Re: [gentoo-dev] About XFCE, renames, eclass, etc
Jeremy Olexa wrote: > [. . .] Thanks for the message, Jeremy; it's informative and appreciated! > - xfce-config.xml: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml Josh > (nightmorph) updated this, basically an after thought by us so thanks Josh! > > - xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality. > This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is > required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo > Linux. This is desired because most XFCE users are looking for a > lightweight WM, not a heavy DE. So, users will have to add a terminal, > orage, thunar, etc to the world file instead of relying on a meta package. I made sure to mention this in the Xfce guide after finding all this out on my own . . . "the hard way." :) Take a look at emerge -p --depclean output and go over the world file to see what's up on your system, using emerge --noreplace foo to add stuff back in. And be sure to re-read the Xfce guide if you're wondering which packages should prolly be kept. (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Samuli Suominen wrote: >> You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are >> in place already? :-p > > So what do we do? > > > > Sebastian > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 LiveDVD release enhancements
Samuli Suominen wrote: > 2. Enable HybridISO for the images What's this? Explain! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Multimedia overlay
Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Josh Saddler wrote: > >> Why isn't this on git.overlays.gentoo.org? >> >> If it's not on Gentoo infrastructure, it's not "official." >> > Q: Are All Official Overlays Hosted On overlays.gentoo.org? > > A: No. Gentoo developers are free to put their overlay wherever suits > them best; they don't have to use overlays.gentoo.org if they don't want > to. > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/userguide.xml I'm well aware of that. It's A Dumb Policy(tm). :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Multimedia overlay
Ben de Groot wrote: > Hi, > > The qting-edge overlay (the official overlay for the Gentoo Qt team) is > a great success as a place to develop new ebuilds, packages, eclasses, > to prepare new releases, to maintain bleeding edge stuff like live > ebuilds and especially as a training ground for new recruits. I thought > it would be a good idea to do something similar for our multimedia > related projects, and Steve "beandog" Dibb agreed. > > So hereby we announce the Gentoo Multimedia overlay. It is located at > http://gitorious.org/gentoo-multimedia and any developers who want to > join can let us know their gitorious account name, so they can be added. > Administration of the overlay will be shared among the participating > Gentoo devs, so new committers can quickly be added. Any users that want > commit status can get access after their work is found to be of > sufficient quality. We encourage this, as the overlay is also a training > ground for new contributors to Gentoo. > > We would like to invite anyone interested in developing and maintaining > ebuilds related to multimedia in the wider sense: video, sound, tv, > graphics and fonts. If you have any live ebuilds or otherwise bleeding > edge packages, you can move them to the overlay for testing and shared > maintenance. Why isn't this on git.overlays.gentoo.org? If it's not on Gentoo infrastructure, it's not "official." signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository
Mart Raudsepp wrote: > I wanted to work at some point on splitting out gnome and kde profiles > to separate ones. Perhaps desktop profile could be a generic universal > one with USE flags enabled that rox/lxde/fluxbox and so on would like as > well, and then gnome adds its stuff, and kde adds its own stuff. > Or desktop could be one that enabled both GNOME and KDE stuff as now, by > multi-inheriting both gnome and kde profiles. > Or perhaps both a lowest common denominator desktop-base profile and a > big desktop one enabling everything... What could be nice is if users could select multiple profiles. They first choose the "desktop" profile, which has lots of basic stuff that's DE/WM-agnostic. They could then select another profile that adds e.g. Gnome stuff, like you suggested. I suppose the potential problem here (besides coding support for more than one profile) is making sure that the selected profile's USE flags (etc.) don't conflict with other selected profiles. Profile authors would have to be pretty aware of what other profiles contain, and/or the package manager would have to have some heavy duty resolver. One could just avoid the whole multiple-profiles-selected thing by cloning bits of one profile (like a minimal agnostic "desktop"), then adding your own USE flags, and calling it the "Gnome" profile, but this introduces lots of code duplication. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Qt3 deprecation
Ben de Groot wrote: > Dear fellow devs, > > We would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Gentoo Qt team > now officially discourages further usage of Qt3. Version 3 is no longer > being developed or supported upstream. All users are strongly encouraged > to use Qt version 4 where applicable. Wait a minute. Qt3 is deprecated, but people are still adding new Qt3-based packages to the tree: On the 26th, scarabeus added gerix, as seen on our front page p.g.o feed: net-wireless/gerix-0.20 Qt3 Based aircrack GUI . . . wtf? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About time to unify 'cdda' and 'cdaudio' USE flags and make the remaining one global?
Lars Wendler wrote: > Let's finally move on regarding this topic. As I'm also in favour of > the "cdda" USE flag I'd like to know if there's any objection against the > decision to unify/convert the "cdaudio" USE flag into "cdda". > If there's no good reason against this conversion I will proceed with filing > bugs against packages using the "cdaudio" USE flag next weekend. > > Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) > Gentoo Staffer and bug-wrangler > Am Wednesday 08 July 2009 02:52:07 schrieb Duncan: I object. As discussed earlier in the list, I think "cdaudio" is much more appropriate than "cdda". signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] About time to unify "cdda" and "cdaudio" USE flags and make the remaining one global?
Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Rémi Cardona wrote: >> And now for some bikeshedding fun, which flag are we going to keep? ;) > > My vote would be for cdaudio as that > > - is more general (including analog playback) > - is more user friendly > > but let those decide who "implement" it. I'm also in favor of cdaudio: it's a bit more self-explanatory. I also think it's better to have such a generic description for apps that use libcdio/cdparanoia/cddb combinations, such as the package I maintain, media-sound/decibel-audio-player. I'm all for cdaudio over cdda. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > [stuff] Thanks, will take a look. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)
Samuli Suominen wrote: > Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> GDP team: >> (I didn't hear from you in the bug) >> Could you please update: >> - handbook section "Writing Init scripts" >> - OpenRC migration guide > > ACK on this one, we are already overwhelmed by openrc changes wrt init > scripts at media teams. Or at least, I am. Then, my fellow developers, ya'll need to tell us exactly what needs to change. That has not yet happened on the bugs, just a lot of offtopic discussion relevant to the package maintainers, but not to the GDP for documentation purposes. Just because there's lots of chatter on e.g. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=270646 doesn't mean that the GDP has any idea of how to proceed. GuideXML patches are nice, but not necessary. What we *do* need, at a minimum, is a concise description of what the current text says, and what it needs to say. Thanks. * * * Also, if OpenRC/baselayout is dropping support for things like PPP or ADSL[1], and will not guarantee a "stable" configuration (i.e. as "final" as baselayout-1 has been, not needing constant user-side updates)[2] . . . then we need to find some other solution for our users. If upstream doesn't ever want to slow down, wants to constantly stick in new features, try out new things, that's all well and good. More power to 'em. But I think that is ultimately not such a good thing for our users. Especially if it means constantly dropping support for features, sacrificing compatibility, etc. We're already having enough trouble trying to ensure future Portage compatibility via EAPIs, we should not add in a potential baselayout/OpenRC mess atop that. Oh, yes . . . and there's the workload it would put on the GDP folks. We already have a helluva time running around chasing devs down and prying out straight answers about what to update in the existing documentation. We'd probably all quit if we had to do the same thing for every new openrc/baselayout release. [1] http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c200905252003.42176.rbu%40gentoo.org%3e [2] http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c200905252003.42176.rbu%40gentoo.org%3e signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New app-eselect category?
AllenJB wrote: > I'd favor tags over increasing the category > levels, tho I'm not convinced either is necessary at the current time > (tho tags might make searching easier, in some ways). Heck yes! Tags are a good idea. The idea's been raised on -dev a few times. I suppose they're not (yet) essential, but from a user point of view, if the tools supported searching for tags buried in metadata.xml, it would make life much, much nicer. And if wishes were horses . . . maybe one day we'd all ride. Or at least argue about what shade of pink to paint the ponies. :p signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: > Adding "@overlay" atoms/deps postfix support could really make life > easier, especially because forcing specific atoms in *DEPEND hoping > that these will be always pulled in from the same overlay is not > something reliable, as you already know. No. This is a terrible idea. The solution is to *fix the overlays*, not force the user to intervene and fix things himself. Conflicting overlay issues turn up on the Gentoo forums (check Unsupported Software), and in pretty much all cases, once the maintainer(s) of the overlay(s) are contacted about the issue, the overlays are quickly fixed so that the next update sorts out the user's tree. Users should *not *have to take steps to fix overlay blocks and breaks ahead of time; that should be the overlay maintainer's job, not the poor end user. > Comments are welcome, flames are not. On that note, I'd like to offer a friendly word of caution, in the interests of us all talking together and working through the ideas presented in your threads. In your last visit to our mailing list (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/55180), you stated that you'd like to make some sweeping changes to Gentoo, then you started telling the developers why they all sucked ahead of time for not implementing said ideas. And then you kept telling developers that they sucked throughout the rest of the replies. You expressed unwillingness to work with Gentoo developers through our admittedly long recruitment process, instead wanting to push your changes to our tree directly. There wasn't very much accomplished on either side at the end of that debacle, except some hurt feelings. It seems that the discussions you're having in the binary packages and overlay threads are already heading the same direction, and I for one don't want that to happen. Telling people they're not allowed to express disagreement is counterproductive.[1][2] [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61555/focus=61568 [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61530/focus=61560 So, folks, just take it easy. We don't have to accept every suggestion offered to the list, nor do we have to reject it out of hand. Thanks. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Accessibility on our release media
William Hubbs wrote: > My question for the group is, how do you feel about speech software > being on our minimal cd as well as our live cd? I am all in favor of this. We should strive to provide easy access to our distribution, and that includes opening up new access methods. I remember one time a few years ago that there was a blind user on #gentoo in IRC who needed a lot of help installing Gentoo; he had to find friends who had the time to read what was on the screen (which they couldn't necessarily understand, as our installation and procedures *are* pretty geeky and technical.) How much easier would it have been if he had been able to take charge and do it himself? He probably would have stuck with Gentoo. IIRC, he was discouraged and had to look elsewhere despite his desire to use our stuff. So I'm all in favor of adding the speech software. Question: what kind of end-user configuration is required once the CD is booted to make use of it? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: > Hello, > > This is a request for comments on a new project, > namely "Gentoo Support Everywhere". > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ > > The web page doesn't really explain all the background > needed to understand why would anyone want to start such > a project. However this forum thread might be more > clarifying: > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html > > The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls > that wander around the LQ forums, and to create a Gentoo > subforum at LQ like many other distros do. However, eventually > the support might be extended to other places if there's a > need and enough human power to do so. You are of course free to put in work wherever you want to. This is Gentoo. We're all about picking an itch and scratching it. I won't tell you where to put your time or where not to put your time. However, for the purposes of an actual project, I believe it's considered essential that we own the infrastructure that project is hosted on. All of our other projects (to my knowledge) are hosted on our own infrastructure. If we cannot properly administer a Gentoo resource, i.e. if we have to go through unaffiliated intermediaries, then it should not be an official Gentoo project. I don't believe having a spot in /proj/ designates a project as "official"; I think the actual working area needs to be Gentoo-owned. That being said, you and others are free to do the whole LQ and other forums help; more power to you. But as I said, I don't think it should be an official TLP (or subproject) as we do not have proper supervision of external resources. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation
Jeremy Olexa wrote: > I hope it goes without saying that bug 213988 > (http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988) should be resolved before either > stabilization or news posting. The doc is somewhat out of date now. I assume you mean the baselayout-2/openrc migration guide? Not as far as we know. And what we, the GDP, *know* is entirely dependent on the bug reports and *guide updates* that you, the rest of the community, submit. :) (Yes, we know that our other documents do not have anything about baselayout-2/openrc in them. That's why we have the tracker bug. If you've got something to report, send it in!) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming Willikins downtime
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Hi folks, just a quick note, since the Willikins bot is widely used now. > > Due to the datacentre where the bot is hosted moving physical premises, there > will be a downtime of 4-16 hours, starting Apr 15 04:00:00. > > 4 hours is the timeframe I've been told, but I think it's unrealistic myself. > 16 hours is my worst case number, of them screwing up something in the move, > and me having to visit the box personally. > !botsnack Thanks for the notice (and the bot). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-soc] Gsoc Idea: EeePC Script/Build
Aaron Lebahn wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Andrey Falko wrote: > > >> Would it be possible to integrate these scripts into Gentoo current >> graphical installer, as well as included on one of the minimal install >> CDs? >> >> > Yes, That would be a good idea. I could add to the graphical install instead > of trying to make a completely separate cd. I supose that would even be > preferred. The installer was declared deprecated and unsupported in future releases. It will no longer be used. Here's the original announcement from back in January: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.installer/607 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: LC_ALL=C Set by default for portage
Dawid Węgliński wrote: > On Sunday 08 of March 2009 23:50:08 Ryan Hill wrote: > >> You do realize that many people don't speak any English, and therefore >> wouldn't be filing bugs anyways? They just want to use their >> computer. I'm not sure they will appreciate you forcing a language they >> don't speak on them any more than I would like to suddenly see all my >> build errors in Myanmar. > > Plz fix the bug [1] > > [1] - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166730 > Possible solution: Don't set LC_ALL in general unless you're merging to get specific error messages. It's a known issue. Try searching for LC_ALL among CLOSED documentation bugs. Pops up a lot: [1] http://tinyurl.com/d3df5y (bug search list) [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260477 [3] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml [4] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/guide-localization.xml#doc_chap3 * * Note the big ol' WARNING before code listing 3.1. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3
Tiziano Müller wrote: > Hi everyone > > With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new > problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you > depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example). > > So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct > improvements: > > http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ Is there a reason why we should ram through a new EAPI for something that *looks* like another "Paludis supports this so let's make it a Portage standard" proposal? Is there some kind of time deadline here that you all want? Also, why the bannination of || ( foo? (.).) -- how is it error prone, exactly. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] How to speed up maintenance and other Gentoo work?
Olivier Crête wrote: > Maybe we could use the dev wiki for that kind of stuff? > > Having a wiki.gentoo.org would be even better... There is, but it's uber-sekrit. Or so I was told some years ago. It may or may not (still) exist. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
Petteri Räty wrote: > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order > to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is > only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it > easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual > discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful > experiment to see if we can control ourselves :) > > My notes so far: > > 1) Status quo > - does not allow changing inherit > - bash version in global scope > - global scope in general is quite locked down > 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild > - Allows changing global scope > - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust > the value in the cache > - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a > normal metadata variable > * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older > versions if the latest is not masked > a) > b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/ > - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about > it any more > - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository > c) .ebuild in current directory > - needs one year wait Leave EAPI inside the ebuild. That's where I want to find it. Oh, and as others have mentioned, CVS sucks for file renaming and versions. Yet another reason to leave it inside the ebuild. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC + Bridge + Tap not working as expected?
This list is not a user support list. Please see the gentoo-user ML. You may also want to check http://forums.gentoo.org to see if anyone else has had the issue. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Can't format floppy or write to it...
This is not the right place to ask. Ask on either: 1. Gentoo forums: http://forums.gentoo.org 2. Gentoo user mailing list: gentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new categories:
Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > I was thinking, maybe it would be possible to drop categories completely in > the future (maybe keeping symlinks for compatibility and to ease migration) > and to put *all* packages in one directory - that would require making all > names unique of course. Tags for packages are not a new idea; it's been brought up on this list before. But I really, really, don't like the idea of renaming packages. So, what, we're turning into Debian? Arbitrary package (re)naming? Yuck! Our current policy is to call the package what upstream calls it. We can do this largely *because* of categories. There are a few noncompliant packages, but the system generally works pretty well. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: PR Project Activity Issues
Ryan Hill wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:47:04 -0800 > Alec Warner wrote: > >> Is GuideXML in fact a barrier for submission (do we get complaints >> about it?) > > I seem to remember doc/newsletter people stating on multiple occasions > that they're happy to accept plain text submissions (feel free to beat > me if i hallucinated it). docs team != GMN*, but yes, we're happy to take submissions in plain text form. However, it does take longer to GuideXMLify an article when readying the newsletter than if we get one already in XML; then it's just drop-in. * (puts on GDP hat) Actually, we don't mind getting plain text docs, either, since we too can GuideXMLify those submissions. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Handling Launchpad SRC_URI
Right now, there's no canonical (heh) way of handling SRC_URI for
projects that have their files at launchpad.net. We need a standard way
of handling Launchpad SRC_URIs, similar to what we do with
mirror://sourceforge/ SRC_URIs.
1. Some packages use the launchpadlibrarian.net download redirect, which
results in a non-helpful server-generated number:
(gnome-catalog)
SRC_URI="http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11326737/${PN}_${PV}.orig.tar.gz
2. Some hack up interesting MY_P stuff:
(gnome-do-plugins)
MY_PN="do-plugins"
PVC=$(get_version_component_range 1-2)
PVC2=$(get_version_component_range 1-3)
SRC_URI="https://launchpad.net/${MY_PN}/${PVC}/${PVC2}/+download/${P}.tar.gz";
(avant-window-navigator-extras)
MY_P="awn-extras-applets-${PV}"
SRC_URI="https://launchpad.net/awn-extras/${PV%.*}/${PV}/+download/${MY_P}.tar.gz";
The AWN-extras ebuild is the closest to the "right" way of doing it, I
think.
So can we agree on a standard way of treating Launchpad SRC_URIs and get
the handler support into Portage?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QEMU Sick!
Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) wrote: > [Rant rant rant] 1. Stop bitching. 2. Go away. (Not necessarily in that order.) Oh, and by the way: > - No serious Gentoo-Wiki - rewritten after great boom! Guess what? We don't own that. We don't control it. It has no affiliation with Gentoo; it's run by some of the users from the community. It's their project, not ours. Take up your issues with them. If the wiki needs fixing, then FIX IT. That's what it's for. Actually, that applies to the Gentoo distribution itself: if something bothers you, there are a million ways to FIX IT. Help out, or find something more suited to your . . . temperament. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] glep-42-news: sparc multilib profile
Jeremy Olexa wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Friedrich Oslage wrote: > >> [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~bluebird/sparc-multilib/ > > I would put it in the gentoo.org/doc/en/ domain and link to it in the > gentoo-sparc index > (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/sparc/index.xml) > > 2 cents, > Jeremy > Mmm, not so much. Documentation like this, that's so specific to one particular architecture, would be better off in project documentation -- that's (partly) why ya'll have project directories in the first place. Otherwise it becomes a maintenance burden for the GDP. It'll be easier on the Sparc team to maintain it if it's in their own /proj/ space. What we can do, however, is list it in metadoc.xml, so that it will show up in /doc/en/list.xml. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: disable python and perl USE flags in profile
Nathan Zachary wrote: > If one has built a system with the default python and perl USE flags, > what steps would be necessary to remove all packages and dependencies > after removing them from the USE declarations? After kicking 'em out of make.conf, run emerge -pvtuDN world (the N is important; it tells emerge to look for USE flag changes). Once you've rebuilt your packages, then you can run emerge -p --depclean. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A tool helps to diff and override config files
Song Ma wrote: > I tried "dispatch-conf" and "etc-update". Here are two major differences > from my tool: > > 1. For desktop user, my tool will invoke GUI based "kdiff3" to do diff > and merge files if the user installed the "kdiff3". And for remote login > user or the user without "kdiff3", the tool will just get the normal > text-base diff. > > 2. My tool can override multiple config files in batch mode. Although > this is dangerous, sometime it's useful and not so nagging. You need to look at cfg-update, which has gtk+ and qt+ interfaces. And is arguably less dangerous. Better yet, just look around in the app-portage category; there are lots of config file update tools, in addition to the excellent ones already present in Portage. You also need to read the Portage handbook. It explains the built-in update tools: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=4 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki
Gokdeniz Karadag wrote: > The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, which can > become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by developers. . . . no, I'd think not. It takes time and effort to produce one of our polished, professional documents. That's duplicating the time and effort that it takes to write a decent wiki article -- pointless duplication. One of the things I'm hearing from just about every other user and developer is that users would be providing the peer review necessary to keep documents at a general level of quality. This means "let the wiki live its wiki life," which means there's no need to reformat the article as something else. If it's a decent wiki article, then it should stand on its own meritsas a wiki article, nothing else. It's a community contributed article on the community-contributed resource. That's where it belongs. Most folks have said they're okay with official Gentoo documentation and a second community-contributed resource (that may not be as accurate, tested, readable, etc.) So keep that system around. If you want to jot up a quick howto, or an article filled with individual speculation and anecdotes, keep it on the wiki. If you want a doc to be considered *the* authority on its subject (such as http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml ;)), maintained by Gentoo developers, then submit it to the GDP via bugzilla, or provide updates to one of the docs we already have. There really is no reason why we can't have this split. There's no need to XMLify every halfway decent wiki article just because it's so much better than everything else on the wiki. Trying to do so involves an inordinate number of work hours and staff that we just don't have, not to mention greatly raising the existing maintainer burden. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki
Mark Loeser wrote: > So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from > our users something that is useful. Its back now, but I think we should > consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to. > We already have something very similar to this on the forums, and this > would just give the correct tool to put their documentation on. > > I already know some people are going to hate this idea and say that the > documentation could be wrong, etc, so lets look at how others have > handled this situation. It seems that Ubuntu has their own official > documentation section and a community section where users can contribute > to. We can put a nice big warning saying that the user documentation > may have some errors, and that any such errors should not be directed at > the maintainers of the package or the GDP. > > What are others feelings on this? What issues do you see with having a > wiki? Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a > wiki? > I've asked my fellow GDP members to weigh in on this issue on our ML; the discussion is already in-progress here: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-doc/msg_dd4f573fc6384108fdf14dfa27030906.xml Or, if you like it gmane-style: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.documentation/2903 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] To ELISA, PIGMENT, PIGMENT-PYTHON dev's
Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) wrote: > (stuff) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159086 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Adding lxde-base category
Ben de Groot wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used > for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the categories > for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde, xfce). > Comments are welcome! First, thanks for getting this stuff into the tree; I just synced, and it's all very nice. 'Cept for one thing: $ eix -c lxappearance [N] lxde-base/lxappearance (~0.2): LXDE GTK+ theme switcher [N] x11-themes/lxappearance (~0.2): a desktop-independent theme switcher for GTK+ Found 2 matches. So...any reason why BOTH these packages are still in the tree? Couldn't one of them have been removed entirely or just moved categories? Because right now "emerge lxappearance" returns the ambiguous error, and it really doesn't need to be that tricky. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Adding lxde-base category
Ben de Groot wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used > for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the categories > for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde, xfce). With the > help of a few users I have been developing ebuilds for these packages in > the lxde overlay [3], and I would like to move the ebuilds for the > release versions into the official tree now. (The overlay also contains > live svn ebuilds.) > > LXDE currently has 14 packages that would go into this new category, > which is comparable to what xfce-base has. It also uses x11-wm/openbox > as default WM, and x11-misc/pcmanfm as default filemanager, although > these can be easily swapped for others. > > Comments are welcome! > > 1: http://lxde.org/ > 2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/157989 > 3: http://www.bitbucket.org/yngwin/lxde-overlay/src/ > I dunno . . . given the Xfce (the OTHER lightweight DE) team's decision to start getting rid of the xfce-* categories, near as I can tell, is this really consistent with what the rest of the desktop teams are doin'? Or is it just Xfce that seems to be less consistent with other categories. Aside from these recent actions, lxde categories seem like a good idea, same as for all our other desktops. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Flags to punt (including: kerberos USE flag)
Mart Raudsepp wrote: > I'm believe the primary reason is for release LiveCD's. > They ship with evolution-exchange, and that requires > evolution/evolution-data-server to be built with USE=kerberos > They don't do /etc/portage business, so it's a global USE flag to get > things like GRP packages to work right. Yes, but not just for the LiveCDs. I spoke with wolf31o2 about this some time ago, asking why it was turned on in the desktop profile. He said it was for Evolution stuff, not just on the LiveCDs though. Also supposed to be useful for folks who want lots of Exchange and other stuff for their rich email client. I'm also in favor of punting it from the desktop profiles; doing so puts me that much closer to actually using it. Long as we're discussing things to punt, here's some stuff to kick out of the desktop profile: mikmod - Seriously, how many folks make it a habit to listen to .MOD music all the time? Even netlabels like Monotonik, which started *out* as .mod, make it harder to find their old .mod stuff. ldap - Punt for the same reasons kerberos is being punted. eds - Down with more Evolution things! Though possibly not ideal for Gnome user? esd - no one should be using Enlightenment Sound Daemon, period. Ain't it deprecated, anyway? No worky? emboss - Seriously. Who needs the European Biology Open Software Suite on a *desktop* oriented system? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Jeeves IRC replacement now alive - Willikins
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Willikins was not in the following channels, as nobody requested it here yet. > > #gentoo-apache > #gentoo-br > #gentoo-db > #gentoo-doc-nl > #gentoo-embedded > #gentoo-eselect > #gentoo-hardened > #gentoo-installer > #gentoo-media > #gentoo-netmon > #gentoo-osx > #gentoo-pms > #gentoo-scire > #gentoo-test > #gentoo-voip > #gentoo-web > #gentoo-xfce > > Solar has requested that the bot joins the channels now, so if you have > complaints instead, please note them here. Dunno about the others, but #gentoo-xfce just forwards to #gentoo-desktop now, so no point in having it try to do -xfce. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 / OpenRC Stabilization
