Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Some sync control

On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 05:36:34PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: The conversion to GIT from CVS was also lengthy (approximately two weeks) althought many projects attempted a switch this summer and tools have improved in speed. Yes, the speed has increased a _lot_ now. In fact yesterday

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Some sync control

On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:52:23PM +0100, sanchan wrote: Markus Ullmann wrote: This was one of the big reasons. They (and we maybe as well) have people there with 56k/64k dialup connections. Checking out the whole thing would take ages. I can confirm we have people with 56k dial up :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] New network config for baselayout-ng

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:44:20PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote: Welcome to baselayout-ng please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2 Especially as what will you call the replacement for baselayout-ng? baselayout-ng-ng? :)

Re: Copyright, non-US devs and Gentoo Foundation vs Gentoo (Was: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting)

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote: Am Samstag, 3. M?rz 2007 19:48 schrieb Thomas R?sner: Hi, Danny van Dyk schrieb: 2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention (1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a Copyright

Re: [gentoo-dev] get pci info in Linux?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:04:33PM +0300, Bilanchuk Vitaly wrote: emerge pciutils and use lspci. This question would be better asked in our user oriented support channels like #gentoo or gentoo-user mailing list. I'm sorry. I need get info using C/C++. Use the library provided by the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: get pci info in Linux?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: ?? Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 06:02:34PM +0300, Bilanchuk Vitaly wrote: Who knows how can I get information about pci-device (for example, vendor and name of network card) without using

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is bugzilla used by all developers?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:07:33AM +0200, @4u wrote: Hi I just wanted to ask if bugzilla is used by all developers, in this case specific by kernel developers? For kernel issues, please file bugs in bugzilla.kernel.org as the gentoo kernels are almost exactly kernel.org kernels, with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is bugzilla used by all developers?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:47:20AM +0200, Christian Heim wrote: On Thursday 26 April 2007 09:21:59 Greg KH wrote: For kernel issues, please file bugs in bugzilla.kernel.org as the gentoo kernels are almost exactly kernel.org kernels, with only a few minor things added (bootsplash being one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:33:59AM +, Duncan wrote: Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:56:25 -0400: This means that we may be pushing for 2.6.21 stable on x86 and amd64 on May 17th. If important issues come up (which they

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree. Exactly, I don't understand the problem here. /me votes to remove vmware Yeah, like that will ever happen :) thanks, greg k-h -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:36:27AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:25:22 -0700 Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree. Exactly, I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:07:20PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote: Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ??crit : On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote: I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote: Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone I'm sorry, but tivoized is not a verb. Please explain what you mean by this. I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:37:46PM -0300, Kevin Lacquement wrote: Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote: Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone I'm sorry, but tivoized is not a verb. Please explain what you mean

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote: Greg KH wrote: The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.) Well legal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:56:24PM +0100, Steve Long wrote: Greg KH wrote: So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections. I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes, including

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:35:16PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: On Thursday I plan to request that the x86 and amd64 arch teams mark the latest gentoo-sources-2.6.22 revision stable. We have no reported regressions for this kernel release. Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: Greg KH wrote: Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in this release? Yes Was there a reason for this? It no longer compiles, as the legacy way of accessing serial ports disappeared, serial is now a platform

Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?

On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 09:31:07AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 06:49:36AM -0500, Dale wrote: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Again, not all of us are willing to migrate away from a separate /usr partition, least of all when that is being imposed by some people

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev and /usr

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 06:37:49AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: On 09/19/2011 05:10, Michał Górny wrote: Could we stop putting random stuff in random dirs because 'it will work'? /etc is _SYSCONFDIR_. I don't see how PCI IDs are config at all. The best answer is for someone to look

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev and /usr

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:46:39PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: On 19/09/2011 19:36, Greg KH wrote: And for those udev/systemd haters, you all do know about devtmpfs, right? If not, {sigh}, I don't even know why I care anymore... greg sick of it all k-h I'm wondering is if devtmpfs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Hi all Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm not a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage QOS

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:10:18PM +0400, Igor wrote: Hello Chris, Friday, January 10, 2014, 1:08:39 AM, you wrote: Right here is the big problem: you're not looking at this from the perspective of the average Gentoo developer. We don't care about market share. We don't care whether

Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team)

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:15:37PM +0700, C. Bergström wrote: At the end of the day we have one codebase which is engineered and another which has evolved. I'll take an evolved codebase over engineered anyday. You do realize that is exactly why Linux has succeeded, right? The kernel has

Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team)

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:42:00AM +0700, C. Bergström wrote: On 01/14/14 12:37 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:15:37PM +0700, C. Bergström wrote: At the end of the day we have one codebase which is engineered and another which has evolved. I'll take an evolved codebase over

Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:27:18PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: Hi! El 29/03/14 05:13, Samuli Suominen escribió: I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my packages again unless they are broken. Udev is broken: * They have known off

Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi Markos, I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:15:55PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it. Developers who

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:44:43PM +0800, cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: > Don't be crazy - I know many developer groups which dislike merge > commits. That nonlinear work flow is just a mess long term. Really? What "mess" does it cause? Are things harder to bisect? Harder to determine what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > > > So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo, > > --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two. > > > > So I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, > > So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the > >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> This is from the last policy draft: > >> https://dev.gentoo.org/

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard > napisał(a): > >On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:08:13PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Forgive me, but I don't see why people have so much trouble with > copyright wrt Gentoo. I've simply assumed anything I wrote for Gentoo > would be attributed to me via git log information and/or metadata.xml > and should I leave

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Dropping stable USE flags for 4.14

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:58:28PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: > Hello, > > We have recently started the stabilization of gentoo-sources-4.14.8. > > Very soon we received reports regarding broken e1000e driver [1] and moved > to gentoo-sources-4.14.8-r1. > > Since then we keep receiving new

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Dropping stable USE flags for 4.14

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 03:14:45PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:58:28PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: > > > > - Unbootable system with CONFIG_MCORE2 [6] This turns out to be a gentoo-specific bug, not much upstream can do about a broken compiler that some pro

<    1   2   3