Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Downgrading glibc?
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 13.06 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha > scritto: > > > > If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote. > > It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to > cause more trouble. > Given this situation; it is desirable for future Portage/EAPI to be able to create a deptree depending on whether an atom is already installed or not? With this functionality it is possible to "mask" a package-without-downgrade-path again for systems that haven't the new atom installed yet. It should be used as little as possible of course, but for situations like this the damage can be limited to as few systems as possible.
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On Saturday 21 July 2007 16:36:03 Roy Marples wrote: > This is just a heads up for getting baselayout-2 stable. Next week I > plan to put baselayout-2.0.0_rc1 into the tree without any keywords and > it will be removed from package.mask (keeping the current alphas masked > though). Arch teams will then be pinged on a bug to keyword > baselayout-2. > > Well, that's about it. It's been a fun journey making baselayout-2 and > we're almost at the end of this road :) > > Thanks > > Roy Hereby a friendly reminder that gcc-config should be keyworded as well, current gcc-config isn’t compatible with baselayout-2. According to Mike gcc-config-1.4.0 is compatible with baselayout-2. (doesn’t work on my system, but I haven’t investigated yet). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2006-12-24 23:59 UTC
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 02:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed > from the tree, for the week ending 2006-12-24 23h59 UTC. > > Removals: > x11-misc/emerald-themes 2006-12-20 01:00:59 tsunam > > Additions: > x11-themes/emerald-themes 2006-12-19 21:22:56 tsunam Thanks, is it possible to adjust the script and separate category moves? Thanks again. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stepping aside...
On Friday 23 December 2005 16:44, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > Hi all > > It is with deep regret that I want to inform you about my decision to step > down from the position of Gentoo Documentation lead. I just want to say thank you very much for the outstanding work you (and the rest of the GDP-team) have done. I think that the quality and quantity of the things done by the GDP-team is something that a lot of projects can only dream about. (open en closed source software) Bedankt! > I will remain a member of the Gentoo Documentation Project, hacking away at > guides such as that bootstrapping one and the Gentoo Handbook, but I hand > the coördination over to Xavier Neys who was virtually leading the GDP > anyway and does seem to find a good balance between real-life and > Gentoo-life :) I wish Xavier good luck and a lot of fun with the (formalization of) new role within the GDP. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Was: Getting Important Updates To Users)
On Saturday 05 November 2005 06:08, Jason Stubbs wrote: > Why does `emerge --changelog` not suffice for package-specific news? >From a user/sys.admin point of view let me give you an example; I maintain quite a lot Gentoo-systems. For me it's impossible to read _every_ changelog for minor release changes. For example not so long ago Apache was upgraded from 2.0.54-r15 to 2.0.54-r31. For me as a user/sys.admin based on versionnumbers this is a minor change. However the changes were rather extensive (e.g. reorganization of conf.files). When these changes occur I want to be informed _before_ I start emerge and I think that this information should be _pushed_ to users/sys.admins instead of _pulled_ from external sources (forums, website, mailinglist, etc. or changelogs). If changelogs could be extended with a priority flag and emerge would notify me when a high priority changelog is applicable to my system then this would be just fine for me. Basically all I want is; Notification that new relevant news items will be displayed via the ``emerge`` tool in a similar way to the existing "configuration files need updating" messages: :: * Important: 3 config files in /etc need updating. * Type emerge --help config to learn how to update config files. * Important: there are 2 security advisories released for installed packages. * Type emerge --security to see the details. * Important: there are 5 unread news items. * Type emerge --help news to learn how to read news files. If this is possible by extending the changelog I'm a happy users/sys.admin. I don't care if I need to type emerge --news or emerge --changelog as long the information is pushed. Disclaimer; I'm not 100% sure that the versionnumbers from Apache mentioned above are exact the real world examples, but you get the idea. Regards, -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 02:29, Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:16:35PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > | How will it handle GLSAs then? [1] > > > > gentoolkit != portage. > > Correct. Course, also incorrect. A plan for handling GLSA's from portage (emerge --security) was announced some time ago. Is this still planned (i.o.w. portage handling xml)? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting Important Updates To Users
On Sunday 30 October 2005 10:06, Wernfried Haas wrote: > 4) Forums. We have the News and Announcements box on the forums and we >will set sticky threads upon request. In fact we even stick threads >and posts announcements if we encounter something worth mentioning >in our opinion. Since we may not notice everything feel free to >contact us in case you have some information worth sharing. 5) Make important news available in the tree just like GLSA's. With emerge --news you can see the relevant newsitems based on your installed packages just like emerge --security (future portage version?). -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use
On Friday 21 October 2005 04:56, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote: > > Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly > > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it > > to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already > > been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them! > > it will actually > > if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++ > > no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken > > no python means no emerge > > how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ? oh, you cant ... > -mike Can you think of a situation where this is desired? If not, why not remove the cxx IUSE and always build the C++-component? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] dts useflag