Doug Goldstein wrote: > As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC > 0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in > approximately 30 days. > > I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one. > > Current Bugs: *http://tinyurl.com/4housz* > I need everyone to take a peek at bug 213988 (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988) -- it concerns the documentation. Please add any blocker bugs for stuff that needs to be fixed in /doc/en/ and /doc/en/handbook/ -- if you know of initscript updates and the like, be sure to add your bug to this tracker bug. We do have a migration guide at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml, so please review it to make sure it's accurate and complete. I seem to be the only guy working on English docs these days, so I need any changes ASAP, the better to cram 'em into the time available before stabilization. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Projects without a homepage, and valid contents of HOMEPAGE (per bug 239268)
Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Robin H Johnson wrote: > HOMEPAGE="http://this-package-has-no-homepage.gentoo.org/"; >>> That would impose needless lookups on subdomains of gentoo.org for >>> clients trying to load the homepage. >> http://gentoo.org/package-has-no-homepage/ then. > > Couldn't a page be created at this URL, with a notice that the package > has no real homepage? > > Ulrich > I think that'd take too much time to create and maintain that sort of thing, especially once old packages are finally removed from the tree. Why not just stick in a message that says "This package has no homepage"? Or "none"? Is there any reason why that couldn't go into the HOMEPAGE="" variable? Will it break QA tools and other utilities? Sure, it'd be nice if there was a homepage, but putting one on gentoo.org implies that we do code fixes and other work, not just hosting the tarballs. Do we really want to *be* upstream for all our orphaned packages? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] developer profile
Thomas Sachau wrote: > I just had a user in bugzilla who thought, the developer profile would be for > software developers, > not just for gentoo developers. Probably he is not the only one. > > What about either adding some big warning on portage output or renaming this > profile to e.g. > "gentoodeveloper"? I think this discussion has popped up before on both this list and on gentoo-doc. I added some substantial warnings to the documentation that discusses profiles per Donnie's request if I remember right. The bottom line is that you can try to make things as tricky as you want; users will still try to do it because they don't bother to read any documentation. That's something you can't force 'em to do. Still, perhaps adding some output would be good, though I'm not sure how. eselect doesn't seem to be setup to display anything; "eselect profile set 9" to switch to "amd64/2008.0" doesn't even return a message that it was set. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
Alec Warner wrote: > If pmask is not for testing...what is it for? UT GOTY and nvidia-drivers, of course! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summaries for August & September
Donnie Berkholz wrote: - All our docs should be updated to refer to irc.gentoo.org instead of irc.freenode.net. Fixed in irc.xml and most of our other documentation in /doc/en/; will fix the rest later. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug wrangling
Joe Peterson wrote: Sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, but if one has a proxy maintainer (i.e. not a Gentoo dev) for a package, can/should this person be added to metadata.xml? Is there a special tag for this? I can certainly see this being helpful (so that person automatically gets on the cc list at least). Not that I've noticed. For example, I'm the maintainer of decibel-audio-player, but aballier is the one who actually commits stuff for me (my access does not include gentoo-x86). We're both listed as in metadata.xml. No special tag. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliant KDE install and multi-version support
Philip Webb wrote: I really do appreciate the hard volunteer work the KDE team donates & have nothing but thanks to them all, but shouldn't your priority be to get KDE 4.1 into 'testing', so that users can actually try it out ? There's also 3.5.10 , which has been released, but isn't in Gentoo yet. In fairness, their priority is whatever they *want* to do. No one has the right to dictate what they should and should not be doing -- except themselves. Maybe figuring out the install path is a precursor to all that? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] LXDE project
Ben de Groot wrote: Hi everyone, I recently got interested in LXDE[1], the Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment, and I would like to see this available in portage. At the moment there are, to my knowledge, 3 overlays maintained by users that include ebuilds for lxde. I think it is time to combine efforts and get these packages into the official tree. I have therefor created an LXDE project page[2] under the Desktop top-level project. My idea is to initially start an official overlay and develop the needed packages in there. I am actively encouraging users to participate in development and maintenance, and of course I am extending the invitation to any Gentoo developers who would like to join. I don't want to spread myself too thin, and having more experienced developers involved with the project would be a good thing. Any constructive feedback is welcome! [1] http://lxde.org/about.html [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/lxde/ I started using LXDE when I was trying out a bunch of lightweight alternative distros -- it really is nice to run; lighter than even Xfce. Once you get the packages into Portage and stabilized, I'll be happy to write up the installation guide; it deserves a spot right up there with our Gnome/KDE/Xfce/Fluxbox guides. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Plethora of Patches
Andrew D Kirch wrote: Denis Dupeyron wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] Looks like you counted the number of files in the files/ subdirectories. Not all of these are patches. Also, you probably forgot to count seds, as some of us use sed more than patches. Oh, and like Jeremy was hinting, please contact QA. They need somebody like you. Denis. How would one get ahold of this QA? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP 56] metadata.xml USE flag descriptions [Clarifications]
Doug Goldstein wrote: Howdy all, Further questions regarding use.desc have come up with regard to this GLEP. My proposed solution would be a potential amendment to the GLEP to state that Comments, Suggestions, Input are all welcome. If you're going for proper XML, then it should look like this: XML doesn't put a space between the attribute and the closing slash -- XHTML does. Common mistake. Also, use " for attributes, rather than '. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Reading around on the net, it amazes me how many people are using developer profiles for their Gentoo because they think it's for software developers and don't see that it's for Gentoo developers and not intended for end users. They know the "Developer" installation profiles of other distros and think Gentoo's profiles are just the same (on those distros, selecting a dev profile just means it installs GCC + dev libs + IDEs by default.) Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. *shrug* If people would _read_ the documentation, such as http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml or http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1&chap=6#doc_chap2, then they would know what the profiles are for. I don't think we should start making certain profiles harder to use. Maybe if profiles.desc had a more explanatory entry on the developer profile so that users know what's up with it. Or better yet, include an entry in the eselect profile module that prints a brief description of a given profile, or at least references the various documentation on profiles. Oh, and FYI, gcc (and complete toolchain) and various development libraries are already installed by default -- that's the nature of using a source-based distro; all that stuff needs to be there to do anything, so it's already included. At no point will merely "selecting a new profile" actually install anything. As always, you have to go through the package manager if you want something installed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] IBM article of interest ?
Philip Webb wrote: 080716 Josh Saddler wrote: Philip Webb wrote: I'm not sure whether anyone among Gentoo officials cares about this, but IBM has an article http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-awk1.html whose byline is very misleading & may infringe on Gentoo's IP. I have submitted a comment to IBM via their form. Uh, this article really *was* written by drobbins some time ago. It's okay. It's all perfectly legal; in fact, check out http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/ Yes, it looks as if someone at IBM simply copied it from there, where it is indeed marked "updated". Perhaps you misunderstand -- the articles originally were written *for developerWorks*, not for Gentoo. That's where they first appeared 7 or 8 years ago. There remains an error in the IBM page above & the Gentoo doc version, ie the URL given for 'Gentoo Technologies Inc' is 'www.gentoo.org'. Whether the author still maintains GTI in New Mexico isn't clear (there's another 'GTI' in Blacksburg VA , which makes databases etc), but even if so, its Internet site is not the same as Gentoo Foundation's: this needs to be corrected by the maintainer of Gentoo docs & by IBM. One would also assume that the author has a more direct e-address than the forwarding address at Gentoo still given in the article & the personal details seem to be 8 years old (eg "new baby"): those also would better be updated or deleted. In contrast with traditional printed media -- press or advertising -- the Internet is often less precise & therefore can be seriously misleading: there is a lot of out-of-date information lying around & no-one to take responsibility for it. Nothing about the article really needs to be updated, either on the Gentoo side or the IBM side. If you look through the CVS log, about the only changes we made were a few typo fixes or adding GuideXML code to stuff that wasn't so well highlighted in the original. That's it. Nothing more needs to be done -- these articles are snapshots of how things used to be. We don't need to wipe out everything that's old, do we? Why not leave the information there so people can get some history? What if people don't want more recent information shared, and don't want a new email for all to see? Seriously, nothing needs to be done on the IBM side, nor on ours. It's not an issue. There's no infringement anywhere, so please just let it go. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] IBM article of interest ?
