On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 10:52:43PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
I wonder ... can we have one precise mission statement without
alienating a big part of our user base?
To copy another opensource group's mission statement,
Total World Domination
Hey, it's been working for them so far,
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:56:03PM +0530, Shyam Mani wrote:
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/modular-x-howto.xml
You mean:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml
right?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:58:57AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
Gentoo is not a distribution of Linux. Gentoo is not anything more than
a loosely bound group of developers all doing their own thing in a
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:56:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
You guys are more than welcome to go apply at Red Hat or Novell.
Some of us already work for companies that produce other Linux
distributions or support the companies that do. :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:31:30AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:57:06PM -0800 or thereabouts, Greg KH wrote:
Which is why Gentoo has jumped the shark and is now on a long, slow
decline.
Ok, then what should Gentoo do to fix this percieved decline?
Exactly
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:41:41PM +0100, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
And if someone wants to forward this over to -user, feel free.
Do you want to have this kernel documented in our Kernel guide [1]?
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-kernel.xml#doc_chap3
That would be great
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:31:12AM +0100, Christian Bricart wrote:
Hi,
yesterday I've noticed, that some mappings in /dev/discs are missing on
my machine.
Actually I have an additional ATA controller with some discs attached.
So I have /dev/hda through /dev/hdl which are ok. But the
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:50:07PM +0100, Christian Bricart wrote:
Richard Fish wrote:
On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
So I have /dev/hda through /dev/hdl which are ok. But the mappings to
/dev/discs/discX with X 7 are missing.
snip
I wanted to file a bug
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 08:20:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 19:59, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On Mar 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Olivier Crete wrote:
If modular X is used and gnome-base/control-center is not
patched..
gnome-settings-daemon on some evdev
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:57:43PM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote: [Sat Mar 25 2006, 06:18:52PM EST]
Well, I find it easier to understand than many other DVCSs out there...
In fact I don't think it is difficult to use in any way. Maybe pre-1.1
versions had some syntax
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:52:38PM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 07 April 2006 19:39, Roy Marples wrote:
... some just want a generic Gentoo business card and the
ones we had were great, but when you get into real conversations, the guy
wants to follow up
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
The opensolaris project has done a similar thing[1]. The three finalists
were bazaar[2], mercurial[3] and git[4], and the winner was eventually
mercurial. This is also the recommended choice from the
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
Well, it should not be loaded first of all... Hence why I want to have
an ability to turn off the coldplug thing *completely* on udev level.
So maybe I should be clear in conf.d/rc
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:54:53AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 19:27, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
Well, it should not be loaded first of all... Hence why I want to have
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:45:30PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Also, git-sources *should* use this eclass once it is in the tree since
people using it will save _lots_ of bandwidth and disk space.
Yes, I'll convert it over once you feel it is ready, just let me know.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:18:05PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:08:08AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:45:30PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Also, git-sources *should* use this eclass once it is in the tree since
people using it will save
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:05:00AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
The udev/nss_ldap thing has been brewing for a while, and we're still trying
to
get upstream udev to fix the issue.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99564#c44
In that comment I list the proper solution that upstream
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:07:07PM +0200, Mivz wrote:
Why is it that when I use the new kernel SATA drivers and load is as
/dev/sda it is slower as with the old IDE drivers?
You didn't tell us which sata drivers you were using, nor what kernel
version.
Either way, try asking this on the
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:43:49AM +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Have a link for this patch?
Sorry, I forgot to give it in my original posting:
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bugme-new/2006-June/006422.html
That bug does not include a patch that has been accepted
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:28:42PM +0200, Mivz wrote:
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
*plonk*
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
open, and will remain so until UTC 20060911 (one month). To vote,
log into dev.g.o
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:42:47 -0700
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the current election name that we should use when running
votify?
To vote, log into dev.g.o and type votify --help for
instructions.
Doing
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
cdrtools-2.01.01
alpha ebuilds from the tree.
I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
due to the
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
The key misunderstanding here seems to be that initiation of a Gentoo
project means that the council explicitly supports it, because in most
distributions there is no choice available to end users at this level of
detail.
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:13:38PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes
likew...@weboperative.com wrote:
I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from
using grub on the livedvd.
Well, if some perceived legal constraint is
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 07:46:59PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Fernando Reyes schrieb:
That's what meant since we use isolinux on the release media and until
syslinux-6 we are forced to use another bootloader and grub seems out of
the questions because of licensing issues.
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:35:57PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine
with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side.
