Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc 0.33 "service" binary removal

2017-10-13 Thread William Hubbs 
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:37:35PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
> 
> if there are no objections to this, I would like to publish the newsitem
> tomorrow and release OpenRC 0.33 at the same time.
> 
> If I do not see any responses by 24 hours from now I will do so.

All,

this has been done.

Sorry it ended up being a couple of hours early. Chalk that up to me
losing track of time. ;-)

William


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-misc/goobook

2017-10-13 Thread Aaron W. Swenson 
On 2017-10-13 17:20, Jonas Stein wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> The following packages are up for grabs:
> 
> app-misc/goobook
> 
> after retirement of the proxied maintainer.
> 
> https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/app-misc/goobook
> 
> The package is available on many large distributions:
> https://repology.org/metapackage/goobook/versions

Yes, but is goobook still active? Last I looked, upstream development
had stalled.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-misc/goobook

2017-10-13 Thread Jonas Stein 
Dear all,

The following packages are up for grabs:

app-misc/goobook

after retirement of the proxied maintainer.

https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/app-misc/goobook

The package is available on many large distributions:
https://repology.org/metapackage/goobook/versions

-- 
Best,
Jonas





















signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: On dropping sparc@ from CC on bugs

2017-10-13 Thread Sergei Trofimovich 
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 21:04:07 +0100
Sergei Trofimovich  wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:28:23 +0100
> Sergei Trofimovich  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:44:23 -0400
> > Yury German  wrote:
> > 
> > Thank you! That's very helpful. A few clarifying questions below
> > to be absolutely clear.
> >   
> > > OK so let me repeat the comments that were made on @dev  (and expand a 
> > > bit further) and close the issue.
> > > 
> > > 1. Maintainers are free to cc the non-stable and experimental arches as 
> > > part of their call for stabilization. It is up to the maintainer of the 
> > > package to decide.
> > > 
> > > 2. This is providing that there is no problems caused by stableboy or 
> > > extra dependencies raised
> > > Note: as a follow up change was made: 07:47 <@kensington> leio: b-man: 
> > > good point, dropped sparc from stable_arches
> > > 
> > > 3. Clean up is required as part of the security bug process, and if an 
> > > arch is holding it up (example hppa before Slyfox took it over) an issue 
> > > would have to be raised with the QA team for action. [1]
> > 
> > 'Cleanup' is only vulnerabe ebuild removal, not CC removal from the bug, 
> > right?
> >   
> > > 4. Bugs will be closed without waiting for any non-security supported 
> > > arches, once the security process is complete.
> > 
> > CC for exp lagging arches are not removed from the bug, right?
> >   
> > > 5. Security bugs are not re-assigned since they are assigned as a 
> > > vulnerability in bugzilla. If you need to continue work on the bug, 
> > > please feel free to open another bug for the particular arch for 
> > > stabilization, fix, etc.
> > > 
> > > If you have any questions please let me know.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [1] - 
> > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Security/GLSA_Coordinator_Guide#Bugs_in_.5Bcleanup.5D_status
> > > 
> 
> Ping.

Ping^2

-- 

  Sergei


pgpdubsZsuMuN.pgp
Description: Цифровая подпись OpenPGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES=splitdebug and debugedit

2017-10-13 Thread Francesco Riosa 
2017-10-13 4:05 GMT+02:00 M. J. Everitt :

> On 12/10/17 22:24, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > FEATURES=splitdebug at the moment require package dev-util/debugedit
> > which is a lagging behind upstream.
> > However package app-arch/rpm (from which debugedit is forked) always
> > install the same binary in ${ROOT}/usr/libexec/rpm/debugedit.
> >
> > In 2017 I don't see much value in maintaining a fork from a package
> > (rpm) that weight less than 3MB when the functionality we need is
> > already all upstreamed. But if there is someone willing to keep it up to
> > date, that's totally fine.
> >
> > Provided we^W you keep dev-util/debugedit indefinitely  it's possible to
> > provide more useful choices to the users with at least two courses of
> > action:
> >
> > 1) instruct ${package_manager} to search for `debugedit` first in
> > ${PATH} _and_ then in /usr/libexec/rpm/debugedit.
> > This way dev-util/debugedit take precedence, if it's not installed and
> > app-arch/rpm is, then the latter will be used.
> >
> > 2) optionally (via useflag) create a symlink in /usr/bin to the libexec
> > debugedit when installing rpm. Obviously the two package must block each
> > other.
> > the rpm package implementing this solution (revbumped to latest) is
> > available here:
> > https://github.com/vivo75/vivovl/blob/master/app-arch/
> rpm/rpm-4.14.0.ebuild
> >
> > thanks for reading and please share your thoughts
> >
> > -- Francesco (vivo) Riosa
> >
> Sounds to me like a potential case of a 'virtual/debugedit' package,
> depending on one of rpm or debugedit to be installed, perhaps?
>
> MJE
>

It would be, but debugedit has no dependency in tree, so it's all
manageable from the messages portage send to the user.