Philip Webb wrote: I'm not sure whether anyone among Gentoo officials cares about this, but IBM has an article http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-awk1.html whose byline is very misleading & may infringe on Gentoo's IP. I have submitted a comment to IBM via their form at the bottom of the page. Uh, this article really *was* written by drobbins some time ago. It's okay. It's all perfectly legal; in fact, check out http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/ I and some other folks GuideXMLified the original developerWorks articles and republished them on gentoo.org with permission. Example for the URL you posted: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/l-awk1.xml However, everything else drobbins wrote can be found in http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/, as can several other articles written by Gentoo folks over the years. No need for the alarm, folks. Simmahdownah. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
Fabian Groffen wrote: I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I installed Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on purpose conservative with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not much more than "-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels conservative to me. Still, do we really need to go any further? Why not make additional pointers to possible values for LDFLAGS like we do for C(XX)FLAGS in the installation manual? CFLAGS != LDFLAGS, so the installation handbook has never covered them. And yes, we are conservative in our documentation with regards to optimization, because that's the smart choice. Ya'll may want to take a look at the compilation optimization guide at [1], specifically the FAQ on LDFLAGS. I may need to reword this section a bit given how the stance on LDFLAGS has shifted. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-optimization.xml#doc_chap3_sect4 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tags vs. categories
Tags . . . I like the idea. I like it a lot. Thoughts? Exciting? Or is it an old issue, and I'm 5 years late to the party. :) Probably more than 5... Well, that's not very helpful. Got any links? My archives.g.o-fu has failed me. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tags vs. categories (was: sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scip)
Alec Warner wrote: On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because it is not worth the trouble of doing the move? I assume we inherited the category idea from fbsd ports. It is pointless because we should probably have tags; not categories. It is akin to the Section[1] header in a debian control file. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections Tags instead of categories . . . Now here's a very interesting idea, indeed. Has there ever been a proposal like this for Gentoo? I think we could improve on the Debian way of doing (sub)sections And I think that a good system of tags would do better than most distros which have a fairly limited set of arbitrary categories (like desktop, system, utils; who knows what the heck those last two mean, anyway?) But blog-style multiple tags might be very, very nice, if we could agree on a set of tags to use, without trapping ourselves into some of the weirder categorization used by other distros, like Slackware's arcane alphabetic system. Tags . . . I like the idea. I like it a lot. Thoughts? Exciting? Or is it an old issue, and I'm 5 years late to the party. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] MP4 global use flag
Steve Dibb wrote: Any objections to moving MP4 from a local to a global USE flag. For the record, MP4 is a multimedia container to store multiple audio/video formats in. Currently we have 4 ebuilds using it, all for the same description. 4 doesn't sound quite worthy of global, yet. However, there are 70-someodd packages that use "aac" -- and they all seem to be for mp4 audio in some form, more or less. Is it worthwhile to just s/mp4/aac, or vice versa? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A few questions to our nominees
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:49:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details?
- rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook,
guidexml.
What technical reason is there to use a markup that's more work for
those of us doing the writing? Writing XML is a huge pain in the ass
compared to latex.
More people can understand those markups
I've yet to see anyone have any difficulties with Tex.
they are consistent with the gentoo documentation
GuideXML can't even begin to cover our requirements. Simple example:
try to rewrite the following in GuideXML:
---START---
Global variables must only contain invariant values
(see~\ref{metadata-invariance}). If a global variable's value is
invariant, it may have the value that would be generated at any given
point in the build sequence.
This is demonstrated by code listing~\ref{lst:env-saving}.
\lstinputlisting[float,caption=Environment state between
functions,label=lst:env-saving]{env-saving.listing}
---END---
Let's change all that hideous, barely readable multiple brace/bracket
abuse into something more human-readable, shall we?
---
Global variables must only contain invariant values (see link="#metadata-invariance">link). If a global variable's value is
invariant, it may have the value that would be generated at any given
point in the build sequence.
This is demonstrated by the following:
bunch o'neat code
---
Oh, and that "id" is entirely optional; GuideXML is smart enough to keep
track of successive code blocks, so you automatically have numerical
inter/intra document links, as I'll demonstrate at the end of this email.
GuideXML has moved on, while you seem to be stuck in the past. For
example, look at all the neat things we can do especially for ebuild
syntax highlighting.[1] Might want to read the rest of that document,
while you're at it.
Thanks for playing; you lose.
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml#doc_chap2_sect7
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Idea
George Prowse wrote: > [stuff] Take it to gentoo-project, please. This list is s'posed to be for technical discussion. gentoo-project is more appropriate for this kind of query. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009
Łukasz Damentko wrote: Hi guys, Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008). Now that nominations are officially open, I nominate the current council members (again): amne betelgeuse dberkholz flameeyes jokey lu_zero vapier signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations for council
Denis Dupeyron wrote: Alright. Then I'll nominate all members of the current council. In alphabetical order: amne betelgeuse dberkholz flameeyes jokey lu_zero vapier Seconded. (Also...it's voting time already? Can't believe it's already been a year.) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see that a number of packages in the tree explicitly filter -ffast-math. That's mostly from the bad old days when users were encouraged to use silly CFLAGS... 1. _When_ was this? 2. _Who_ was encouraging this? . . . because it sure as hell hasn't ever been in the official documentation. Last year I wrote the optimization guide[1] in part to stem the flood of bad advice on the unofficial gentoo-wiki, and by uninformed users on the forums. There hasn't been any official documentation telling users to do foolish things with their CFLAGS or LDFLAGS. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-optimization.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Doug Goldstein wrote: It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and committed it to the tree this weekend. Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. Well, *somebody* had better get their act together and talk with me about the migration document. I don't care about the ebuild so much as I do about making sure there's a howto for the migration process. If baselayout-2 & OpenRC are the future of Gentoo, then gosh darnit, we need to work together. That means people "in the know" need to communicate with me on the draft (that I've already sent to cardoe), regardless of any who's-ebuild-are-we-using-epenis-fights. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Doug Goldstein wrote: All, This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available via the layman module "openrc". I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. The installation handbooks won't be changed until openrc & baselayout-2 are stabilized and shipped with the stage3 tarballs. The same goes for our existing documentation. Until the new baselayout & openrc are stabilized, made the default, *and* the old stuff is marked deprecated, don't expect it to show up in our other documents alongside baselayout-1 content. The last thing I want is to fork our documentation code samples, and duplicate everything with "if you're on baselayout2 and/or openrc, do this instead" instructions. That type of thing is a maintenance and usability headache. It's all or nothing. "There can be only one!" I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March
Anant Narayanan wrote: > [stuff] So basically, what you're looking for is something like Arch Linux's Trusted User (TU) concept[1]. That works for Arch, because they have 5 repositories (including a community repo), but I'm not sure how well that would fit Gentoo, where there's just one. We'd need some pretty extensive ACLs to make your proposal work, so you'd need to talk to infra about that. [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys? In fairness, not just for Intel fanboys. Drop by the forums some time and just try to count up all the threads asking "are the amd64 stages/media appropriate for my computer? i have a core 2" and similar. Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier, there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which wouldn't make the GDP happpy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] I want to steal your tools
Alec Warner wrote: s/writtten/written s/aggregrate/aggregate s/genitellia/genitalia app-doc/nightmorph, your spellchecking tool. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Adding two USE flags to 2008.0's profiles
Petteri Räty wrote: > Actually bluetooth support is in quite a good shape. The thing was there > was a urgent need to get bluez-utils-3* stable for which I need some doc > updates etc before it can go stable. (Yes I am a slacker there) Doc updates? GDP hasn't heard anything about this, as far as I know. No open bugs, anyway. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of digest files from the tree
Zac Medico wrote: > (shtuff) This sounds like something that might require extensive documentation changes. If so, please review the Portage Handbooks for anything that will need updating, as well as the Gentoo Upgrading Guide[1]. This latter document is where we keep the instructions for upgrading from old installations. Not sure if this removal will seriously affect such users or not. If so, patches and/or additional instructions sent to the GDP will be most welcome. Thanks! [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: sys-devel/distcc-config
Petteri Räty wrote: > Josh Saddler kirjoitti: >> Ryan Hill wrote: >>> # Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (10 Jan 2008) >>> # Duplicates functionality already in sys-devel/distcc >>> # Masked for removal (treecleaner) >>> # Bug #192741 >>> sys-devel/distcc-config >>> >>> >> >> Given that this is being removed, can you or someone in charge of distcc >> packages please provide a patch for the distcc guide[1]? It references >> distcc-config several times. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Josh >> > > The command is not going to be removed. It's provided by the distcc > package itself. Ah, so no need to emerge the package itself? Then I'll just remove such emerge references from the guide. Thanks! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: sys-devel/distcc-config
Ryan Hill wrote: > # Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (10 Jan 2008) > # Duplicates functionality already in sys-devel/distcc > # Masked for removal (treecleaner) > # Bug #192741 > sys-devel/distcc-config > > Given that this is being removed, can you or someone in charge of distcc packages please provide a patch for the distcc guide[1]? It references distcc-config several times. Thanks, Josh [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/distcc.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Projects and subproject status
