but 'removed'. We mark implementations
'deprecated' while still supporting them, 'removed' goes after we drop
the support.
This is also true
On 08/09/2013 02:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Just a quick one.
Currently, the two listed variables are set in make.globals (installed
by portage ebuild);
COLLISION_IGNORE=/lib/modules/* *.py[co] *\$py.class
UNINSTALL_IGNORE=/lib/modules/*
COLLISION_IGNORE specifies files that
On 10/08/13 07:03, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:27:23AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote
What makes this situation so difficult is that it's not a single
random package, but one of the bigger desktop environments that
has painted itself into a corner. (Plus an uncooperative
On 08/10/2013 12:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Are we sure that this thing really belongs in the profile, rather than
something that's defined in ebuilds? Or maybe we should have both?
Well, AFAICS we have three cases:
1. kernel modules that all are installed to a common location
and
Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 11:32:12
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hello,
Just a quick one.
Currently, the two listed variables are set in make.globals (installed
by portage ebuild);
COLLISION_IGNORE=/lib/modules/* *.py[co] *\$py.class
UNINSTALL_IGNORE=/lib/modules/*
I've
Dnia 2013-08-10, o godz. 01:14:52
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 08/10/2013 12:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Are we sure that this thing really belongs in the profile, rather than
something that's defined in ebuilds? Or maybe we should have both?
Well, AFAICS we have three
On 08/09/2013 07:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone
remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from
that?)
That's a very selective
On 08/09/2013 07:45 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:39:08 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
You just removed the upgrade path for users.
The
On 08/09/2013 08:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
You just removed the upgrade path for users.
Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative.
Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo
On 08/09/2013 11:12 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:50:24 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can
this a good service for users?
Just like we can't ensure that everything builds with LLVM doesn't mean
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration,
well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing
and sends the wrong signal.
There is no one official supported configuration
On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than
openrc (baselayout).
Was there the decision to only support a single layout on Gentoo? Where?
You kids
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration,
well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing
and sends
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation they
were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported
configuration.
Since when was installing half the packages on your system a supported
Matt Turner schrieb:
I think this is doable, and I think I have a good reason for wanting
to be able to do it.
I have no idea why Tommy[D] or AxS want to do it. I've never discussed
my plans with them.
The main reason seems indeed being able to build 32 bit software where a 32
bit toolchain
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:50:49 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/09/2013 07:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone
remembering the KDE
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:12:42 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org
wrote:
not must, but if I choose to run the official supported
configuration,
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
Using systemd doesn't imply removing openrc ...
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/10/2013 01:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
Using systemd doesn't imply removing openrc ...
Running systemd as PID=1 does
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:03:10 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than
openrc (baselayout).
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:55:03 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation
they were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported
configuration.
Support for it is given all over the place; like for instance in
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Support for it is given all over the place; like for instance in #gentoo
and #gentoo-desktop on the FreeNode IRC network, on the Gentoo Forums,
on the gentoo-user ML as well as for bugs on the Bugzilla bug tracker.
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/08/13 11:28 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
...so, allowing for the ability of 32bit userland with 64bit
toolchain (via, say, setting ABI_X86=32 in make.conf) using
the
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 01:51:13PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/10/2013 01:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
Using
On 08/10/2013 02:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-08-10, o godz. 01:14:52
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 08/10/2013 12:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Are we sure that this thing really belongs in the profile, rather than
something that's defined in ebuilds? Or maybe we should
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:09 -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:13 +0200, Alex Legler wrote:
The overlays configuration file repositories.xml is the first file that
is now being served via api.gentoo.org.
New public URL: https://api.gentoo.org/overlays/repositories.xml
Rich Freeman wrote:
In general I'd avoid any requirement to use a non-base profile.
Obviously using the right arch/prefix profile makes sense as those are
fundamental config changes and they're all minimalist profiles anyway.
The issues come when you force users to use non-minimalist profiles
Tom Wijsman wrote:
Let's say that I were to develop a system with some other Gentoo devs;
that doesn't mean we are able to make everything in the tree support
that system, making it an usable tool for everything is unrealistic
This isn't just any tool though: it's the core init-system. Your
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:34:58 +0100
Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
Let's say that I were to develop a system with some other Gentoo
devs; that doesn't mean we are able to make everything in the tree
support that system, making it an usable tool for
On 2013.08.07 13:45, Michael Weber wrote:
Greetings,
Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
systemd.
[snip]
Michael
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478252
--
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber
On 08/09/13 15:54, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 14:14:12
viv...@gmail.com viv...@gmail.com napisał(a):
On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on
mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and
necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that any of them necessarily
has the skills or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on
mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and
necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Mike Auty ike...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on
mplayer. All those people are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:10:29 +0100
Mike Auty ike...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/13 00:45, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
They thought deeply about the changes that are being made to the
desktop, and they discussed it and reached a consensus about what
the direction of the project is; you can usually read about in the
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mike Auty ike...@gentoo.org wrote:
Just because companies pour money into something does not mean they
know what they're doing, or that they've done their market research
into what their users want. I've tried several of the forks, and
sadly Gnome, because of
On Aug 10, 2013 2:41 PM, Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk
wrote:
It's also easier for developers to handle, similar to the KDE profiles.
Though I'm
not sure why it's necessary to use a non-base profile. We have several
non-minimalist profiles already, and the suggestion seems to fit
Steven J. Long posted on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:42:11 +0100 as excerpted:
That's the point though: given that certain decisions are forced if you
want to use gnome3 (ie you must use systemd, which in turn forces a
whole set of decisions about all the functionality you can no longer mix
and
On 09/08/13 12:51, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 11:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
escribió:
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept ebuild
patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again?
Only
40 matches
Mail list logo