There's a statement
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:24:53AM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote:
The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode,
sorry. You will have to disable it in order to boot a Gentoo image,
which is fine, but there's no reason why
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 07:52:16PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote:
The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode,
sorry. You will have to disable
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 08:08:01PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 10/12/2012 01:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
The shim might work, but I'd hardly call it secure boot if every
motherboard manufacturer and OEM in the
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:21:29AM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Greg KH schrieb:
No, all we need is to enable EFI stub support in the kernel, and
integrate the initramfs using CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE and place it in
some location where UEFI looks for it (/efi/boot/bootx64.efi
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:31:25AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Not necessarily, as I'm finding out with real hardware. My only options
on the box I have is to either zero out all keys, or specifically tell
the BIOS what binary to run
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
Handling separate /usr support
==
After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay of one
month due to a new fork of udev was requested. We need an update on
what's happened.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
Handling separate /usr support ==
After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:28:00PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:00:56PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Greg, can you write back to this message with specific examples of what
would need to be customized so that separate /usr would work right
without an initramfs? I have tried to explain multiple times that this
is a
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:09:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 14/12/12 03:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I'm guessing that the result of the council meeting meant that
things are progressing, right? If so, in what way?
Sounds like you should join us in #gentoo-udev to discuss, or join
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:07:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
Announcing once to -dev-announce due to the general importance of this
topic to the community, but ALL replies should go to -nfp, or to
trustees@ if you must, or to /dev/null if you shouldn't.
Before I start, yes, the trustees
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
As I said
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:16:25PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On a personal note, if any copyright assignment was in place, I would
never have been able to become a Gentoo developer, and if it were to be
put into place, I do
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 08:17:59PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
For further messages in this thread, please keep:
Reply-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-...@lists.gentoo.org
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:08:45PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:01:00AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
1. Are you party to any *copyright assignment* (eg FSF copyright
assignment)?
You need
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 15/01/13 04:16 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
Hi,
This can have serious security implications [1]
For whom?
I think the idea there is that a user expects eth0 and eth1 to stay
the same, writes iptables rules on a
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:36:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
Not that anybody is taking requests, but it would be really handy
if serial ports were deterministically labeled.
Does /dev/serial/*
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:
Hi
I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries
(such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them
directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that
/usr/lib64/efi or
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:22PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:
On 4.2.2013 23:34, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:
Hi
I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries
(such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:03:47AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 20/02/2013 13:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
I'm actually wondering if that makes sense with git when a specific
commit is referenced, since
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:25:14PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
If there really are firmware blobs that are only available via git and
which cannot be redistributed we might consider whether it makes sense
to not support them entirely, or to force them to be masked.
Did
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:51:15PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 20/02/2013 19:43, Greg KH wrote:
Really? What firmware files are that way, I just did a quick scan
through the upstream linux-firmware.git tree and didn't see anything
that would prevent Gentoo from doing
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:33:48PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Greg KH wrote:
Ulrich Mueller (ulm) wrote this on the 16th:
Look into the WHENCE file and be horrified. Taking just the first ten
items (of a total 114):
Unknown license (3 times
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:44:12PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Greg KH wrote:
Has anyone asked the upstream linux-firmware developers about these
files?
I don't know. I haven't, for my part. But maybe we should first try
to produce a more complete list, instead
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:44:33PM -0100, Carlos Silva wrote
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
I'm not a C programmer, let alone a developer, so this may be a stupid
question, but here
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined,
which includes a mandatory requirement to sign a contributor license
agreement and an option to also sign an assignment-like document based
on the FSFe FLA,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:12:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
No change intended. This is what happens when you send a thirty second
follow-up to a policy formed over two weeks, and then step away to eat...
So,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
[GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including
Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:46:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
here's v2
These changes look good to me, and quite useful, thanks for doing this
work.
greg k-h
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:35:49PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
For me, this problem is critical. Devrel is working on formalizing a new
policy, and we will announce news on this soon. In the meantime, to
prevent further escalations, I will use my lead powers to request
immediate bans
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:41:49PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
This problem is not only visible for patches, but also in the config.
Meet CONFIG_DEVTMPFS; forget to enable it, greet a failing boot. We're
telling users to enable it in some places, in the handbook it's a single
line you must
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
stuff!
A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or
CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in the upstream kernel tree
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
Tom, you already know my opinion because we discussed it. I'm all
for it. Just a reminder: there's always problems somewhere in the
kernel which can be triggered by various options. The kernel is not
one big take it or leave
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:25:42PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:09:57 -0500
Matthew Summers quantumsumm...@gentoo.org wrote:
If the patchset patches the kernel's core, it doesn't matter what
CONFIG_* option is set the core kernel code _has_now_been_changed_.
This is the
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
stuff!
A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:36:21PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
stuff!
A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA
Almost all of this portion of the thread is off-topic for gentoo-dev, so
I'll leave it alone, and will be more than willing to take it up
somewhere else it is on-topic for, like linux-kernel, if you want to.