Luca Barbato wrote: > Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we > going to do?" Documentation (Note: I'm not the project lead, but neysx isn't on the list, nor does he send status updates, so I hope he and the rest of the project won't mind. > Are we fine? Sure, why not. The pace of new bugs has slowed down, which is good, as it allows for, uh, existing bugs to get fixed? Over the last couple of months, some GDP devs besides me have been making commits, which is a nice change of pace from how the year had been previously. :) (I can take a vacation, whoo!) Sure, we have a few bugs that are two or three (or even four) years old, but who doesn't? We could always use more translators though. We have several dead languages, some of which used to be pretty big. > What are we going to do: The handbooks for the upcoming release are almost ready. Our release plans have changed slightly; still coordinating with releng. We'll get 'em finished up and delivered . . . at some point. Promise. On down the road, you can expect the usual maintenance of existing world-class docs. I hope to get more patches submitted[1] against our ldap guide[2] so that it can be made an official doc once again. I'm sure we'll be seeing new documentation this year; there's always at least a few new guides per year. You have any suggestions on new docs you'd like to see, feel free to send 'em my way. Or open a bug if you have actual content already written. ;) [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176075 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ldap-howto.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reducing the size of the system package set
Mike Frysinger wrote: >> Well, openssh has always been questionable. Sure, *I* think it should >> be on any Gentoo system I'd want to touch, but it really isn't necessary >> for a lot of people. Moving this to, say, the "server" profiles only >> would be acceptable to me, but then again, so is leaving it how it is >> now. > > i'd argue pretty vehemently against removing openssh from any default > official > Gentoo install. ssh is defacto standard for loginning into any other > machines. it should be on all Gentoo desktops/severs/etc... > specialized/embedded/whatever are certainly free to cull openssh (and doing > so is actually beyond trivial). whether we express this requirement in base/ > or frags or something is certainly open for discussion, but i believe > removing it from a stage3 in any of our standard releases is a huge > disservice to everyone. We all know that ssh is good for sysadmins and netadmins and Gentoo developers, etc. However, desktop users -- i.e., those not in those categories, which is most everyone else, likely do not find it as useful. I'd say that most of our userbase doesn't need to remotely connect to other machines. Our development/admin experiences are *not* typical of our installed userbase, judging by our huge forums. Their machines aren't used for such purposes. openssh may be a de facto standard for the kind of application it is, but that doesn't mean we need to force it on end-users. Our philosophy has been more of "opt-in", rather than "opt-out", and quite simply, ssh isn't a critical system package; a base installed system won't be broken if it's not there. If you *need* it to do work (admins, I'm looking at you), then you can *emerge* it. Just like vim, cvs, dev_tool_foo etc. I *am* a desktop user. And . . . aside from Gentoo development, I have no need for ssh. It could easily be removed from the system profile -- the only place it might be kept is in the liveCD environment, for remote installations. Other than that, we don't need to ship it in our stages; just on the media. (Whoa, sudden feeling of deja vu. I'm 80% positive this was previously brought up on the MLs within the last two to three years...and I stated the same view then!) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100 > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment >> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ... > * It's a format restriction. Some formats have to start with something > that's not #!. Who cares? Gentoo uses the ebuild/bash-with-shebang format. If you're trying to shove in something outside of that, that would be a package manager-specific format. Like XML-stuff (that can't include the shebang or EAPI="foo" at the top) specifically for, say, Paludis. But wait, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> robertz wrote: >> especially PM specific EAPI. We can't have PM specific EAPI, >> otherwise we are risking forking/splitting ourself. > > Package manager EAPIs don't belong in the main tree, but they have > uses outside of it. If it's package manager-specific, then it doesn't belong in the main tree, as you stated. Would that include trying to push in the proposed suffix changes? If they have uses outside of it, then consider supporting it *only in that package manager*, rather than trying to force it on what is largely an unreceptive Gentoo group. Near as I can tell, it's only the Paludis folks that are interested in pushing this GLEP through. It doesn't seem like additional suffix flexibility is all that desirable except to the folks who represent one package manager. And, well, one PM does not make a specification. Mostly. Sorta. Occasionally. Sometimes. You'd think. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)
Petteri Räty wrote: > Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti: >> Unportable to filesystems that don't support extended attributes isn't >> very interesting to me, unless they're common. Out of curiosity, do you >> know which ones that would be? Looking at my kernel config, ext3 and >> reiser explicitly support xattrs, and I see jfs and xfs have acls and >> security labels, which might be usable. Unsyncable would be a problem, >> so it's a good thing rsync has USE=xattr -- do the difficulties come in >> on the CVS side? Why do you say unmaintainable? >> > > Many users might have extended attributes support turned off in the kernel. /me raises hand. yup. don't use 'em. waste of kernel space. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for December
Jose Luis Rivero wrote: > I would suggest this kind of question based on the different ideas shown > by the developers comunity: > > - What is proper way to make changes to ebuild related information >(metadata.dtd)? Do we need a GLEP? It only need to be discussed in -dev >first? Gentoo-doc is who control metadata.dtd? Eh? News to me. No, we in the GDP don't control it. In viewing the history [1], I see that neysx did make one commit to it, but that's because he's a go-to guy for xml/dtd stuff in general, not because this file is under the sole control of the GDP. We're not the ebuild developers/writers . . . you are. Granted, we do have commit access to that part of gentoo/xml/, but we're not the be-all and end-all for suggested changes to metadata.dtd. Something the council might want to keep in mind. [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/dtd/metadata.dtd?rev=1.6&view=log signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Add USE_EXPAND for apache
Josh Saddler wrote: > Benedikt Böhm wrote: >> > If this goes through, please look over our existing apache-related > documentation and file a bug with any necessary changes. I updated our documentation, thanks to the massive patch sent my way by hollow. (Thanks, Benedikt!) As mentioned in an email to hollow though, I notice that "speling" is listed in the variables, but it is itself misspelled -- it should be "spelling". ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Add USE_EXPAND for apache
Benedikt Böhm wrote: > Hi all, > > the current behaviour of the apache ebuild -- chosing built-in modules based > on /etc/apache2/apache-builtin-mods -- is very aweful, especially for binary > packages. > > Therefore, i would like to add APACHE2_MODULES and APACHE2_MPMS to > USE_EXPAND. > I have already converted the ebuild in my local overlay and it works fine. > > Currently, there are over 60 modules available in apache. Out of these, a > good > default would look like this IMO: > > APACHE2_MODULES="actions alias auth_basic auth_digest authn_alias authn_anon > authn_dbm authn_default authn_file authz_dbm authz_default authz_groupfile > authz_host authz_owner authz_user autoindex cache dav dav_fs dav_lock deflate > dir disk_cache env expires ext_filter file_cache filter headers include info > log_config logio mem_cache mime mime_magic negotiation rewrite setenvif > speling status unique_id userdir usertrack version vhost_alias" > > If noone objects, I will make these changes to base/make.defaults and commit > the new ebuild during the next week. If this goes through, please look over our existing apache-related documentation and file a bug with any necessary changes. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-upgrading.xml [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/virt-mail-howto.xml, mostly chapter 9 [3] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml Thanks! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Good-bye
Seemant Kulleen wrote: > Dear Gentoo Devs and Users, > > The time has finally come for me to resign from Gentoo. I've been > meaning to do it for many months now, but the logistics took a little > bit of time. Effective Monday, Nov. 26, I will no longer consider > myself an official Gentoo developer. Before then I will make commits to > two or so packages for which James Rowe is the official maintainer and I > was his proxy. Justin Bronder (jsbronder) has agreed to take over the > proxy maintainership for them. > > I've been here a long time and I've made many many friends (and, I > suppose, a few enemies). For both, I'm grateful. There are too many > people to thank -- you all know who you are :P. > > I'll be subscribed to this list for a while, and of course, I'll still > be on IRC in various channels. For those of you wishing to maintain > email contact with me, I can be reached at: seemant (at) kulleen (dot) > org > > I hope that the fun in Gentoo will return soon. It certainly seems like > there's been a positive tide turning as of late, so I leave with > optimism. > > Be well, everyone. > > Thanks, > > Seemant > > Bye, Seemant. You're one cool dude; you made Gentoo fun for me. See you 'round, I hope! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] packages.gentoo.org lives!
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > I've been > asking and looking, but have not yet found, a version of the logo > without the spotlight effect on the background. What about http://www.gentoo.org/images/gentoo-logo.svg ? It's just the G, without any attached background or halo effect. Convert it to a png or jpeg as you please, then stick it wherever y'want. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages.gentoo.org lives!
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:12:46PM -0800, Josh Saddler wrote: >> Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>> There isn't meant to be the big black area at the top like, the main >>> gentoo.org site. >> But shouldn't there be some sort of area at the top with links to the >> other parts of the site, as the other pages do (the navstrip across the >> top)? Right now there's zero integration with the gentoo.org site, and >> even the old p.g.o had at least minimal integration with the other parts >> of our site. >> >> . . . or should this be filed in a p.g.o bug. > File it. Done. See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199174 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages.gentoo.org lives!
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > There isn't meant to be the big black area at the top like, the main > gentoo.org site. But shouldn't there be some sort of area at the top with links to the other parts of the site, as the other pages do (the navstrip across the top)? Right now there's zero integration with the gentoo.org site, and even the old p.g.o had at least minimal integration with the other parts of our site. . . . or should this be filed in a p.g.o bug. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Place of EAPI variable in ebuild
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> ...which is just as good as "broken" when it happens to a new user >> first installing Gentoo and wondering why he can't even follow the >> directions in the Handbook. > > ...so you just ensure that the handbook tells the user to upgrade the > package manager as quickly as possible. That's already in the handbook. See http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1&chap=6#doc_chap2; substitute with the arch of your choice. It's the same file anyway. Nothing wrong with the handbook, and don't nobody break it, neither. Move along, nothing to see here. Scoot scoot. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] death to mailer-config/mailwrapper
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> A bit over two years ago, some developers set out to get debian's
> concept of mailerwrapper ('alternatives' for mail). Ever since then,
> there have been a number of package.masks for various MTAs, and
> the need to carry them forward.