On Thursday 18 August 2005 05:29, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > maillog: 18/08/2005-03:03:40(+0200): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types > > media-video/mplayer:dts - Enables libdts (5.1 surround sound audio) support > > I'll commit this tomorrow, when I'll be sure it's ok after an awake > > check. If nobody is against this, I'll also make dts useflag global > > (using ffmpeg/mplayer's description). > I am certain that I have watched DVDs that had DTS audio with 7 > channels. Yup, DTS (or DD) doesn't say anything about how much channels are being used, lots of media use DTS or DD and only have 2 channels. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Devconference archives
On Monday 15 August 2005 05:25, Corey Shields wrote: > Archive links for the complete morning and afternoon sessions are at > http://devconference.gentoo.org > -Corey Hi Corey (and IU), Thanks a lot! Is it possible to download the media-files instead of streaming? This makes it a lot easier to skip/replay some parts of the session. Regards, Michiel. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New MySQL doc
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 06:38, Chris White wrote: > Here's the initial devspace draft of the new MySQL draft I've been working > on: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/mysql.html > > Comments, etc are welcome. This is a very good guide! Thanks a lot!! -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Saturday 09 July 2005 01:35, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you > really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware > (nvidia comes to mind - any others?) nvidia is also sysfs-aware and /dev-entries are created with udev, I have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="no" set on all machines I maintain and a few of them have a nvidia-card. Works perfectly. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Saturday 09 July 2005 00:25, Greg KH wrote: > > I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="yes" as a > > default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to > > "no". > > I've been running my boxes successfully with "no" since the option > showed up just fine :) Same over here on all boxes maintained by me (21 with different hardware). Using the tarball creates a lot of unnecessary clutter in /dev If all ebuilds/enough ebuilds don't need to have the tarball, I would say change the default and let all users enjoy the pure udev ride. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote: > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently > are living with[2]. > > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ Are there any ebuilds in the tree that are not sysfs/udev-aware? I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="yes" as a default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to "no". -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo could become certified for IBM Server Hardware
On Thursday 05 May 2005 01:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > For us to support LSB: > > * We'd have to use RPM instead of portage That's not correct, quote from LSB: "The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its own packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for installing the LSB-conformant packages." So basically we can continue to do rpm2targz like we do now and still be LSB-compliant. > * We'd have to support all the daft FHS ideas like /media, /srv and > /wedonotunderstandtheunixfs Like you said before: "Thing is, it really isn't a problem. Data files go in $(datadir), configuration files go in $(sysconfdir) and so on, and the build system handles the rest. It doesn't matter what $(datadir) is actually defined to be (unless your code really really sucks)." With a proper build system you can install the same package in the current Gentoo FHS or the LSB FHS. > * We'd have to make X support mandatory Only in the LSB-profile, the normal profile doesn't need to have X-libs installed. > * We'd have to ship ancient versions of core libraries There is some interest in that already, see GLEP19 > In fact, basically, we'd have to become RedHat. I don't agree. I think the Gentoo-framework is flexible enough to give us an _optional_ LSB-compliant system (e.g. by selecting a profile) without making any consessions on the current Gentoo-structure. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo could become certified for IBM Server Hardware
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 11:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > > i just returned from a meeting with IBM which was about getting > support for Gentoo Linux (hardware and software). The people from IBM > told me that it's possible for Gentoo to become officially supported > on IBM server hardware (xSeries, pSeries and zSeries). > > They told me about their hardware offerings to the Debian Project so > that they could certify their distribution. I think this is a great > chance for gentoo to become more common for productive use. > > Is there a general interrest in doing this and how can this start? Interest; yes, believe that it will happen in the (forseeable) future; absolutely not. The biggest showstopper is that needs to be fixed first is lack of predictability: - Gentoo is extremely customizable (USE-flags, compiler settings, etc.). To achieve predictability all those customizable options need to be locked. - moving Portage-tree; if I install a system today, it wont be the same as a system I installed one month ago. - no standard method of installation; supported OS's are basically clicking next, next, finish. Installation is done, system is identical. With Gentoo you get a lot of choices for a single component (e.g. vanilla-sources vs. gentoo-sources, vixie-cron vs. dcron, etc.). A default needs to be defined. Second showstopper is lack of (LSB-)certification; Like it or not, the typical managers in this world say if product x isn't y-certified we wont use/support it. Gentoo needs a profile for a LSB-compliant system. There are more items that needs to be resolved before it's even possible to talk about official support. Good news is that with the current "Gentoo-framework" it's possible to fix both problems for example by creating a profile, lock everything in this profile and make sure old ebuilds are not removed during a sync. Other options are also possible (e.g. creating a separate tree). See GLEP 19 for more details. The only problem is lack of interest/time/priority from the developers/community. If you want support from a company as big as IBM, you need to start smaller (e.g. NX, MySQL, Open-Xchange). If these companies are willing to support their products on Gentoo, then maybe bigger companies will follow. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
