Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due lack of time

On 02/03/2013 09:45 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:46:52 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> dev-libs/boehm-gc > > Will take this one in a few days if no one else grabs it first. > Since it's a dependency of one package I maintain (dev-lang/opendylan) I have a marginal interes

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 01/19/2013 09:39 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a hyphen >> for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up. qt-core >> just doesn't make sense if it applies to more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

On 12/26/2012 05:39 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > I know, it should be easy, and I'm probably making excuses, but it boils > down to Well, it boils down to you needing an excuse ;) > 1. People in Gentoo have asked me to/encouraged me to do the quizzes > 2. I've tried several times > 3. Still not ther

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

On 12/17/12 08:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 12/16/12 14:04, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 16 December 2012 16:57, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> Inspired by the number of packages being unmaintained -- why not use >>> some of that bug bounty money to fix up the recruitment documentation >> >> Recr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due apache herd removal

On 11/28/12 15:25, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/27/2012 02:43 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> After discussing it at: >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/262834 > >> ... > > > Apache itself is in need of some attention these days. The ChangeLog > shows only Patrick committing in th

Re: [gentoo-dev] open season on other-dev's packages -- policy change?

On 11/23/12 22:32, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >> On 22/11/12 11:22 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:22:10PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 11:11 Sun 18 Nov , Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Here's a list of every package where I'm a maintaine

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/lyx: lyx-2.0.5.ebuild ChangeLog

On 11/23/12 21:17, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:45:56 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> On 11/20/12 21:57, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:10:51 + (UTC) >>> "Patrick Lauer (patrick)" wrote: >>> >

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/lyx: lyx-2.0.5.ebuild ChangeLog

On 11/20/12 21:57, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:10:51 + (UTC) > "Patrick Lauer (patrick)" wrote: > >> patrick 12/11/16 09:10:51 >> >> Modified: ChangeLog >> Added:lyx-2.0.5.ebuild >> L

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Maintainer needed: dev-libs/icu

On 11/06/12 05:45, Duncan wrote: > Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:39:19 -0800 as excerpted: > >> On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote: >>> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the >>> package would by definition not be in the tree, and you would

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictness

On 10/17/12 06:54, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Hi all, > > One of the items that has come up in the Git conversion, and needs some > attention. > [snip] > > As such, we've decided to make the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictly enforce what > was originally intended. > > - You must specify a key or subkey e

Re: [gentoo-dev] CIA.VC down for the count?

On 08/23/12 19:34, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > With cia.vc no longer working, its hard to keep track of one another's > commits in real time. I used to use the web page and the IRC channel > like a gitweb log to see what was going on. Any suggestions on how we > can get the visib

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On 09/07/12 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly manner, > and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice to explain > the idea here, here's some more details on the DEPENDENCIES proposal. > > There's change, and there's progres

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global Systemd USE Flag

On 08/08/12 22:35, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be >> better using app-portage/install-mask, and: >> >> $ install-mask -a systemd >> >> which will add just the right path. > Still

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global Systemd USE Flag

On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200 > "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote: [snip] > > Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are installing > them?! But I don't even use systemd. I don't want this cruft on my > system. > > Proposal: global USE flag fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinion against /usr merge

On 07/19/12 03:05, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the >> Gentoo update process. Has that changed? > We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process, > let alone initram

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new > gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. > > Aside from being abusive, No, it solves a real problem. > th

Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5

On 06/21/12 15:25, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200 >> Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago, >>> you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you requ

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

On 05/10/12 06:36, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: >> I foresee a new udev fork then. > Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I > created it. > > Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

On 05/08/12 07:16, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 18:23 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:59:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote >>> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:52:33PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: On 04/05/12 14:35, Walter Dnes wrote: > What could work is a shim or

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Changing default serial-console definition in inittab

On 04/28/12 01:29, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote > access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if > it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default > (commented out) definition of the serial co

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making user patches globally available

On 04/15/12 16:16, Ryan Hill wrote: > Right now we have support in some packages for user patches - those being > patches dropped into /etc/portage/patches/pkgname/ - which are automatically > applied. Because this feature is implemented by epatch_user() in > eutils.eclass, it is only available fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

On 03/31/12 23:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:30:07 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> So you think Gentoo should advertise as "the chances of it working >>> are greater than 0%"? >> >> I said better ... not repetitive trolls. >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

On 03/31/12 23:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:00:00 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Good enough is the worst enemy of perfect. >> >> While we have s 98% solution that doesn't handle all corner cases you >> have a theoretical construct in yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

On 03/31/12 17:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 > Alex Alexander wrote: >> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it >> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production >> boxes for years without any issues :) > > ...and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due www-server herd removal

On 03/21/12 19:26, Pacho Ramos wrote: > As discussed in "[gentoo-dev] www-servers herd is empty" thread, > we agreed with dropping this herd and let people get what they want > to maintain. This is the list of orphan packages: > www-servers/pound > www-servers/varnish I'm a gonna take those two

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On 03/13/12 02:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [snip lots of political rhetoric] > > GLEP 55 is simple, No. > it solves all the problems we have No, it just tries to shove them under the carpet > (including the > version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), Say what? > it doesn't require

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

On 03/13/12 01:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is >> still not needed. > > ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55 > definitely works, whereas other solu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPI1?

On 03/11/12 21:52, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we >> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places) >> >> I wouldn't mind h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPI1?

On 03/11/12 20:01, Pacho Ramos wrote: > After reading previous discussion: > http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/gentoo-dev-Deprecate-EAPIs--ftopict530567.html > > Looks like preventing NEW commits from using eapi1 (via repoman) could > be done without major issues. This could even being done also f

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote: [snip] > The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide > more functionality than any other init system, more correctness > (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well > defined behavior (all systemd systems b

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

On 01/01/12 15:12, Olivier Crête wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 19:59 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: >> I have been working with robbat2 on solutions to the separate /usr issue >> (That is why I have specifically cc'd him on this email) >> which will allow people to not use an initramfs. If we

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On 11/14/11 09:25, Alex Alexander wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 05:59:21PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: Well, it's much easier to gather interest and get feedback if we deploy the change and ask questions later. What if we tried solving this problem by providing more options instead of trying to g

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On 11/11/11 16:44, Zac Medico wrote: good point. we don't want to punish old portage users. let's enable it by default in portage itself then. just add `elog` output to the portage ebuild to inform users of the change ? or do we want a news item ? what's the flag to negate the default ? --n

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-info.eclass: check_extra_config requires a configured kernel

On 11/04/11 13:59, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: check_extra_config requires a configured kernel (/usr/src/linux/.config), while I think it should also be satisfied by /proc/config.gz (i.e. just a way to verify the config, not necessarily kernel built locally). The running kernel is really irreleva

Re: [gentoo-dev] portability.eclass: dead egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled funcs ?

On 10/30/11 23:33, Petteri Räty wrote: > On 27.10.2011 2.40, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell, >> is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for >> keeping these before i punt them ? >> -mike >> > > Breaking overlays. grepping

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more hardening features to default?

On 10/25/11 16:18, Kacper Kowalik wrote: W dniu 20.10.2011 10:47, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." pisze: I've noticed , i.e. Debian is starting to make more and more hardening features default, at least for most packages. Should we start doin

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages

On 09/20/11 23:18, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: [snipped to bits] > So, the issue is obvious, we have packages in testing that are in > better shape than stable ones. I'm aware that some of my packages could use a stablereq, but since I don't run any stable machines at the moment it just never bothers me.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem

On 09/20/11 17:19, Zac Medico wrote: On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new features we want to provide. Then, freeze the tree and clone it

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem

On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > What do you guys think? I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and, later, try to update? Usually things turn ugly - used to be that portage saw that th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem

On 09/20/11 09:12, Alex Alexander wrote: >> The only real gotcha is if portage is so old that it can't handle the >> binary packages. However, to get around that we really just need a >> set of step-wise binary updates for portage itself so that you can >> sequence it up to something that can inst

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] obs eclasses

On 09/13/11 16:44, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 15:02 Tue 13 Sep , Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: >> Excerpts from Joshua Kinard's message of 2011-09-13 14:26:02 +0200: You don't need -n/-z with [[. [[ $var ]] == [[ -n $var ]] [[ ! $var ]] == [[ -z $var ]] >>> >>> What about o

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-zope maintenance

On 08/29/11 13:33, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:23, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> Which Zope team is that? Would that be you? Having an overlay with >> updated packages certainly sounds good, but it would be nice to have >> some indication of what we're waiting for, or how long

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On 08/24/11 12:31, Thomas Kahle wrote: > Hi, > > On 18:16 Tue 23 Aug 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> there is one important aspect of your program that really needs to be >> documented (and comments in the code are not enough): >> >> What data exactly is the client sending to the server?! >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Including a warning to restart daemons after an update.

On 08/21/11 13:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > After updating libraries, I always run something like > > lsof -x / | grep DEL > > to see if any running binaries are linking to old libraries that were > just updated and then I manually restart them. This is particularly > imp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: ban mirror://gentoo/ from ebuilds

On 08/18/11 10:50, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have already said this before, but it looks like nobody cared. We have > a problem for what concerns Gentoo-generated distfiles. People being quiet doesn't imply they don't care - just that it gets really frustrating to repeat

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: splitting virtual/

On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700 > Alec Warner wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore, >>> I think the 'virtual' category is basically one ano

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

On 07/01/11 21:25, Sebastian Pipping wrote: [SNIP] > If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon, > correct? As far as I'm aware we have a stable portage with EAPI 4 in the tree for a few weeks now, so you can actively use it everywhere. -- Patrick Lauer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: deprecation of baselayout-1.x

, certainly no more of one than fighting with broken installs, > because everything has changed out from under the existing one. It's not as easy as it could be. We should figure out a reliable way to move an old install forward ... (I have some ideas, but it all takes time and lots of t

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On 06/29/11 17:14, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:08 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >>>> The background is that /e

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

eparate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright > systemd future. > We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with other things. But as OpenRC has some rare features ("being able to start and stop stuff" and "being re

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

like something it's easy to change locally. But more metadata around the useflags might be very convenient. > May be instead of ~ introduce three additional prefixes (~ and another > two for +~ and -~ cases)? That looks a bit weird :) -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

o 2.1 just has preserved-rebuild and some of the set support disabled. But if you trust 2.1 enough to use it you also shouldn't have a problem with 2.2. There's still a few silly bugs with preserved-rebuild (corner cases like downgrades and stupid build systems), but I've not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

ct unique package postgres-8.3, postgres-8.4, postgres-9.0 - and a meta package "postgres" that depends on any of those. As an upside we roughly double the amount of packages we have, and our dependencies get so much more ... OMG ... nooo ... what a nightmare. So again, what are you trying to fix, and what makes you think it was broken to start with? -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving webapp-config

> if > we're to provide out of the box experience for those web apps. > So provide a default config for, say, apache, and then figure out if that can be transcribed to others easily. Maybe it can be turned into simple templates to generate all configs from? -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

On 06/08/11 11:43, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:28:47 +0200 > Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer >> wrote: >>> In all cases I want one resource to look at, viewcvs is a horrible >>> and slow interface. S

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

- maybe automation is needed, I don't have a strong opinion either way. But don't make me do more work because you are lazy, that never ends well. -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

the darn tarball in a stable location. I've done that for silly and weird upstreams ... > >> I think it would be similar to the situation we had with adobe-flash >> packages. >> > > It reminds me more of the (now defunct) live ebuild of chromium-bin &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

why so complimacated?!) But I guess people prefer having to write wrapper scripts around wrappers to get things done, so I'll just stay out of the way and reserve the right to point and laugh when funny misbehaviour happens. -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.o

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.8.1 stable candidate

anned. I hope it all goes well! -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rejecting unsigned commits

d keys [2] > - keys are revoked [3] > - keys are not listed in userinfo.xml (current or former devs) [4] Yes, yes, yes, and yes :) But since we don't have policies in place yet it's a bit of a mess right now. So. What parameters do we need to agree on? And what's a realisti

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-php5/ZendOptimizer

t chaotic, so I might need a few days to sort out things. I'd also be willing to be a proxy-committer for any motivated users. Thanks, Patrick -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1?

On 12/31/10 12:02, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > after approval of EAPI 4, there are now 5 different EAPIs available, > and it's hard to remember what features are offered by which EAPI. > > So maybe it's about time that we deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1 for new > ebuilds. As a first step, a warning c

Re: [gentoo-dev] What are || ( ) dependencies?

On 12/17/10 18:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:56:21 +0100 > Sebastian Luther wrote: Why can't the PM handle >= / < cases itself? >>> >>> Because things are almost never as simple as 'just' >= / <. You can >>> add in clever trickery to deal with very specific cases, but th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Move x86/amd64 CPU extensions USE flags to a new USE_EXPAND variable

On 12/11/10 18:57, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > Hi all, > > > bugs like [1] makes clear to me that the increasing number of CPU > extensions USE flags is getting more and more confusing. > [snip] > > Among all CPU extensions USE flags you'll find: > > 3dnow > 3dnowext > mmx > mmxext > sse > s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 2.7 status check?

On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote: > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis writes: > >> 2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a): >> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of >> Python, so >> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

On 08/23/10 19:26, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit : >> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix] >>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate >>> where we

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

On 07/05/10 03:03, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done. it >> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message. > > I think this is a great occasion to dump our stup

[gentoo-dev] Council manifesto of the bonsaikitten

With only a few hours left to vote y'all might be wondering "What happened to Patrick's manifesto?" Short version - I'm not in the mood to write long speeches about things I won't manage to do. We have lots of technical issues to discuss and decide on (like the recent as-needed discussion, again,

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: Rules for distro-friendly packages

On 06/27/10 20:33, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 01:08:58PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: >> * Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: >> Well, at least for tar, I've experienced no problem here yet. But: true, it might change between tar versions. >>> >>> The main offender is the compr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations

On 06/27/10 17:04, Markos Chandras wrote: [snip] > Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they can't keep > up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64 do, I still > think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable tree which I > doesn't make sense to me

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: Rules for distro-friendly packages

On 06/27/10 13:02, Enrico Weigelt wrote: [snip] >> We also offer 10 versions of glibc, 8 versions of uclibc, and 7 versions >> of klibc. Each version may have header bugs, so may trigger warnings for >> perfectly good code. > > Well, if there're header bugs, shouldn't they get fixed before these >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

On 06/19/10 23:57, David Leverton wrote: > On Saturday 19 June 2010 22:03:31 Ben de Groot wrote: >> It is about whether Gentoo wants to keep around people [...] who >> continually attack others > > Considering the number of attacks directed towards Paludis developers (and > sometimes users), and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

On 06/19/10 23:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:03:31 +0200 > Ben de Groot wrote: >> That is an incredibly shortsighted and cynic look at the community. >> Keep it off this list. > > I consider that remark disrespectful. By rejecting comments in such an > impolite manner, and w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

On 06/19/10 18:20, Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> And never forget, I don't care if you're upset that I filed 35 bugs for >> you. > If you mean what you say: that's pretty insensitive. But I honestly don't care how you _feel_ about a bug. There's a defect. It's a fact. The only way to change it is to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

> Now that's tone in Gentoo. Brilliant. And you're ugly! Hey, you're doing it yourself. You're using sarcasm (I assume you do, otherwise the positive "Brilliant." doesn't fit in the context of "Oh dear, these rude people said that!") I think we need to remember to tolerate each other more - the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

On 06/17/10 22:09, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Patrick, > > > On 06/17/10 18:21, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with >> germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english. >> For examp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

Let me cut out one or two pieces I consider very important: > We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural > background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a > word for please. Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2010/2011 - Nominations are now open

On 06/05/10 13:36, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 02:00, Torsten Veller wrote: >> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2010/2011 are now open for the next >> two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2010). > > I'd like to nominate patrick I accept the nomination. > and vapier. > > Che

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Packages up for grabs -- xmerlin, yoswink, chtekk, omp, tantive, mueli, bluebird, hncaldwell, caleb

On 06/02/10 09:18, Torsten Veller wrote: > Here's a bunch of packages up for grabs, due to maintainers retiring.. > > maintainer-needed > - > app-admin/monit > app-forensics/samhain > app-misc/anki > app-misc/beanstalkd > dev-libs/vanessa-adt > dev-libs/vanessa-logger > net-libs/v

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-fs/samba/files: samba-init

On 05/20/10 15:34, Peter Volkov wrote: > В Втр, 11/05/2010 в 11:53 +0000, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет: >> start() { >> +# we can't assume that /var/run/ is persistent, so create dir if needed >> +[ ! -e /var/run/samba ] && mkdir /var/run/samba > &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

On 04/08/10 15:29, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:02:25 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: >> 4) if there are questions re: use cycle breaking or other bits, feel >> free to ask prior please- council meeting times unfortunately right >> now intersect badly with my paying work so it's h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is Gentoo dying?

On 04/04/10 03:48, Joshua Saddler wrote: > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:16:32 +0200 > Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > >> - Our formerly outstanding documentation still is somewhat maintained, >> but that's it. I haven't seen any new additions (both to our docs, but >> also to our docs-team) for years. Peopl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is Gentoo a Phoenix?

On 04/03/10 11:16, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > Hell no, but ... > > We have lots of quite understaffed areas, to sum up in a positive way. > Summing it up the negative way one might say, we have lots of areas were > users might get the idea Gentoo already is dead. So what are _you_ doing to make it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: Proxy-maintainer project

On 03/18/10 18:24, Sébastien Fabbro wrote: > On Thursday 18 March, Markos Chandras wrote: > >> 1) Should we use a new overlay? A new branch on sunrise? or work >> ebuilds in Gentoo bugzilla?I think the latter is the best >> 2) I think an email alias is not needed We can "monitor" >> maintainer-wan

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/zzuf: ChangeLog zzuf-0.13.ebuild

On 02/26/10 22:02, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 02/26/2010 10:50 PM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote: >> src_test() { >> if hasq sandbox ${FEATURES}; then >> ewarn "zzuf tests don't work correctly when sandbox is enabled," >>

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/samhain: ChangeLog samhain-2.6.2.ebuild

On 02/26/10 22:01, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 02/26/2010 10:49 PM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote: >> patrick 10/02/26 20:49:19 >> >> Modified: ChangeLog >> Added:samhain-2.6.2.ebuild >> Log: >> Bump >> (Portage

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: net-analyzer/zabbix-{agent,frontend,server}

# Patrick Lauer (09 Jan 2010) # Package has been unsplit, use net-analyzer/zabbix net-analyzer/zabbix-agent net-analyzer/zabbix-frontend net-analyzer/zabbix-server Unmaintained and no longer useful as package has been unsplit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Election for the Gentoo Council empty seat

On 12/24/09 23:50, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2009.12.16 00:36, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> Hello. >> >> As announced by Denis (Calchan)[1], we need to have an election for >> the >> Gentoo Council's empty seat. >> We'll be putting up a page with all the information for the Council >> electio

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA is unimportant?

On Monday 09 November 2009 21:16:28 Mike Frysinger wrote: > oh muffin ! get over it already. either do it right or stop doing it. perl? That's how you want to handle things? Great. I think we can agree that that strategy doesn't work. > > You should understand one thing: I don't care at all

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA is unimportant?

On Monday 09 November 2009 13:08:52 Peter Volkov wrote: [Snip] > Well, it looks like the root of this problem is the following statement: > "QA is less important then new packages in the tree". I failed to hear > any arguments why QA is unimportant so I still believe that QA problem > is a problem.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 20:27:23 Mark Loeser wrote: > Patrick Lauer said: > > If you feel you have too much time you could search on bugzilla for > > "patch" and start fixing those bugs. "Bump" is also a funny search. > > If you are just bumping rand

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 19:24:47 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 08 November 2009 13:10:34 Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: > > > В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: > > > > And because I'm a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: > > And because I'm a lazy > > > > I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix > > it instead > > Do you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:56:24 Petteri Räty wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:21:18 Peter Volkov wrote: > >> В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +0000, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет: > >>> patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46 > >>

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:21:18 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +0000, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет: > > patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46 > > Log: > > Bump > > > > file : > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-forensics

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: FEATURES use or misuse?

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 01:11:39 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:28:57 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > And then why bother when the tree doesn't reflect PMS. > > Maybe if some people would stop ignoring PMS on whim because they don't > agree

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 01:33:23 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Calling EAPI is ... well ... I can't even think of a place to start to > > explain how wrong it is. How on earth are you going to parse an eclass > > that supports multiple EA

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 22:26:24 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > To quote: > > "FEATURES is a portage specific package manager configuration > > variable not specified in PMS and cannot reliably be used in ebuilds > > or eclasses." > > For distcc & ccache, let me quote ebuild.sh code: > > if hasq d

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 18:27:46 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > a while ago Thilo Bangert spent quite some time on filing lots of bugs. > > While I appreciate such QA efforts I don't agree with those bugs at all. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 21:58:27 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:36:18 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Userpriv I've seen the funny idea to check if UID=0 and such. > > Yes, and that 'funny idea' has the added advantage of working even

<    1   2   3   4   5   >