[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Unmaintained x11-drivers/xf86-input-* drivers

2017-11-25 Thread Matt Turner

Unmaintained upstream since 2011. Likely zero users.

Masked for removal in 30 days.

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/606132

x11-drivers/xf86-input-acecad
x11-drivers/xf86-input-aiptek
x11-drivers/xf86-input-fpit
x11-drivers/xf86-input-hyperpen
x11-drivers/xf86-input-mutouch
x11-drivers/xf86-input-pentouch


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC, PATCH] user.eclass: gracefully return when unprivileged

2017-11-25 Thread Benda Xu
Fabian Groffen  writes:

> I think we could definitely live with this until someone requests
> otherwise.

Indeed.

Committed, thanks a lot!

Benda


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC, PATCH] db.eclass: support Prefix

2017-11-25 Thread Benda Xu
Committed, thanks a lot!

Benda



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC, PATCH] user.eclass: gracefully return when unprivileged

2017-11-25 Thread Benda Xu
Hi Patrick,

Patrick McLean  writes:

> I use portage as non-root all the time when developing and testing
> ebuilds, via the "ebuild" command.

The enewgroup and enewuser are used in pkg_* functions, as documented in
user.eclass _assert_pkg_ebuild_phase() function.  They require root to
execute.

So no worries, your workflow will not be affected.

Yours,
Benda



[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-tex/notoccite

2017-11-25 Thread Jonas Stein
# Jonas Stein  (25 Nov 2017)
# The latest version of this LaTeX package is part of
# dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra
# Masked for removal on 2017-12-30
dev-tex/notoccite

--
Best regards,
Jonas Stein









signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Initial tests for full-tree Manifest verification (MetaManifest)

2017-11-25 Thread Jonas Stein
On 25/11/17 22:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
> 
> Last night Infra has started deploying the initial version of full-tree
> Manifest coverage (MetaManifest) on rsync mirrors. While things are not
> yet fully settled down, we think it is ready for the initial public
> testing.

Thanks to all involved developers for pushing this forward.
I can just roughly imagine how many hours, mails, discussions on IRC and
nerves had been required for this.

Best,

-- 
Jonas



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Initial tests for full-tree Manifest verification (MetaManifest)

2017-11-25 Thread Michał Górny
Hi, everyone.

Last night Infra has started deploying the initial version of full-tree
Manifest coverage (MetaManifest) on rsync mirrors. While things are not
yet fully settled down, we think it is ready for the initial public
testing.

The Manifest format is based on GLEP 74 [1] draft. Its earlier version
has been pre-approved by Council for testing on 20171112 [2] meeting.
Please note that the format may still be subject to changes, and you
should not rely on it or a fully defined behavior of the tooling.

Along with the change, we have also made some changes to the git->rsync
pipeline and switched the local Manifest hashes to BLAKE2B + SHA512.
Users will experience a one-time resync of all package Manifests.
Afterwards, only relevant package Manifests and their parent Manifests
should be updating.

The package Manifests remain compatible with the existing format
and are still verified using the existing tooling. However, performing
a full-tree verification at the moment requires using the external
app-portage/gemato [3] tool. The work on Portage integration is planned
to start after some initial testing.

To verify the repository after updating from rsync:

  $ gemato verify "$(portageq get_repo_path / gentoo)"

If you experience any problems with rsync or the verification process,
please let us know.

Git mirror users are not affected. The git repository is still verified
against the git commit signatures.


[1]:https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html
[2]:https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20171112-summary.txt
[3]:https://github.com/mgorny/gemato

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Ancient x11-drivers/*

2017-11-25 Thread Matt Turner
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> W dniu pią, 24.11.2017 o godzinie 18∶02 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner
> napisał:
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Richard Bradfield  
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:24:24PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Very few if any users. They break occasionally with new xserver
>> > > versions, and then I have to do the leg work to fix them, make the
>> > > upstream releases, and then push them into Gentoo. Again, for between
>> > > zero and one person to use.
>> > > ...
>> > > x11-drivers/xf86-video-modesetting
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess I should put my hand up and admit to being "the one user" for
>> > this driver. I've got an ancient netbook with an Intel GMA3600, for
>> > which there is no accelerated Xorg driver, which means I'm stuck with
>> > xf86-video-modesetting.
>>
>> You must not have updated in quite a while if it's still installed on
>> your system. The driver has been included in the xserver since 1.17
>> (with the appropriate blocker).
>>
>> The driver's not going away, just the separate package :)
>
> You should probably update the p.mask message to make that clear.
> Possibly maybe even split this driver (and any other that is not
> necessary) to a separate mask.

Will do. I didn't expect there was anyone with it still installed on
their system, since it hasn't been separately installable since I
think 1.17 has been stable since before the transition to git :)



[gentoo-dev] Patch for toolchain.eclass for uclibc-ng

2017-11-25 Thread Anthony G. Basile
Hi everyone,

With the stabilization of gcc-6.4.0, the uclibc build broke because the
eclass requires UCLIBC_VER to be define on uclibc systems else it will
die().  Since uclibc specific patches are no longer needed in gcc-6 and
above, we don't want to error out in the eclass when the patchset is not
found.

Note that there are some musl specific patches which I would like to
migrate out of the overlay and into the tree.  In a future patch, I'd
like to duplicate the uclibc code for musl in toolchain.eclass.

