Re: [gentoo-dev] SAT-based dependency solver: request for test cases
Hi Michael, I haven't fully understood SAT yet and I haven't completely follow the discussion. But I think this is a logical direction to improve dependency solving in Gentoo. Keep on the good work, I am interested in knowing how well it performs. Yours, Benda
Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: baselayout 2.5 changes
Hi William, William Hubbs writes: > The second change is that baselayout is taking ownership of most of the > directories it creates. This includes all directories in / and /usr > excluding /lib* and /usr/lib*. Once we drop support for SYMLINK_LIB, > baselayout will take ownership of /lib* and /usr/lib* as well. This is an abrupt change that will affect many users. I suggest a lengthy explanation (blog post, wiki page or important emails) to be attached as a reference in this news item. So a user will be able to study the rationales behind this change before unmasking baselayout-2.5 on their machines. Yours, Benda signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: baselayout 2.5 changes
Hi William, William Hubbs writes: > here is a link to an old, but brief discussion about this. > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/2fc1f62c7cf225787fe52f4dace7368c > > I think we have talked about this several other times, but not done > anything about it. > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:17:59PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> >> Pardon my ignorance, but does that mean you are essentially relying on >> file system features/permissions and security settings to enforce >> correct use of system tools?! Or is this just to make sudo/etc commands >> 'more convenient' ?! > > The basic problem is that what goes in *bin vs *sbin is quite arbitrary > and the best way to fix it is to make all of the *bin and *sbin > directories accessible to all users. > > You can't rely on a path to separate system-only programs from > programs that users might want to run, and some programs can be run by > users to look around but not change things. > > Here is one non-gentoo source discussing this. > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html > > Even if we don't adopt the usr merge in Gentoo Linux as default, removing > *sbin > from the path doesn't make sense. If there references are useful for users to understand why this decision and potential breakage is made, it might be a good idea to append the links to the news item. Yours, Benda signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] NonsolvableDepsInMisc
On 02/16/2018 05:15 PM, Lucas Ramage wrote: > Hello, > > I submitted a pull request which adds new packages as dependencies for > the package I am attempting to maintain and I am receiving the following > errors, > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/aca3f2128/output.html#dev-python/paho-mqtt > > NonsolvableDepsInDev > > NonsolvableDepsInStable > > I have built the package in a container using FEATURE="test" and also > ran `repoman -dx full` as instructed in the Gentoo Github Documentation > and I had no problems. > You have dev-python/paho-mqtt as KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86", but added new packages dev-python/pylama and dev-python/pydocstyle with just KEYWORDS="~amd64". That is an error. Brian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
