On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote:
From the point of view of the licencor, the licence is just as
important as the code, so there are no trivial licence issues.
As a trustee, I am unhappy with losing the traceability at all.
Other trustees may have
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
But there _are_ trivial cases (e.g., most of the init script issues,
bug 425702) where a simple ChangeLog entry would be enough for
traceability.
I think something like that is best announced first, and then done if
there
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
The key words are serious or contact from the copyright holder.
Sorry - revise that a little:
1. Serious and they don't get a timely response from the maintainer
(or licenses@g.o).
or
2. Contact from the copyright holder
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you horribly break my package, you may hear about it, but you
certainly won't get yelled at for fixing my bugs or bumping a package.
While I think there is a balance to be found, keep in mind that you as
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you have a bug on bugzie that
is more than a week old and it affects me, you can bet I will fix it and
the notification you get will be the one from me closing your bug. If
you have an issue with that
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
along those lines, a news entry is probably not even necessary.
So, users will just suddenly have their binary change names, and will
need to manually move config files and update logrotate.d files (if in
use), and the only
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:30 PM, W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:58:32PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
https://www.ohloh.net/orgs/gentoo
I'm not a dev, and I haven't really been following this thread, but
all the other organization summaries start out with
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote:
Dne Pá 30. listopadu 2012 20:37:22, Pacho Ramos napsal(a):
media-sound/logitechmediaserver-bin - this package is special, it's
maintained by a proxy maintainer but it was reassigned to
maintainer-needed instead of
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote:
Bundling few libs and bundling 40 of them is bit of difference, will YOU do
the audit?
We don't require security audits for packages to be in portage. Any
package can have a security problem, whether it is in a
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
Look, if you want to make a policy about the stuff, then make a
policy, get council approval, and write it down.
Don't make up silly half-solutions.
Sure, but I'm not aware of any policy at all concerning packages that
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and fix
stuff.
From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the
severity of the bug is fine. Ofc this should exclude major changes or
Lots of people wrote:
Various good points.
Keep in mind that Gentoo users, even sysadmins, aren't expected to
read -dev. That means that when things like profile changes happen
they have no idea why, or what the impact will be.
That's why we have news. It seems like we put out all of about 3
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
I have never once been able to grab a portage snapshot and build a
stage 1, 2, 3 series from it without encountering at least a couple of
problems with the tree.
Ditto - the latest issue I've run into is: 443472. Probably
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it really have to be useflag? Can't we simply just install the
file every time like we do with everything else? Logrotate/normal
initscripts/etc/etc.
There should be no issue with that if we install the service
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote:
Second, the Portage tree snapshots are now installed through emerge-webrsync
(which means the entire section on downloading the tarballs, checking
integrity, extracting is now a single paragraph).
Uh, does emerge-webrsync
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Fernando Reyes
likew...@weboperative.com wrote:
grub seems out of the questions because of licensing issues.
What licensing issues? Just distribute the source. If the Gentoo
Foundation goes into the hardware business and starts distributing
hardware that only
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes
likew...@weboperative.com wrote:
I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from
using grub on the livedvd.
Well, if some perceived legal constraint is keeping us from doing
whatever seems to be technically most
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine
with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side.
There's a statement about this somewhere on their site if you are
curious.
The only
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote:
The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode,
sorry. You will have to disable it in order to boot a Gentoo image,
which is fine, but there's no reason
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 10/12/2012 01:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
The shim might work, but I'd hardly call it secure boot if every
motherboard manufacturer and OEM in the world has the ability to sign
things, even if MS vouched for them
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Theo Chatzimichos tampak...@gentoo.org wrote:
If there are more dummy packages then a separate category seems good
idea (and thanks for that), but if mine is the only case then i don't
see a reason for that
I'd prefer to not see a bunch of these, but having a
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
+1 , the ability to install older versions of software or legacy
software is one of the reasons I switched to Gentoo in the first
place. There is of course a point when these packages can no longer
be maintained, but
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com wrote:
I, on the other hand, hope that this isn't an indication of Gentoo not being
interested in systemd. I'm eagerly awaiting the moment where I can emerge
systemd and just have it working.
Gentoo is a community - of
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The systemd developers were in the middle of a transition to the LGPL
from the GPL when we forked. We inherited the code in the middle of that
transition and we see no reason to pursue a different course. Therefore,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
eudev is a Gentoo project is not Gentoo. Same could be said for OpenRC.
OpenRC isn't a Gentoo project, at least, it wasn't in the past.
The social contract defines Gentoo as a collection of free knowledge,
which
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
So it's probably a user exercise?
It already is a user exercise. A stage3 doesn't even contain the
/usr/portage directory - you manually create it per the handbook (or
more likely let tar/etc do it for you.
I also
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Kacper Kowalik xarthis...@gentoo.org wrote:
All trouble can be saved by asking user to recompile package with
relevant flags on bug report, resolving the bug as NEEDINFO. Instead of
forcing everybody out there using Gentoo to have additional XGb for
debug,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Outsource it to someone who has the knowledge and interest in doing
this. The foundation has the funds to support it, and none of us
actually have the time to invest in a complete webpage redesign.