Feedback welcome.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA
From 909298f47c98f698923c834f67e53bed3bc6ab25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Anthony G. Basile" 
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 08:47:41 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] eclass/toolchain.eclass: do not die if uclibc patches are not
 available

gcc-6 and above no longer needs uclibc specific patches, so we don't die if
the patchset is not available.  We do, however, still apply it if UCLIBC_VER
is defined in the ebuild to future proof the code in case we need to reintroduce
the patchset in the future.
---
 eclass/toolchain.eclass | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/eclass/toolchain.eclass b/eclass/toolchain.eclass
index 503f7dbe94f..58d859dfaf3 100644
--- a/eclass/toolchain.eclass
+++ b/eclass/toolchain.eclass
@@ -378,9 +378,6 @@ toolchain_pkg_pretend() {
"in your make.conf if you want to use this version."
fi
 
-   [[ -z ${UCLIBC_VER} ]] && [[ ${CTARGET} == *-uclibc* ]] && \
-   die "Sorry, this version does not support uClibc"
-
if ! use_if_iuse cxx ; then
use_if_iuse go && ewarn 'Go requires a C++ compiler, disabled 
due to USE="-cxx"'
use_if_iuse objc++ && ewarn 'Obj-C++ requires a C++ compiler, 
disabled due to USE="-cxx"'
-- 
2.13.6



[gentoo-dev] Patch for toolchain.eclass for uclibc-ng

2017-11-25 Thread Anthony G. Basile

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA
From 909298f47c98f698923c834f67e53bed3bc6ab25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Anthony G. Basile" 
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 08:47:41 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] eclass/toolchain.eclass: do not die if uclibc patches are not
 available

gcc-6 and above no longer needs uclibc specific patches, so we don't die if
the patchset is not available.  We do, however, still apply it if UCLIBC_VER
is defined in the ebuild to future proof the code in case we need to reintroduce
the patchset in the future.
---
 eclass/toolchain.eclass | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/eclass/toolchain.eclass b/eclass/toolchain.eclass
index 503f7dbe94f..58d859dfaf3 100644
--- a/eclass/toolchain.eclass
+++ b/eclass/toolchain.eclass
@@ -378,9 +378,6 @@ toolchain_pkg_pretend() {
"in your make.conf if you want to use this version."
fi
 
-   [[ -z ${UCLIBC_VER} ]] && [[ ${CTARGET} == *-uclibc* ]] && \
-   die "Sorry, this version does not support uClibc"
-
if ! use_if_iuse cxx ; then
use_if_iuse go && ewarn 'Go requires a C++ compiler, disabled 
due to USE="-cxx"'
use_if_iuse objc++ && ewarn 'Obj-C++ requires a C++ compiler, 
disabled due to USE="-cxx"'
-- 
2.13.6



Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

2017-11-25 Thread Nils Freydank
Am Dienstag, 21. November 2017, 22:01:01 CET schrieb Manuel Rüger:
> Packages up for grabs:
> [...]
> * app-shells/thefuck
> [...]
I think this tool is...magnificent and therefore I’ll proxy maintain it.

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '00EF D31F 1B60 D5DB ADB8 31C1 C0EC E696 0E54 475B'
Nils Freydank

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Ancient x11-drivers/*

2017-11-25 Thread Richard Bradfield

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:02:12PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote:

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Richard Bradfield  wrote:

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:24:24PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote:


Very few if any users. They break occasionally with new xserver
versions, and then I have to do the leg work to fix them, make the
upstream releases, and then push them into Gentoo. Again, for between
zero and one person to use.
...
x11-drivers/xf86-video-modesetting



I guess I should put my hand up and admit to being "the one user" for
this driver. I've got an ancient netbook with an Intel GMA3600, for
which there is no accelerated Xorg driver, which means I'm stuck with
xf86-video-modesetting.


You must not have updated in quite a while if it's still installed on
your system. The driver has been included in the xserver since 1.17
(with the appropriate blocker).

The driver's not going away, just the separate package :)



You would be correct! Have you any idea how enjoyable `emerge --update`
is on an Atom N2600? :)

I've gone ahead and updated the machine to Xorg 1.19.5, and depclean
removed the old separate package, thanks for the hint!


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Ancient x11-drivers/*

2017-11-25 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu pią, 24.11.2017 o godzinie 18∶02 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner
napisał:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Richard Bradfield  wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:24:24PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > 
> > > Very few if any users. They break occasionally with new xserver
> > > versions, and then I have to do the leg work to fix them, make the
> > > upstream releases, and then push them into Gentoo. Again, for between
> > > zero and one person to use.
> > > ...
> > > x11-drivers/xf86-video-modesetting
> > 
> > 
> > I guess I should put my hand up and admit to being "the one user" for
> > this driver. I've got an ancient netbook with an Intel GMA3600, for
> > which there is no accelerated Xorg driver, which means I'm stuck with
> > xf86-video-modesetting.
> 
> You must not have updated in quite a while if it's still installed on
> your system. The driver has been included in the xserver since 1.17
> (with the appropriate blocker).
> 
> The driver's not going away, just the separate package :)

You should probably update the p.mask message to make that clear.
Possibly maybe even split this driver (and any other that is not
necessary) to a separate mask.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny