Re: [gentoo-dev] Crypto/GPG-related packages up for grabs

2020-09-07 Thread John Helmert III
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > The following packages are up for grabs due to their maintainer being > MIA. > > acct-group/monkeysphere > acct-user/monkeysphere > app-crypt/ekeyd > app-crypt/monkeysphere > app-crypt/nasty > app-crypt/pinentry >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v5] env-update: create systemd user-session environment definition

2020-09-07 Thread Zac Medico
On 9/5/20 12:18 AM, Florian Schmaus wrote: > Portage's env-update currently transforms the environment information > from /etc/env.d into /etc/profile.env, which is typically sourced by > every user session, setting up its environment. > > However, /etc/profile.env is not sourced by systemd user

[gentoo-dev] www-servers/lighttpd is up for grabs

2020-09-07 Thread Mikle Kolyada
I have switched to nginx for the most of my services. There are no critical bugs open, but some may require additional investigation.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Crypto/GPG-related packages up for grabs

2020-09-07 Thread Mikle Kolyada
On 07.09.2020 20:44, Michał Górny wrote: Hi, The following packages are up for grabs due to their maintainer being MIA. acct-group/monkeysphere acct-user/monkeysphere app-crypt/ekeyd app-crypt/monkeysphere app-crypt/nasty app-crypt/pinentry app-eselect/eselect-pinentry dev-libs/libgcrypt

[gentoo-dev] Crypto/GPG-related packages up for grabs

2020-09-07 Thread Michał Górny
Hi, The following packages are up for grabs due to their maintainer being MIA. acct-group/monkeysphere acct-user/monkeysphere app-crypt/ekeyd app-crypt/monkeysphere app-crypt/nasty app-crypt/pinentry app-eselect/eselect-pinentry dev-libs/libgcrypt dev-libs/npth net-misc/sks www-apps/ampache --

[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-python/mini-amf

2020-09-07 Thread Joonas Niilola
# Nothing in the tree uses this lib anymore. Removing as redundant. # Removal in ~30 days. Bug #740868. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] lua.eclass: initial implementation

2020-09-07 Thread Marek Szuba
On 2020-09-06 17:46, David Seifert wrote: > Unfortunately we won't get around a single-r1-style eclass too. What > about all those programs embedding a specific lua version as plugin > architecture? This is still very much on my to-do list, I simply figured it would make it easier for everyone

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > You're missing some context. In October of last year, a QA team member > broke dependency resolution on a lot of systems by making the same sort > of change that this patch proposes: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 2020-09-07 08:47, Alessandro Barbieri wrote: > Being consistent in decision is hard I see. You're missing some context. In October of last year, a QA team member broke dependency resolution on a lot of systems by making the same sort of change that this patch proposes:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Alessandro Barbieri wrote: > Il giorno lun 7 set 2020 alle ore 14:10 Ulrich Mueller ha > scritto: >> We are talking about the second case here, because the dependency on the >> virtual is being removed, while the dependency on its provider remains >> in place (it only

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Alessandro Barbieri
Il giorno lun 7 set 2020 alle ore 14:10 Ulrich Mueller ha scritto: > The devmanual [1] says that a revbump should be done when a new runtime > dependency is added to an ebuild, but it doesn't say that for removal of > a dependency. > > We are talking about the second case here, because the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 2020-09-07 08:10, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> The devmanual [1] says that a revbump should be done when a new >> runtime dependency is added to an ebuild, but it doesn't say that for >> removal of a dependency. > One dependency is removed,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 2020-09-07 08:10, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> This has caused dependency resolution problems in the past. The PMS >> implies a new revision, > > PMS says nothing about new revisions or revision bumps: > That is indeed what the word "implies" implies. > The devmanual [1] says that a revbump

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 2020-09-07 02:14, Michał Górny wrote: >> + >> +Update all ebuilds not to reference the virtual. Since there is >> +no urgent need to remove the virtual from user systems >> +and the resulting rebuilds would be unnecessary, do

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 2020-09-07 02:14, Michał Górny wrote: > + > +Update all ebuilds not to reference the virtual. Since there is > +no urgent need to remove the virtual from user systems > +and the resulting rebuilds would be unnecessary, do not bump ebuilds > +when replacing the dependency. > +

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Alexis Ballier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 21:39:54 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:14:52 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > However, please > > +do not include it in the package.mask entry as users do > > not need > > +to be forced to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Kent Fredric
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:14:52 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > However, please > +do not include it in the package.mask entry as users do not need > +to be forced to proactively unmerge it. I can think of a utilitarian value of doing this anyway. Namely, it gives a window during `emerge -uD

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 09:46 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michał Górny wrote: > > + > > +If the virtual is being removed along with its second to last > > +provider, include the virtual in the last-rites mail. However, please > > Maybe write "any of its

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michał Górny wrote: > + > +If the virtual is being removed along with its second to last > +provider, include the virtual in the last-rites mail. However, please Maybe write "any of its providers" instead of "its second to last provider"? It is simpler and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eutils.eclass: Use optfeature() from optfeature.eclass

2020-09-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2020, David Seifert wrote: > On Sun, 2020-09-06 at 21:49 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Maybe just commit the new eclass, update ebuilds, then remove the >> function from eutils? > I'll get a lot of heat for breaking EAPI 2 ebuilds in some random > abandoned overlay because

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add binrepos.conf to support fetchcommand customization (bug 661332)

2020-09-07 Thread Zac Medico
On 9/6/20 11:31 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Support /etc/portage/binrepos.conf as a replacement for the > PORTAGE_BINHOST variable. Behavior is similar to repos.conf, > initially supporting just the sync-uri attribute. Both binrepos.conf > and PORTAGE_BINHOST can be used simultaneously, in the same

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/2] Add binrepos.conf to replace PORTAGE_BINHOST (bug 668334)

2020-09-07 Thread Zac Medico
Support /etc/portage/binrepos.conf as a replacement for the PORTAGE_BINHOST variable. Behavior is similar to repos.conf, initially supporting just the sync-uri attribute. Both binrepos.conf and PORTAGE_BINHOST can be used simultaneously, in the same way that repos.conf and PORTDIR_OVERLAY can be

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] binrepos.conf: support fetchcommand customization (bug 661332)

2020-09-07 Thread Zac Medico
Support customization of fetchcommand and resumecommand in binrepos.conf, allowing customized authentication mechanisms for each repository. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/661332 Signed-off-by: Zac Medico --- lib/_emerge/BinpkgFetcher.py | 29 +++--

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Add binrepos.conf to support fetchcommand customization (bug 661332)

2020-09-07 Thread Zac Medico
Support /etc/portage/binrepos.conf as a replacement for the PORTAGE_BINHOST variable. Behavior is similar to repos.conf, initially supporting just the sync-uri attribute. Both binrepos.conf and PORTAGE_BINHOST can be used simultaneously, in the same way that repos.conf and PORTDIR_OVERLAY can be

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-maintenance/removal: Process for virtual removal

2020-09-07 Thread Michał Górny
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- ebuild-maintenance/removal/text.xml | 43 + 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+) diff --git a/ebuild-maintenance/removal/text.xml b/ebuild-maintenance/removal/text.xml index eabbdaf..3575b5c 100644 ---