Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > The games team was pretty much formed of two kinds of developers back then. > One kind was retired developers, the other kind was developers who did what > they cared about and ignored everything and everyone else. Bugs,

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 03:09:18 CET, Daniel Campbell napisał(a): >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA256 > >On 02/08/2016 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 04:13:38 -0800 Daniel Campbell >> wrote: >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:48:08 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0100 > > "Justin Lecher (jlec)" wrote: > > > On 15/02/16 13:59, Michał Górny wrote: > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:54:31 -0500 Richard Yao wrote: > On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > >> Ohey, > >> > >> I've opened a bug at: > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: supervise-daemon -- a lightweight openrc daemon supervisor

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/16/2016 07:49 PM, Duncan wrote: > James Le Cuirot posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:19:44 + as > excerpted: > >> Oh, that's cool! Now I come to think of it, I believe it was this >> effort that made me aware of s6 in the first place but I'd

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0100 > "Justin Lecher (jlec)" wrote: > > On 15/02/16 13:59, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:16:53 +0100 > > > "Justin Lecher (jlec)"

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Michał Górny posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100 as excerpted: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100 Patrick Lauer > wrote: > >> On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by >> > systemd haters just to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> >> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work >> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. >> >> some of the criticism given here are

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: supervise-daemon -- a lightweight openrc daemon supervisor

James Le Cuirot posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:19:44 + as excerpted: > Oh, that's cool! Now I come to think of it, I believe it was this effort > that made me aware of s6 in the first place but I'd forgotten about it > since. Now I feel dumb. Umm... I think there was supposed to be a break,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> Ohey, >> >> I've opened a bug at: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 >> >> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. >> For

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 04:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this would mean that eudev is

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

William Hubbs posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:41:29 -0600 as excerpted: > What I'm trying to figure out is, what to do about re-mounting file > systems read-only. > > How does systemd do this? I didn't find an equivalent of the mount-ro > service there. For quite some time now, systemd has

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/08/2016 01:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 04:13:38 -0800 Daniel Campbell > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 02/07/2016 03:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Sun, 7 Feb

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Uncoordinated changes

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:58:10 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Well, if debugging is your only concern, on the system you're going to >> debug from: >> touch herds.xml > > Don't do that. > > rhill@tundra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by > > > systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > > > Because certainly > > > project that is created plainly for political reasons is better. > > > Because it will certainly be technically better if people have to > > > focus on copying regular udev maintainers and

[gentoo-dev] Re: Uncoordinated changes

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:58:10 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > Well, if debugging is your only concern, on the system you're going to > debug from: > touch herds.xml Don't do that. rhill@tundra /usr/portage/dev-util/creduce $ repoman RepoMan scours the neighborhood... [INFO]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Alexis Ballier schrieb: If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have to do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 years is extremely old considering all the flux that has been around kbus. OpenRC itself

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: supervise-daemon -- a lightweight openrc daemon supervisor

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:04:42 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > > I wonder if it might even make more sense to reuse one of these > > instead of reinventing the wheel. They are both extremely > > lightweight. If you feel you can do better though then go for it! > > We have s6

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by > > systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they > > made around here. > You

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: supervise-daemon -- a lightweight openrc daemon supervisor

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:32:08PM +, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:51:17 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > there is a branch in the OpenRC github repo called supervisor. > > Interesting! > > > It is still very rough, and not ready for production,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Brian Dolbec schrieb: Thank you for bringing this information to the forefront of this debate. So, is it not better for us Gentoo-er's that wish to not install systemd, to set the default non-systemd udev to eudev. Note that I am not advocating for or against this move. I was just pointing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:26:46 -0500 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 2/16/16 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer > > wrote: > >> The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging > >> squirrel,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:09:23 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: > > > > This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to > > *running* udev without systemd as opposed to building

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/16/16 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging >> squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a virtual. All other >> providers will continue being

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh when the list of PIDs using a > mountpoint includes "$$" which is shell shorthand for self. How can the > current shell claim to be using /usr when it is a shell that only has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to *running* udev > without systemd as opposed to building (which upstream already made > impossible). > > Here is the exact wording: > "Unless the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:33:55 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: [...] > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by > systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they > made around here. > > So, yes, we should definitely switch to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging > squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a virtual. All other > providers will continue being listed and available. The change affects > none

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/16/2016 10:05 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for > file systems which happen to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it > > require systemd. Quoting Lennart: > > "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: >>> I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require >>> systemd. Quoting Lennart: >>> "You need the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require > > systemd. Quoting Lennart: > > "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/16/2016 07:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file > systems which happen to be pre-mounted from an initramfs [1]. I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: supervise-daemon -- a lightweight openrc daemon supervisor

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:51:17 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > there is a branch in the OpenRC github repo called supervisor. Interesting! > It is still very rough, and not ready for production, but at this > point I would like to make everyone aware that it exists and ask >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:53:48 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > William Hubbs schrieb: > > Maybe FUD is the incorrect way to put it, but I think us doing > > something about it at this point is definitely premature since > > KDBUS is no where near ready to go --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Alexis Ballier schrieb: I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require systemd. Quoting Lennart: "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and handle activation. That's not a trivial task. For us, that's what sytemd does in PID 1. You'd need to come

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:34:20 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was > > more to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being > > absorbed by systemd: "it is supposedly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Sorry about the messed up quoting, somehow enigmail and format=flowed do not work well together.

[gentoo-dev] rfc: supervise-daemon -- a lightweight openrc daemon supervisor

All, there is a branch in the OpenRC github repo called supervisor. On that branch, I am working on a lightweight daemon supervisor that will be native to OpenRC. It is based on start-stop-daemon, but it will stay around and make sure that the daemon gets restarted if it dies. It is still very

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:22:13PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > The reason it exists is very vague to me; I think it has something to do > > with claims of data loss in the past. > > > > Is there some other event

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:34:20PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more > > to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by > > systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Alexis Ballier schrieb: It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream and might not work at some point". Well, as far as I can see, you are maintaining

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > The reason it exists is very vague to me; I think it has something to do > with claims of data loss in the past. > Is there some other event that will cause all filesystems to be remounted read-only or unmounted

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:45:41 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > > > William Hubbs

[gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

All, I have a bug that points out a significant issue with /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file systems which happen to be pre-mounted from an initramfs [1]. This service only exists in the Linux world; there is no equivalent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can

Re: [gentoo-dev] libressl: proposing a new project and calling for help

Anthony G. Basile: > Before I put up a project page, can I ask who is interested in this? > If I can help with my tinderbox [1] - I'd appreciate it. [1] http://www.zwiebeltoralf.de/tinderbox/index.html -- Toralf PGP: C4EACDDE 0076E94E, OTR: 420E74C8 30246EE7

Re: [gentoo-dev] libressl: proposing a new project and calling for help

On 2/15/16 8:43 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 02/15/2016 01:20 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Anthony G. Basile >> wrote: >>> We discussed the state of libressl today in the council. >>> Proceeding forward with that work, I'm going