But, there is one thing I do want to ask/comment on, as it is relevant
to users of
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
Also, not all fixes are equal. The ones that are the biggest concern
are security fixes.
How do you _know_ which fixes are security fixes?
If you tell me that the kernel has a new exploit
2x/week then I'll start to wonder when
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:53:35AM -0400, Mike Pagano wrote:
All,
Here is the vanilla-sources non stablizing policy news item.
If all goes well, this will be committed to the tree on 08/07 UTC.
Thanks for writing this all up, much appreciated.
greg k-h
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:09:11 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Please
tell me exactly how you are going to evaluate which fixes I make are
security fixes, and you know which to pick and choose from.
Some kind
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know
some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway.
I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always
the one
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:09AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do
know some
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Some kind of annotation with tags would make this kind of thing
easy; I'm not saying it is your
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:40:00PM +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
On 08/08/13 11:38, Samuli Suominen wrote:
i'm not volunteering but I never really got why our GNOME
maintainers insisted on staying with it instead of going with the
distribution after it was clear logind is a dead end on
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:28:54PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:38:56 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
My sense is that Greg is using the term security bugs to refer to
implementation errors that could be exploited to obtain unintended
access to a system.
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:32:45 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
I am not going
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:46:43PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:30:42 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
... Just read the commits to find out what is resolved, ...
... Because it's extra work that is pointless. ...
No classification is done
Ok, I know I'm doing something stupid here, but I can't figure it out.
I have a new ebuild (linux-firmware) that is really just a tarball that
needs to be placed somewhere in the filesystem.
So, I do the following:
src_install() {
dodir /lib/firmware
cp -R
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 06:47:40PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:39:38 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
cp -R ${S}/* ${D}lib/firmware/ || die Install
failed! }
That should be ${S}/* . If you quote the *, bash won't glob it.
`/var/tmp/portage
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
non-free firmware.
The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 08:16:22PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 09:42:06PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not
state it as such.
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your reply.
I
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:47AM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
on the processor as one body of work. Firmware blobs are different in
that they do not run in the same processor
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
talking about here.
I'm not questioning whether it's legal
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:19:24AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to
almost everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files
anymore, the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used
instead
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:05:01PM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
src_install() {
sed -i -e 's-\(prefix:\) ~-\1 /usr-' setup.cfg
distutils_src_install
dodir /usr/share/doc/${PF}
mv ${D}/usr/share/${PN}/examples
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hey, I just bumped the ebuild, I didn't write the first one :)
No accuses, just review. :) Touch it and you are responsible.
So, what would be the correct fix here? Something like
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 09:50:24AM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Added:moreutils-0.29.ebuild ChangeLog Manifest
Log:
initial ebuild for the moreutils package
src_unpack() {
unpack ${A}
cd
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:22:26PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh) wrote:
# Copyright 1999-2008 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:17:14PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Greg KH schrieb:
src_install() {
doman bti.1
dobin bti
dodoc bti.example README RELEASE-NOTES
}
You really should have some or all of these functions die on failure.
Why would any of these fail
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 06:29:13PM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:58:02PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:22:26PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh)
wrote:
src_install
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:30:29PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo CVS
because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment form: I
have signed an agreement saying that everything I put in gentoo cvs will be
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:57:29PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
On Monday 18 April 2005 20:27, Mike Frysinger wrote:
if by commit you mean the profiles then i think you should go make a list
of specific USE flags and drop it onto the gentoo-dev list before
committing :p:p -mike
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
There are currently 6 (7 after I'll commit new ffmpeg) ieee1394 use.local
flags.
I think this is worth moving it as a global useflag.
Someone disagrees?
Why is it a useflag at all? Does this mean I can create a new
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:10:46PM +0200, Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote:
Hi,
After some talk to gregkh, I've decided to send this message as it might
give some light regarding the breakage of the USB modules when usbcore
is built-in instead of compiled as module.
Modules that are
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:27:42PM +0200, Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote:
El mi?, 11-05-2005 a las 13:12 -0700, Greg KH escribi?:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:10:46PM +0200, Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro
wrote:
Hi,
After some talk to gregkh, I've decided to send this message
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:55:50PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
I'd like Gentoo to be a place where neat things are developed.
If RH or SuSE (or another for-profit Linux vendor) wants to take some
of those developments and use them to make a profit, that's fine with
me. We're over here having
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:06:04AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
This has absolutely zero to do with udev, but the point is that devfs vs
udev flames cannot be ignored until non udev supported kernels from
all arches are removed from the tree.
It also has nothing to do with the naming scheme we
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:55:45PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's
time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently
are living with[2
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:52:20PM +0100, John Mylchreest wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to
reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we
drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:18:12AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if
you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does
not create a file in its
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote:
Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's
time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently
are living with[2
1 - 100 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