>
> mailer-config/mailwrapper have not been touched for 2/1 years
> respectively. If it's going to remain masked, can we just get rid of it
> entirely?
>
> It was a good idea, but it just never took off, I think mainly because
> it required too many changes to MTAs, and also did not provide for one
> of the original goals - running two disparate MTAs on the same box.
>
Aye, death to them!
Well, I don't use 'em anyway.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: modplug
Samuli Suominen wrote: > I'd like to add USE modplug to use.desc. I'll do it tomorrow, > unless someone objects. > > -- snip -- > > local use flags (searching: modplug) > > [-] modplug (gnustep-apps/cynthiune): > Build with modplug support > > [-] modplug (media-libs/xine-lib): > Build with modplug support > > [-] modplug (media-plugins/audacious-plugins): > Build with modplug support > > [-] modplug (media-sound/audacious): > Build with modplug support > > [-] modplug (media-sound/bmpx): > Build with modplug support > > [-] modplug (media-sound/cmus): > Build with modplug support > > [-] modplug (media-sound/herrie): > Build with modplug support > > [-] modplug (media-sound/moc): > Add support for modplug > > -- snip -- spooky; i was just looking at this particular USE flag today when i recompiled audacious to get support for the .MODs i'm starting to compose. i like the idea of modplug as a global flag. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Slapd calls nss_ldap before opening its ports
Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> I may venture to assume that repetitive error messages of >> that plenty could be seen at least as a documentation bug. > > Which should be filed as a bug report or sent to the gentoo-doc list. It's not a Gentoo documentation bug, so don't bother to file one, nor mention it on the gentoo-doc list. It's not our problem, either. If anything, file a bug with LDAP upstream or with RHEL's documentation; robbat2 mentioned their docs in an earlier message. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinions Wanted - Arrays again :)
Roy Marples wrote:
> Hello List
>
> It's your favourite posix shell lover here, asking for your honest
> opinions.
>
> array="1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;
> \*
> 'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4
> -I 'option; $FOO with spaces'
> "
>
> array=("1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;"
> "\*"
> "'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4"
> "-I 'option; $FOO with spaces'"
> )
>
> array="'1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;' \
> '\*' \
> \"'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4\" \
> \"-I 'option; $FOO with spaces'\"
> "
>
> The first and last are of course posix constructs whilst the middle is
> bash.
>
> The bash one is purely there for reference, and of course you can still
> use it if /bin/sh is bash. The last one is what baselayout-2 currently
> uses and I'm wondering if we should switch to the first one before we
> come out of package.mask.
>
> I'm asking which you think are the most readable of the first and last
> ones and if you see any issues with either.
The first is much more readable than the last, but only slightly more
readable than the middle one. I'm not a sh/bash guru the way many of the
developers are, and I can tell you right up front that I'd be more
comfortable configuring options if they looked more like the first
example, and I'd guess many users would feel the same way. The fewer " '
; \ characters there are to keep track of, the better.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Dawid Węgliński (cla)
Denis Dupeyron wrote: > He will now be a full developer and work with > the net-irc and x86 arch teams. Point of clarification: He already *was* a "full developer" before; he's just now *also* an "ebuild developer." You make it sound like non-ebuild devs with different kinds of commit access aren't "full" or "real" devs and might be second-class Gentoo members! Which we aren't. :) Anyway, another welcome to Dawid, and his feti--er, enthusiasm--for tall trees! (What do you use to tame trees, anyway? Somehow, whips--mmm, whips!--wouldn't seem to do the job.) :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming masking of dev-lang/php-4* and packages depending on it
Josh Saddler wrote: > Christian Hoffmann wrote: >> On 2007-10-10 at 22:44 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: >> >>> Since you're doing the masking, can you please help out the GDP by >>> reviewing a few of our documents for any potential changes that must >>> be made? Grepping for "php4" shows that there are references in the >>> following docs: >> The occurences of -D PHP4 in all 4 documents can safely be replaced by >> -D PHP5, syntactically (assuming the software in question works with >> php-5 as well, but the ebuilds do not depend on =php-4* explictily, so >> I guess it's the case here). >> >> Additionally: >> >>> 1. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/jffnms.xml >> sed s:apache2-php4:apache2-php5:g >> sed s:/usr/share/php4:/usr/share/php5: >> I'm not sure about the last sentence on the page: >>> You may also run into problems when configuring Apache to work with >>> PHP (specially if you run both PHP4 and PHP5 on the same system). In >>> that case, our Configuring Apache to Work with PHP4 and PHP5 guide >>> may give you some help." >> Maybe removing it completely would be best? >> >>> 2. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml >> This is outdated regarding php anyway: >>> $ equery depends www-servers/apache >>> [ Searching for packages depending on www-servers/apache... ] >>> dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.3-r2 >>> dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.1-r2 >>> dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2 >> ^^ should be dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2 >>> net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1a-r1 >>> www-servers/gorg-0.5 >>> >>> (then rebuild any modules you have installed) >>> # emerge -av '=dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2' >> ^^ same here, must be '=dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2' (is it really >> useful to specify full versions here?) >>> '=net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1.a-r1' >> >> I know that the PHP documentation itself needs a lot of updates, too, >> (not only regarding masking of php-4) and I'll try to work on it in the >> next weeks. > > Thanks for the fixes; I'll get busy committing them. . . . fixed in CVS! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming masking of dev-lang/php-4* and packages depending on it
Christian Hoffmann wrote: > On 2007-10-10 at 22:44 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: > >> Since you're doing the masking, can you please help out the GDP by >> reviewing a few of our documents for any potential changes that must >> be made? Grepping for "php4" shows that there are references in the >> following docs: > > The occurences of -D PHP4 in all 4 documents can safely be replaced by > -D PHP5, syntactically (assuming the software in question works with > php-5 as well, but the ebuilds do not depend on =php-4* explictily, so > I guess it's the case here). > > Additionally: > >> 1. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/jffnms.xml > sed s:apache2-php4:apache2-php5:g > sed s:/usr/share/php4:/usr/share/php5: > I'm not sure about the last sentence on the page: >> You may also run into problems when configuring Apache to work with >> PHP (specially if you run both PHP4 and PHP5 on the same system). In >> that case, our Configuring Apache to Work with PHP4 and PHP5 guide >> may give you some help." > Maybe removing it completely would be best? > >> 2. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml > This is outdated regarding php anyway: >> $ equery depends www-servers/apache >> [ Searching for packages depending on www-servers/apache... ] >> dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.3-r2 >> dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.1-r2 >> dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2 > ^^ should be dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2 >> net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1a-r1 >> www-servers/gorg-0.5 >> >> (then rebuild any modules you have installed) >> # emerge -av '=dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2' > ^^ same here, must be '=dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2' (is it really > useful to specify full versions here?) >> '=net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1.a-r1' > > > I know that the PHP documentation itself needs a lot of updates, too, > (not only regarding masking of php-4) and I'll try to work on it in the > next weeks. Thanks for the fixes; I'll get busy committing them. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming masking of dev-lang/php-4* and packages depending on it
Christian Hoffmann wrote: > Heya, > > I'm going to p.mask =dev-lang/php-4* and all packages explicitly > depending on this version of php (i.e. the whole dev-php4/ category > (36 packages) and one webapp, www-apps/knowledgetree, bug 194894 [1]) > next weekend (around Oct 14th). This step is necessary as there is > hardly any upstream activity anymore. > > The last official version of php-4, 4.4.7, dates back to May 3rd and is > in the same state as php-5.2.2 security-wise (and we all know how many > issues php-5 had in the past, just have a look at the recently published > GLSA 200710-02 [2]). > > All those security problems, which were fixed in the 5.2 branch, > possibly apply to the 4.4 branch as well, yet there are no (backported) > fixes in upstream CVS and there is no sign of an upcoming release > either. > This means, if we were to continue php-4 support we would have to do > the upstream work and compile a list of issues + patches. Upstream > developers seem to see it the same way -- "if you really want to get it > done - do it" was one reply when I asked what's up with php-4. Noone > from our PHP team has the time and motiviation to do that work, and as > such we are going to mask it (unless someone volunteers to do the work > and/or upstream becomes active again). > > We will still keep php-4 (and all related packages) in the tree until at > least the end of the year (this is the date where official upstream > "support" ends) and bump it if (and not "when"...) there are any > releases. > > We advise all users of of php-4 to upgrade to php-5 as soon as possible. > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194894 > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200710-02.xml Since you're doing the masking, can you please help out the GDP by reviewing a few of our documents for any potential changes that must be made? Grepping for "php4" shows that there are references in the following docs: 1. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/jffnms.xml 2. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml 3. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/qmail-howto.xml 4. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/hb-working-rcscripts.xml Thanks, Josh signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Mike Pagano (mpagano)
Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Denis Dupeyron wrote: >> Yes people, Mike is older than Uncle Seemant, and even older than me. > > But is he older than nerdboy? Do we have competition for the Crotchety > Old Man title? Are we going to hear lots of stories that start with > "when I was your age"? > > Welcome Mike! > Well, neddyseagoon is more senior than nerdboy (or any other dev), but he's not crotchety in the slightest. ;) Anyway, welcome, Mike! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-wm/ion2
Dawid Węgliński wrote: > Dnia 11-09-2007, wto o godzinie 18:36 -0700, Chris Gianelloni > napisał(a): >> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 17:54 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: >>> Mike Doty wrote: >>>> Matti Bickel wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> as previously mentioned, ion2 is currently broken (bug #167468) and >>>>> going away in favour of the soon to be stable x11-wm/ion3. >>>>> >>>>> It will be p.masked and removed in 30 days unless someone speaks up and >>>>> solves the issues surrounding slotted lua among others (see the bug for >>>>> details). >>>> didn't we yank ion from the tree because of upstream license problems? >>> That's what I'd thought, too: >>> >>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-559010.html >>> >>> Did something change? Has upstream stopped being stupid? Is he an actual >>> human being now? Or is someone forking the code (but retaining the ion3 >>> name)? >> Ehh... the Last Rites was for ion2, not ion3... >> > "as previously mentioned, ion2 is currently broken (bug #167468) and > going away in favour of the soon to be stable x11-wm/ion3." > > So "in favour of ion3" right? Yeah, that's what I noticed. The weird thing is that it *was* pulled from the tree entirely some time ago, so it can't be stabilized. Is this just an old email suddenly sent out by the server? I got a couple of ancient (months to 1 year+) messages the other daymaybe the mail server needs kicking. It certainly keeps prompting me for my password every time I check; bah. mabi: 'sup? :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-wm/ion2
Mike Doty wrote: > Matti Bickel wrote: >> Hi, >> as previously mentioned, ion2 is currently broken (bug #167468) and >> going away in favour of the soon to be stable x11-wm/ion3. >> >> It will be p.masked and removed in 30 days unless someone speaks up and >> solves the issues surrounding slotted lua among others (see the bug for >> details). > didn't we yank ion from the tree because of upstream license problems? That's what I'd thought, too: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-559010.html Did something change? Has upstream stopped being stupid? Is he an actual human being now? Or is someone forking the code (but retaining the ion3 name)? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] On my way out....
Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > > I resign as gentoo developer. > Infra: please remove my accounts. > But! But! But you're the only sparc team member that ever bothered to help me with the sparc handbook updates and other documents. Sorry to see you go; I've enjoyed working with you. Fortune to your future endeavors. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.4 profiles are on their way out!
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 16:18 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a >>> couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean: >>> >>> a) it is still wanted >>> -or- >>> b) it is still valid >> so what is the 2.4 status then ? > > Well, we still don't support it on sparc/x86. It is unsupported on > Alpha, too, unless you have one of the machines that 2.6 won't yet run > on, which have been discovered since my last speaking with the team and > is the reason why I screwed up. The idea is to leave it "deprecated" on > alpha without listing a removal date. About the only thing that I have > done here is removed the "November 1st" removal date. Now, maybe we'll > get lucky and can fix the kernel on those machines between now and then, > but if not, it isn't a big deal. It can stay for Alpha and not really > affect too many people. The Alpha machines aren't ones people would > typically use for a desktop, and this was hurried along because of some > requests from the GNOME team, who are hating the 2.4 profiles since > every GNOME since 2.16 has required 2.6/hal/udev to work properly. The > 2.4 profiles are currently causing them headaches, and from my own > experiences, will continue to do so, as more and more things are going > to quit working on 2.4 as time goes on... Huh. So. Though I've been constantly working on cleaning up 2.4 kernel-related stuff and old profiles in the handbooks and other documents, do any more changes need to be made, and if so, can I make them now? (I'd really like to, lest I/everyone else forget about it around November.) See especially http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml for potential cleanups. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/ppp/(ip-up.d,ip-down.d} directories
Alin Năstac wrote:
> A gentoo user requested in bug 190143 [1] to change the way pppd deals
> with interface up/down events. He requested to break current
> ip-up/ip-down functionality into different scripts contained in
> /etc/ppp/(ip-up.d,ip-down.d}.
>
> What do you think about? Is it worth it?
>
> Personally I think it is a good idea, but I have reserves when it comes
> to user defined {ip-up,ip-down}.local scripts. IMO the best way to solve
> this is to add this code to pkg_postinst():
> if [ -f "${ROOT}"etc/ppp/ip-up.local ]; then
> mv "${ROOT}"etc/ppp/ip-up.local "${ROOT}"etc/ppp/ip-up.d/99-local
> fi
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=190143
If anything does actually change, be sure to open a docs-team bug with
a patch or list of changes against what the networking handbook(s)
currently have for PPP. It'll need to be documented all over again.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] LinuxWorld pictures and Dev House
Mike Lundy wrote: > Quite the crew: http://www.flickr.com/photos/novas0x2a/1079324702/. > Also, http://www.flickr.com/photos/novas0x2a/1079315370/ > > (If anyone in the pictures wants to be tagged, let me know, or just > send me a friend request and then do it yourself) > > Solar must be a vampire- he didn't end up in any of my pictures. > > Also, I'd like to extend an invitation to anyone who lives in the > northern california (USA) area. We do this geek party called Super > Happy Dev House every few weeks, and the next one is tomorrow, > Saturday, August 11th. It's free, and there will be food and geeks. If > you want more information, check out [1]. I know it's sort of last > minute, but we're going from 2pm until 1am, and you can show up or > leave at any time. Come by if you get a chance :) > > 1) http://www.superhappydevhouse.org/letter19 Nice pictures, Mike! Much thanks. hey dostrow, man your hair's grown out since SCALE. Who's that you're molesting? and i think this one's vapier (http://www.flickr.com/photos/novas0x2a/1079315370/) -- that how you always look? ;) RUNS AWAY. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for August
Grant Goodyear wrote: > Vapier wrote: [Tue Aug 07 2007, 10:16:55PM CDT] >> This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council >> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the >> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). > > Um, I'm pretty sure that the meeting was moved to the 16th, to > avoid conflicting with LWE. No? > > -g2boojum- Auto-generated email is my guess. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending death of mail-filter/spamassassin-ruledujour
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Heya, > > The upstream rules_du_jour folk have had issues over the last few months > with DDoS and other attacks. Additionally, the nature of their original > update mechanism causes a lot of traffic. > > Everybody that is using rules_du_jour is strongly encouraged to move to > using the sa-update mechanism that is included with recent versions of > SpamAssassin. > > Here is a guide to using SARE rulesets with sa-update: > http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt > > mail-filter/spamassassin-ruledujour will be p.masked on August 4th, and > removed one month thereafter. > I updated the one reference to this package in our docs, in mailfilter-guide.xml. Yanked out dujour in favor of the link you gave. Should be good to go. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08
Blackace wrote: > I'd like to nominate: > > vapier > tsunam > nightmorph > seemant > avenj > christel > > Although most of them will probably decline, I think they would do an > excellent job straightening out Gentoo's heading and have the barnacles > to perform the requisite keelhauling. I appreciate the nomination by you and others, but after a whole month of thinking on this, I must decline, mostly for reasons of time commitment. Council actually isn't a job I'd want to do; I'm not out to "be in charge." I'm sure I'd take the same approach that I would to everything else I do; do the job that's before me, but I don't think I'd be able to devote enough time to do a *good* job. I've no problem doing any necessary keelhauling etc., but I'm not sure that I have the time. And no matter how fast I'd try to learn, I'm not starting off with the same detailed knowledge of ebuilds and Portage that the other candidates have. Meanwhile, I'll continue making a difference within Gentoo by doing documentation for any and all interested parties, and anything else I can contribute to, like the GWN. It's not council work, but I'll continue to try to make Gentoo better for everyone, at least in my little corner. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] please drop support for 2.4
Rajiv Aaron Manglani wrote: > > hello all. i would like to propose that we officially drop support for > 2.4 kernel profiles (especially default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4). over the > last few months it has been increasingly difficult to keep 2.4 systems > up to date. vanilla-sources is the only place to find a 2.4 kernel on some arches, though at least using those sources is no longer supported (as DSD and the kernel team told me some months back.) From the docs perspective, I'd like it if all 2.4 profiles for any remaining arches were marked unsupported as well. I spoke with the arch teams around the 2007.0 release time when I was updating the handbooks to remove almost all 2.4 references, but there are still a few in there for things like sparc-sources. AFAIK that's the only arch that still has a 2.4 kernel available. Any chance of seeing it all go away so I can finally clean up *all* 2.4 references? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
