Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2017, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > A bigger problem arises from #3 and #4: it's no longer simple to get > a minimal system. When various USE flags default on at random, you > get users doing things like USE="-*". We can tell them not to do > that, because of the flags in #1, but in fact very few IUSE defaults > are critical, and most of them are junk. The only way to turn off > all the junk ones without a huge waste of time is USE="-*". > Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally > guilty of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see > explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on by default. [Late to the topic, but two devs have asked me on IRC that I should post this, in order to have it documented as part of the thread.] I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are purely advisory for the package manager: "[...] any use flag name in IUSE may be prefixed by at most one of a plus or a minus sign. If such a prefix is present, the package manager may use it as a suggestion as to the default value of the use flag if no other configuration overrides it." [1] Portage can be made to ignore IUSE defaults by omitting "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, i.e. by adding the following line to make.conf [2]: #USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d" USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:defaults:repo:env.d" One could even think about adding this to a future minimal profile. Ulrich [1] https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-670007.3 [2] make.conf(5) (in particular, note the warning for USE_ORDER) pgpTmDoHEDZoG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Introducing stable profiles for arm64 (aarch64)
Hi Mart, The Gentoo on Android project will directly benefit from the new stable profiles for 64bit smartphones and other mobile devices. I have been keywording ~arm64 here and there casually. It is very exciting to see such progress. Keep the good job. Cheers, Benda signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build
On poniedziałek, 30 stycznia 2017 14:04:06 CET William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have been looking at the meson build system [1] [2], and I like what I > see. > > I have opened an issue on OpenRC's github wrt migrating OpenRC to the > meson build system [3]. > > As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as > build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where > we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability) > outweighs that. > > What do folks think here? I'd recommend to jump a bandwagon and switch to CMake. Yes, it's ugly in certain areas, has its quirks but whoever switches to it ones, never goes back, and not because of technical debt being too big. Also because I can help with it (and a lot of folks can), while Meson is still largely unknown. -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Introducing stable profiles for arm64 (aarch64)
On 02/03/2017 11:26 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Hello, > > I am working towards having a clean deptree for arm64 and afterwards > marking the non-hardened 5 arm64 profiles stable (or 4 - I don't see > value in the developer profile without the desktop specific > subprofiles, until there are mix-ins). > It's good to hear that I'll soon be able to get some of my packages stable on arm64, that'll encourage me even more to switch some of my smaller servers to it (for power/heat reasons). :D -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] rsync.gentoo.org rsync modules: gentoo-repo-changelog added, gentoo-x86-portage & gentoo-sec discontinued.
Hello fellow devs, Le dimanche 30 octobre 2016 à 02:54 +, Robin H. Johnson a écrit : > As part of the upcoming change to no longer distribute ChangeLogs in > the > main tree, Infra would like to announce some updates to the rsync > modules. > > 1. > The following legacy modules are hereby discontinued. > - rsync.gentoo.org::gentoo-sec > - rsync.gentoo.org::gentoo-x86-portage > > 'gentoo-sec' was a 2004-era attempt at distributing Gentoo developer > GPG keyrings. There have been no sync attempts recorded on any of the > rsync.gentoo.org nodes in over 2 years, and the material therein all > dates to 2004 only. > > 'gentoo-x86-portage' was the older name of the 'gentoo-portage' > module, > and was maintained as an alias. For the 2016 calender year to date, > there have been only 11 attempts to fetch the legacy name from any of > the rsync.gentoo.org official nodes. > > Community mirrors (rsyncN.CC.gentoo.org) are encouraged to drop the > old > modules at their convenience. > > 2. > Approximately 2016/Nov/01, a new module will be available: > - rsync.gentoo.org::gentoo-repo-changelog > This module will contain the same directory structure as the > repo/gentoo > tree (gentoo-portage module), but will ONLY contain ChangeLog files. > The update schedule may have gaps exceeding 6 hours initially. > > Community mirrors (rsyncN.CC.gentoo.org) can prepare to mirror the > new > module at their convenience. > > 3. > Not sooner than 2016/Nov/15, ChangeLogs will be removed from the > 'gentoo-portage' rsync module. They may or may not still be > referenced > by the thick Manifests. Since this mail went out, I could not find an explanation of how to get the changelogs back with regular emerge --sync over rsync. Searching the wiki raised no answer or links with outdated information. Playing with repos.conf lead nowhere except to complaints that the gentoo-repo-changelog had the same name than gentoo-portage. I tried asking #gentoo-dev but the best answer I was given was to switch to git clone and to generate the changelogs myself. Problem is, I am not always on a dev machine or on a machine that can spare these CPU cycles so it does not seem appropriate. Is there any way to get this back that doesn't involve extra operations over emerge --sync ? -- Gilles Dartiguelonguesignature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Introducing stable profiles for arm64 (aarch64)
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Mart Raudseppwrote: > I am working towards having a clean deptree for arm64 and afterwards > marking the non-hardened 5 arm64 profiles stable (or 4 - I don't see > value in the developer profile without the desktop specific > subprofiles, until there are mix-ins). While I'm not personally affected, this sounds like the culmination of a lot of work. Great to see that we can still onboard a new architecture. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Introducing stable profiles for arm64 (aarch64)
On 02/06/2017 03:59 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Lots of concerns, I see from the zero replies so far Keep in mind that quite a few have been at FOSDEM this weekend, so I wouldn't take no response from a high number of european devs as a sign of acceptance just yet. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature