Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support

but not ancient hardware that is still quite a bit of > build time. > This is definitely in the spirit of Gentoo, but I think the most concrete reason to support older platforms is they are demonstrably more secure and people may be using them for that reason. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 07/11] glep-0063: Allow ECC, curve 25519 keys

x03\x02\x08\x01\x01\x0b" -> 384 (* brainpoolP384r1 *) >> | "\x2b\x24\x03\x03\x02\x08\x01\x01\x0d" -> 512 (* brainpoolP512r1 *) >> | "\x2b\x81\x04\x00\x0a" -> 256 (* secp256k1 *) >> | "\x2b\x06\x01\x04\x01\xda\x47\x0f\x01" -> 256 (* Ed25519 *) >> | _ -> failwith "Unknown OID" >> > > By "only acceptable curve", do you mean we shouldn't allow the nistp* key > types, only Ed25519? > Yes, the NIST curves are extremely suspect. I even have my doubts about Ed25519; I personally only use it where a device has throughput problems with RSA. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Trustless Infrastructure

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:02 PM R0b0t1 wrote: >> Signed hashes should be faster, no? Each directory with files could >> have a manifest. > > Signatures work over hashes of data, anyway. I think what you'r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Trustless Infrastructure

an once per day. Speaking of, the keys for that have lapsed. Will they be updated? Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness

y. The > arguments in favor of that position are simple, and the arguments > against it are nuanced and often rely on access to non-public > information. > It has a veneer of legitimacy? Perhaps the complaints are legitimate? Imagine the outcry if a court made decisions in private and did not release names of the accusers and the accused. > You can ignore their posts but then people assume they're right. So > either we get endless argument (more than a year), or we need to > exercise prior restraint. Neither is desirable, but I've yet to see > another option presented. > Don't present a false dichotomy - you could begin releasing information. Every argument as to whether or not that is a valid decision has been ignored. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: "Please let's talk if spamming everyone pointlessly is really needed."

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu sob, 09.06.2018 o godzinie 13∶14 +0200, użytkownik Jeroen Roovers > napisał: >> Behold the magic of emergency announcements. >> > > For the record, I would like to point out that his mail to you was sent > *earlier* than your 'emergency

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] multiversion ebuilds

find the correct conditional (or add one), and update > keywords there. I can already imagine monsters like: > > if pv1; then > KEYWORDS="~amd64" > elif pv2; then > KEYWORDS="amd64 ~arm64 x86" > elif pv3; then > KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~arm64 ~x86" > elif pv4; then > KEYWORDS="amd64 ~arm64 ~x86" > fi > Instead of VERSIONS=( 3.0.11 3.0.12 3.1 ) use KEYWORD_AMD64=( 3.0.11 3.0.12 ~3.1 ). This would require a variable per arch. It would be possible to create another structure to contain *these* in some way if having multiple variables is something that should be avoided at all costs. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multiversion ebuilds

re connectivity > now than over a decade ago when that policy was created, I expect there's > still those paying by the meg or gig for net access locally, that won't > enjoy having their sneakernet sync routine disrupted. > Cygwin and MSYS(2) are currently mostly supported by Prefix, so using symlinks might kill them as well. There is some kind of symlinking support for NTFS now but it is very primitive. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] multiversion ebuilds

book default as the benefit for compressing the ebuilds is likely huge anyway. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

equently, I would appreciate if the machinery can be left. If it becomes a maintenance burden in the future I suspect that would be a good time to remove it. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness

g their charges and make reasonable decisions. Cheers, R0b0t1 [1]: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > The community has a 'toxic people problem' Maybe certain people who feel they are being attacked are idiots and don't like hearing it? I can't tell, and I suspect other people can't either. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Integrating Portage with other package managers

events programs from munging state, because there is none. This is okay except when one needs state, which one does for most desktop activities. This implies it doesn't solve the problem. Working around it may be valid, but only if state can be preserved. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Functional portage with namespace (Was: Integrating Portage with other package managers)

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Benda Xu wrote: >> Rich Freeman writes: >> >>> If you have util-linux installed then try running (as any user - you >>> don't have to be root): unshare

Re: [gentoo-dev] Integrating Portage with other package managers

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > If you have util-linux installed then try running (as any user - you > don't have to be root): > unshare -i -m -n -p -u -C -f --mount-proc -U -r /bin/bash > Interesting. I hadn't found a good interface to containers and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Integrating Portage with other package managers

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:55 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> Because containers are awesome

Re: [gentoo-dev] Integrating Portage with other package managers

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:22 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 7, 201

Re: [gentoo-dev] Integrating Portage with other package managers

a struggle to make it compatible with things like > virtualenv or pip --user though. > This might be a good way to relieve the amount of intervention required when repackaging code for an actual package manager. The information should be there. The other option is convincing people to package for multiple systems at once, which diffuses the effort to the point people tend to not mind. 1) Language package manager (usually used by Windows consumers). 2) .debs for Ubuntu/Debian. 3) .rpms for Fedora/CentOS. 4) Sometimes there's a Gentoo or Arch release. If you could sell #4 as a way to generate 1-3 it would likely be possible to reduce the proliferation of language specific package managers over time. Prefix would likely play an important role. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: handling the "uucp" group

quot; or "tty" changed to "uucp" for some reason? If possible please use dialout, as very few modems are teletypes. It makes the most sense to me to give a uucp user dialout or tty permission, instead of adding myself to the uucp group, a name which references programs most people won't have installed and won't know about. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Fix all misc. bash errors.

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu pon, 05.02.2018 o godzinie 20∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On 02/04/2018 07:22 PM, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Fix all misc. bash errors.

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:33 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 02/04/2018 07:22 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >>> This is everything that shellcheck reported as an error. They are not >&g

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Fix all misc. bash errors.

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 02/04/2018 07:22 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >> This is everything that shellcheck reported as an error. They are not >> as serious as the globbing issue, but it would be a good idea to >> change the

[gentoo-portage-dev] Fix all misc. bash errors.

teresting was: eval "$x=(\"\${$x[@]}\" ${QA_PREBUILT//\*/.*})" Which looks like a bad array expansion ("$x[@]"). Cheers, R0b0t1 --- bin/ebuild-helpers/newins | 2 +- bin/ebuild.sh | 2 +- bin/etc-update| 6 +++--- bin/isolated-functions.sh

[gentoo-portage-dev] Fix Misc. Bash Errors in phase-helpers.sh.

or multiple tests. The other changes are almost stylistic. I made a PR (https://github.com/gentoo/portage/pull/251) before I remembered that that repo was a mirror. Cheers, R0b0t1 From f93e8e1b1e8df555fe90d2efdb68afa314d0719e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sid Spry <r03...@gmail.com> Date:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Split distfile mirror directory structure (draft v2)

>of DISTDIR >(https://bugs.gentoo.org/534528) > > .. [#ML1] [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Split distfile mirror directory structure >( https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/cfc4f8595df2edf9a25ba9ecae2463ba ) > > .. [#ADAPTIVE_FILENAME] Andrew Barchuk's reply on 'using character ranges >for each directory computed in a way to have the files distributed evenly' >( https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/611bdaa76be049c1d650e8995748e7b8 ) > > .. [#PKGNAME] Jason Zamal's reply including 'using the same dir layout >as the packages themselves) >( https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/f26ed870c3a6d4ecf69a821723642975 ) > > > Copyright > = > This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 > Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > It's going to be hash based? Why? I tried to follow the conversation but there's now close to 5 of these posts in the mailing list with different conversations in each. Using filename prefixes is boring and not uniform, but I feel I should point out that most distfile hosts are still doing fine. Microoptimizing this seems like wasted effort. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v2)

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu czw, 25.01.2018 o godzinie 15∶55 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > W dniu czw, 25.01.2018 o godzini

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Split distfile mirror directory structure

e, I've had to interact with the distfile server by hand, and would appreciate it if the files can be maintained in some way that finding them is obvious without tools. Every once and a while I navigate to the distfile root and need to forcefully exit Firefox. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v2)

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu czw, 25.01.2018 o godzinie 21∶37 +, użytkownik Robin H. > Johnson napisał: >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:35:17PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >> > Title: Portage rsync tree verification >> > Author: Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] Managing updates on many identical Gentoo systems

and modify bootloader entries. All configuration of the system apart from that would have to be handled upstream when the release was prepared, or stored on the data partition. This is done for lots of devices (phones?) and works well even when bandwidth is fairly limited. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] introduce Prefix 17.0 profiles.

Erm. On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:23 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, and my apologies for missing your message. > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Benda Xu <hero...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Hi R0b0t1, >> >> R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> writes:

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] introduce Prefix 17.0 profiles.

Hello, and my apologies for missing your message. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Benda Xu <hero...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Hi R0b0t1, > > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I don't want to just comment on naming, but: >> >> It might be more natural to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

es not tell you anything about their opinion. Respectfully, R0b0t1

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] introduce Prefix 17.0 profiles.

ify that old code works on new systems, which is implied to be supported.by the + naming (again, not sure if it matters). Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] profiles: drop USE=cracklib from base/make.defaults.

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Nils Freydank <holgers...@posteo.de> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 27. Dezember 2017, 22:33:03 CET schrieb R0b0t1: >> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > As he said, he contactedd the maintainers

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] profiles: drop USE=cracklib from base/make.defaults.

quot; seem completely arbitrary. There seems to be no extant problems caused by the flag as set, so why focus on this specifically? There is a lot of discussion of not burdening developers with pointless talk or changes. If that is a goal, then why is this posting receiving so many replies? Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

re happening and the specific things being proposed do not seem to be well justified. If, like in the past, decisions will be enforced more or less arbitrarily and opaquely, I can only see this causing more problems. I suppose the problems may be quieter. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

I mean specific events that make the OP feel this is necessary. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hello, everyone. >>> >>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

actions make you think an immediate response is necessary? self-evident adj. Evident to one’s self and to nobody else. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:25 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > On 15/12/17 01:17, R0b0t1 wrote (excerpted): >> I'm not trying to be confrontational, but asserting an opinion is >> correct without explaining why that it is so isn't really conducive to >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:04 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> On 12/14/2017 09:21 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >>> It seems like lagging stability is due to a lack of resources. I do

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 12/14/2017 09:21 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >> It seems like lagging stability is due to a lack of resources. I do >> not know a single person who would be able to run only stable >> packages. &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Deutschmann <whi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 2017-12-14 21:06, R0b0t1 wrote: >> In response to the concerns about stability: If I run a lot of unstable >> packages, would that preclude my system from being able to help? > > Yes

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

configurations being tested can be extremely hard to replicate and lead to sporadic errors. In response to the concerns about stability: If I run a lot of unstable packages, would that preclude my system from being able to help? Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

elaborate here unless there is interest... > I would like to know. But on the other hand, anyone interested in contributing to packages they work with is likely already doing so. On the third (and final?) hand, it may also be that there are people looking for direction. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

here: > > 1. ComRel made its decision long before the discussion was even started > (and I was unaware of it as well), and -- unless you presume they have > time travellers there -- had nothing to do with it. > > 2. I disagree with the way of announcing the ban as well. I had nothing > to do with that. > > 3. The agenda item wasn't expressing 'feelings of one developer', as you > know it. It was written by me because I found the time to prepare > a rationale of *facts* to support it. Don't shoot the messenger. > Most of what you provided were baseless assertions. I gave you ample opportunity to explain why the actions would be taking place, but you refused to provide any facts. > 4. Finally, if you really hate me so much, you could at least bother to > check the facts instead of publicly insulting me based purely on lies. > What facts? Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:57 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2017-12-08 2:43 GMT-05:00 R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Krist

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-12-08 2:43 GMT-05:00 R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com>: >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >> > On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, Wi

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

nything improper took place. Not So Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

levant to the topic at hand. I agree that there appear to be developers who have editorial control of packages they do not understand. It also seems like they have ample opportunity to confer with people who do understand the packages but choose not to do so. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> And what would you do whe

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being >> "attacked" to see why people a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

nd then, only in the first circuit. I'm still waiting for the notice that I can't use Gentoo to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

many people. > 2) if things don't change, I'll be one of the people to quit. > 3) gentoo already has documented instances of people leaving. > Yes, and from the other end, I see lots of people who hate red tape and a fear of confrontation that gets in the way of technical discussion. As far as I can tell, most of the people who feel slighted feel that way because they choose to interpret someone asking about the validity of their actions as a personal insult. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:56 PM, kuzetsa wrote: > > Yes please. I don't want to see gentoo end because of ... rudeness. > Be careful, it is easy to disguise rudeness as tact.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> Hello, >> >> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people: >> the two conversing, and

[gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

19:09 @floppym | wltjr really seems to make shit up when he doen't know what he's talking about. 19:20@mgorny | lol 19:20@mgorny | we're talking about the real wltjr or the r0b0t1 fake identity? 19:21 @floppym | mgorny: There's a fake? 19:22@mgorny | didn't you

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can > discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels. > > г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting > access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev > right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that > without the risk of evasion. > I feel this is still a fairly large barrier to involvement. Getting people to the point they want to contribute or have the knowledge to contribute is the hard part, and what this will make harder to do. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] GLEP 74 post-Council review update [v2]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu wto, 21.11.2017 o godzinie 20∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > W dniu czw, 16.11.2017 o godzin

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] GLEP 74 post-Council review update [v2]

ious way? I'm having a hard time imagining how it would be an inflexible requirement to use a space in a filename, but it could come up if it was necessary to use Portage on a non-Gentoo distribution. It seems very arbitrary. I think the better solution is to use a better parser. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes: validation of single hash per MANIFESTx_REQUIRED_HASH

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:00 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello friends! > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Replying to your original question here, to repeat the answer I emphasised >> before, alo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes: validation of single hash per MANIFESTx_REQUIRED_HASH

GLEP57 and some minor updates). > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:57:49PM -0600, R0b0t1 wrote: >> These posts are concerning because it looks like someone became stir >> crazy and invented a problem to solve. The changes proposed to date >> have remained poorly justifie

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Monday, November 20, 2017, Amy Liffey <amy...@gentoo.org> wrote: > dev-lang/clojure I have some interest in helping with clojure. I have interacted with the proxy maintainers before - do I need to wait for it to break? Cheers, R0b0t1

[gentoo-dev] Re: Prefix bootstrap script maintainability (Was: No more stable keywords for Games)

Hello friends! On Monday, November 20, 2017, Sergei Trofimovich <sly...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:47:35 -0600 > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Understanding an existing codebase should not be a technical >> challenge. I had to resort t

[gentoo-dev] Re: Prefix bootstrap script maintainability (Was: No more stable keywords for Games)

Hello friends! On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Benda Xu <hero...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Greetings R0b0t1, > > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> writes: > >> It is one thing to say that contributions to the main Portage tree >> require some standards to be uph

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: No more stable keywords for Games

extreme brokenness, and the bootstrap scripts are poorly explained with no extant documentation and a workflow that does not clearly fit into Gentoo (or more properly Portage) development at large. Other ebuilds may simply install low quality software, or install software that is hard to manage with Portage. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Java 9 on Gentoo

his I apologize to the list. Please do not ban me, friends. I am not very smart, and using my computer is hard without help. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Java 9 on Gentoo

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:30 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:38:09 -0600 > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hopefully this is not a tangent, but the OpenJDK release is available >> on Ubuntu. I have tried to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Java 9 on Gentoo

of concrete discussion on behavior to be addressed reflects poorly on those who sought disciplinary action. However, I am not a very smart man. I am usually wrong. Hopefully someone who is much more intelligent than I can explain how I have erred in my opinion. Respectfully, R0b0t1.

Re: [gentoo-dev] manifest-hashes changing to 'BLAKE2B SHA512' on 2017-11-21

LAKE2B SHA512 > > 2018-02-14 (T+3m): > > - manifest-required-hashes = BLAKE2B > > 2018-05-14 (T+6m): > > - last rite fetch-restricted packages that do not use BLAKE2B. > > The final removal of SHA512 will be decided by the Council separately. > Does the existence of a decision mean I would need to contact the trustees if I feel the changes have not been adequately justified? Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

Hello, On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, Jonas Stein <jst...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Hi "R0b0t1", > >>>> For the record, I'd claim I am. > > The question >> On what basis? > is ok, but > >> I performed a search on your name, and found at le

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

My apologies, I forgot to address something: On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Hanno Böck <ha...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:12:44 -0500 > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That is precisely why I didn't suggest it be used on its own (see note

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Hanno Böck posted on Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:50:11 +0200 as excerpted: > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:12:44 -0500 R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> People are discussing collis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th: one hash to decide them all

bled in an upcoming minor Portage release (soon) > - 18 months after the next GLEP is approved, SHA512 shall be dropped > (put the date into the Portage code so it happens automatically this > time, unlike SHA256 that should have been removed in 2010!). > This makes sense, but I would hope deprecation can be justified in a useful way. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:12 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:21:47PM -0500, R0b0t1 wrote: >>> I would like to present my suggestions: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:21:47PM -0500, R0b0t1 wrote: >> I would like to present my suggestions: >> >> SHA512, (RIPEMD160 | WHIRLPOOL | BLAKE2B), (SHA3_512 | BLAKE2B); >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

ion is a good one given they are based on separate constructs. > > But IMHO we should start where things matter and complete an > implementation for OpenPGP signatures of MetaManifests in Portage. > This is why I use webrsync-gpg. Git commits are supposed to be GPG-signed, so that may be suitable for your purposes. Cheers, R0b0t1.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

y be possible to switch SHA512 for SHA256. It seems important to me to use three hash functions. Again, though, I think it needs to be pointed out that on slower machines the hash time is on the order of tens of seconds. This should be negligible compared to the build time. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

ble. If the time taken to generate the hashes is a legitimate concern then using a older, simpler, and heavily optimized function may be better for one of the choices. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/22/2017 05:51 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox >>> >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project

s being done with the sandbox. In some cases that can make sense, I suppose. I am not a very smart man, so I would not know the necessary burden of proof. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan

Hello, On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶59 -0500, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> Hello friends, >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] PowerPC Resources at OSU

mmented on). There are people who would recognize my name but as I said before, now a line has been crossed. I do not want to make anyone feel like I am cornering them. Respectfully, R0b0t1

[gentoo-dev] Re: PowerPC Resources at OSU

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:29 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > (This will be almost a duplicate on the PPC list, but now having more > information I am sending it to the BSD list as well.) > > I apologize in advance if I did anything improper. I misunder

[gentoo-dev] PowerPC Resources at OSU

gs as best as I am able but it is starting to look hopeless. Excess resources on the donated OSU OpenPOWER machine could be offered to other developers or used to run a Tinderbox. It may be a good idea to do those things on the already existing machine(s). Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan

s with no negatives. Please refer to a statement by a project contributor and the original author: https://github.com/gollum/gollum/issues/712. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Appropriate location to publish experimental stages for Alt

Hello! On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Dean Stephens <desult...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/09/17 12:23, R0b0t1 wrote: >> On Saturday, September 9, 2017, Johnson Steward <i...@jsteward.moe> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> I've been messing with Gentoo FreeBSD these d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-rpg/nwn-shadowlordsdreamcatcherdemon

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:33:49 -0500 > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In any case it is my understanding that the issue is that simple. It's >> the reason torrents and magnet links

Re: [gentoo-dev] Appropriate location to publish experimental stages for Alt

here's still lots of things that are harder than they should be. Cheers, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 8 September 2017 at 22:44, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > Complex build system, hard to m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-rpg/nwn-shadowlordsdreamcatcherdemon

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:33 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:11:51 -0500 >> R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Then I'm quite confused

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-rpg/nwn-shadowlordsdreamcatcherdemon

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:11:51 -0500 > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Then I'm quite confused as to why people seem to be extremely attentive to >> copyright infringement (beside

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream > does not cooperate (Bug#630420). > Removal in 30 days. > I don't have any reason to disagree with this but I expected a citation for those things

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-rpg/nwn-shadowlordsdreamcatcherdemon

On Friday, September 8, 2017, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, R0b0t1 wrote: > >> Downloading does not imply committing a felony. As far as anyone can >> tell it is impossible to prosecute someone for downloading something

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-rpg/nwn-shadowlordsdreamcatcherdemon

might be liable for the consequences if they do. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Do you really need me to put it on the Council agenda? Sir, please see my above comment about building ballistic missiles. It may be important for the Gentoo Foundation to add a disclaimer similar to the one I mentioned. I would hate for the Foundation or any of its administrators or contributors to be found guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Server hardaware give away (misc archs)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Brendan Horan <bren...@horan.hk> wrote: >> Hi R0b0t1, >> >> Sounds good to me. >> Shipping a 30kg+ system by it self will not be cheep. >> This

[gentoo-dev] Server hardaware give away (misc archs)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Brendan Horan <bren...@horan.hk> wrote: > Hi R0b0t1, > > Sounds good to me. > Shipping a 30kg+ system by it self will not be cheep. > This is originally why I had the idea to ship all the systems together. > I thought so. Shipping will stil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Server hardaware give away (misc archs)

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:18 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Brendan Horan <bren...@horan.hk> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I have some hardware I would like to see go to a good home. >> I would prefer it to be someone w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Server hardaware give away (misc archs)

y. The specs are mostly irrelevant as long as it has a Power CPU, but they would be nice to know. The use for the machine would be to experiment with the novel architecture while maintaining it with Gentoo, which would likely spill over into providing support for Gentoo on IBM Power. I will try to catch you on IRC, but hopefully you receive this message as well. Respectfully, R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Categories for GUI stuff x11 and wayland

se. >From this definition, I see no connection to anything graphical. To the extent that words have meaning I think the selection of "ux-*" would be a mistake. Respectfully, R0b0t1

  1   2   >