Before we
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
So please stop giving this stupid suggestion, which causes enough grief
as it is without being repeated once again.
Uh, sure, insofar as it is possible to stop doing something that
you've done exactly once... :)
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote:
Suppose the team in [1] above wrote the specification, who needs to
agree it?
I don't think the whole body of devs has to agree to it. The
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was
pushed through that separate /usr without an
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:25 AM, George Shapovalov geo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thursday 20 December 2012 09:11:39 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
/var/cache/repositories/local== the new location for a local overlay
Also I wonder if local overlays should be in /var/cache? It might not
always be
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
No one has proposed moving everything to /usr. At the minimum, we would
still have /etc and /var in /, as well as various mountpoints. If we do
move those to /usr, then we effectively renamed / to /usr, which is
pointless. The
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 20/12/2012 17:16, Michael Mol wrote:
/var/cache/portage/distfiles
/var/cache/portage/repositories/gentoo
/var/cache/portage/repositories/{sunrise,kde,gnome,whatever,layman,grabs}
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12/18/2012 11:58 PM, Duncan wrote:
I didn't know that. Last I knew, stable portage had special-case
acceptance of @system and @world to prepare the way, but I hadn't seen
that full /etc/portage/sets/* and
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 20/12/12 01:12 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
What about /usr/portage/licenses, for example? Some of the
licenses are required to be present on the system if the
corresponding software is installed. So users cannot legally
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
If only a small subset of licenses require it, then maybe we should just
use dodoc on those licenses that require it. Saving all licenses could
be overkill.
Seems like a reasonable compromise. I would think such licenses
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
1. Are you party to any *copyright assignment* (eg FSF copyright assignment)?
You need to rephrase this to be (in order for it to make any sense):
Are you
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21 December 2012 17:36, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:21:57 +
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Your tone is not appropriate for discussion. If you
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the system as
well.
Just to be clear, by init* you mean {initrd,initramfs} , correct?
Seems likely.
However, for the most
On Dec 26, 2012 8:46 AM, Eray Aslan e...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 06:42:36AM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote:
Would it be prudent to coordinate Gentoo documentation changes with the
above?
Ugh, I wasn't aware of any documentation that needs to be changed and a
quick look/search
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony Chainsaw Vroon
chain...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the
council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an
initramfs, I am re-considering
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no reason we /can't/ have a comparable process for CVS to
eliminate needless slopping of files around in pastebins/emails, both
of which are time consuming and not designed for doing exactly that.
...
(lots of
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
As I and others have said on this list a thousdand times, moving
everything to /usr never had anything to do with systemd and udev. This
is a completely separate topic.
Understood. However, the whole request to not
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:49:50PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
Understood. However, the whole request to not have to support a
separate /usr without an initramfs was brought up by the udev team.
If udev doesn't have
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Tony Chainsaw Vroon
chain...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 15:14 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
Go bring up the suggestion that the kernel should support direct
booting on lkml
And be pointed at EFI_STUB functionality. Next?
I was referring to booting
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not to sidetrack the topic farther, but isn't this best done in our
github/gentoo account. It is one of the main reasons we have it, to
easily accept pull requests from users. It would also make it easier
for more devs
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
Now before you reply, RTFA. Also note that while my own opinion
on the matter is irrelevant, I _do_ think that his concerns need
to be addressed, particularly the second half of his statement.
SSL Certificate
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
The certificates that Gentoo distributes have at least been vouched
for by somebody who is a part of our community, which is more than can
be said
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
Michael Mol mikemol at gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman djc at gentoo.org wrote:
Speaking of which, say what you
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the
default implementation from freedesktop.org.
That's one awful double standard. :\
Double-standards aside, I don't think the original
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
We could easily solve this by adding a binary-only or
no-source-code tag to such packages. It would be included in the
@BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such
packages would be excluded for users
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Even if you're not a business you should care about maintainable solutions.
I'm sure at the time it was created (12+ years ago) the website
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Zac Medico posted on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:42:39 -0800 as excerpted:
Weren't we planning to drop the CVS keywords for the git migration,
anyway?
Are the git migration blockers at such a point that we can get an ETA
yet?
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 09/01/2013 13:37, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Translation: We all know that there are lots of things that would be a
hell of a lot easier if we weren't the only project in the world still
using CVS, but the Git
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
A lot clearer than a single text field littered with keywords would be some
tick boxes, indeed. In fact, it makes me wonder why we use a half-obscured
list
in a select field for adding/removing arch teams now.
Agree -
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote:
So long as users retain the choice of keeping eth* or wlan*, no
complaints from me. I (and others) came to Gentoo to get away from
systemd, and this smells of a systemd-ism. Will eudev be pursuing this
as well?
Keep in
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
I don't want systemd and I don't want eudev. And I'm not alone I'm sure.
++
If it costs me 1200 seconds of CPU time and 40 millicents in
electricity twice I year I can live with that...
Rich
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
The only time I see eudev replacing udev as our default is if the
systemd guys actually kill udev on non-systemd systems.
Seems likely to me, but anticipating about 300 replies to your post, I
think we're all agreed that
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I still ascert that apps adding groups with NOPASSWD sudoers lines
perhaps even commented out by default in all or some cases is far
better than polkit for many reasons. Any counter argument can apply
to sudo too and
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I wonder if it might be pertinent for future portage's to install an
alias command, emerge-system-update or similar, that would wrap the
standardly accepted emerge update command more or less everyone
already runs..
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Bikeshedding, but I'm thinking that it would be better to provide a
whole separate command for this rather than a quicker convenience
option -- the
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
And it's not udev that could rename the interface (hint, it wouldn't),
it's the kernel, it _never_ guarantees the same interface name every
time you boot. You might just be getting lucky, but really, PCI busses
can be
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
Not that anybody is taking requests, but it would be really handy
if serial ports were deterministically labeled.
Does /dev/serial/* solve the problem?
I don't see this directory at all on my system
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:10:12 -0800
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
What when chromium upstream uses code more recent than latest ffmpeg
release and it doesn't compile against latest release?
Blame
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Paul Varner fuzzy...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. What behavior do we want? append to EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS or replace
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS
Replace is probably better. You can always manually append if you
want to, but it is much harder to remove unless portage has logic
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
As has been pointed out previously, the base profile does not set
USE=perl python, so negating those flags in the server profile does
basically nothing. If certain packages have IUSE=+perl +python it
might make a
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:36:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
Not that anybody is taking requests, but it would be really handy
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos
pchr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp,
fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads
disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
how does portage @preserved-libs work? maybe we could emerge
@update[s] and @glsa.
@glsa actually makes a lot of sense. I'm not convinced we want
@updates as a shortcut for a bunch of settings though. Sets are just
about
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:03:36 -0500
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
Every current category matches /^[a-z]+-[a-z]+$/. With the possible
exception of adding moving from [a-z]+ to [a-z0-9]+, that shoud
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:17:26 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Oh, and keep in mind that flags really only have an effect if the
corresponding packages are actually installed. For example, the cups
flag doesn't
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but
the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user. And the context here
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
CAUTION: Note that shred relies on a very important assumption: that
the file system overwrites data in place. This is the traditional way
to do things, but many modern file system designs do not
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
People who do have printers can always enable it themselves. I don't
see any reason for cups to be enabled by default, especially not on a
minimal profile, and that includes the simple desktop profile. The kde
and gnome
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. I haven't printed
anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. And I'm sure I'm not
the only one.
Won't repeat my previous email, but this is the kind of situation
where
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Some of us, including me, are also wondering why a separate category
is needed — while you might be over the median, it doesn't mean it's
that much more compelling — indeed my feeling is that it would be an
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's dev about it?
I was thinking about that. A lib-misc, lib-x11, lib-qt, and so on
organization actually makes more sense to me than what we're doing
with libs in
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
Summarizing this thread:
* move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
targets/desktop/make.defaults
+1 by dilfridge, djc, kensington, vapier, pesa, hwoarang
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, a thread like Should we enable useflag Z by default would then include
Please discuss here, vote on ... with a link to the count page (updated via
cron every 1h). On login to ..., a message similar to the open
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
If we have it as IUSE default, it can be removed from the profiles
entirely. Having it only in the desktop profile is not good in any
scenario I can think of.
chithanh, maybe you can explain to everyone why
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 16/01/13 09:55 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
SUBSYSTEM==tty, DRIVERS==pl2303, KERNELS==4-1:1.0,
KERNEL==ttyUSB*, SYMLINK=mythser/rca1
I'm not sure if rules are additive - if these symlinks would show
up in addition
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Hans de Graaff gra...@gentoo.org wrote:
Setting the option in the profile tells me: Here's this option you can
play with, and we think you might need it. Or not.
Setting the option in the ebuild tells me: You know, we are nice and
give you this option, but
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch admiraln...@gmail.com wrote:
The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use
default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use
directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, viv...@gmail.com viv...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO the number of cases where CONFIG_CHECK is reliable is so small that
making it fatal will only bloat make.conf and env with a new var for most
users.
Tend to agree. I just got an elog out of udisks complaining about
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 January 2013 03:28, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch admiraln...@gmail.com
wrote:
The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use
default
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen
alexan...@plaimi.net wrote:
While I tend towards the cleaner design, not the don't fix what isn't
*broken* approach -- I'm fine either way. But I think the handbook or
some tool should obnoxiously spit the flags (and a minor
justification
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
I hope this is going to be binary package manager friendly.
In Sabayon for instance, kernel sources are not even installed and at
the same time, /proc/config.gz may not even be available.
There were some corner cases in
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
not for everyone, not everyone upgrades this often, and it's usually the
servers that get updated last
Agreed, but best to get this out ASAP.
Only question - display-if-installed is set to . Would it make
sense
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
None are involved. The second column would read /dev if it was involved.
The news item doesn't mention what to do if there is no line to mount
/dev. I don't see one in my fstab, and I simply followed the handbook
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
fstab is not consulted for mounting the root filesystem, so it doesn't
really matter what you have in there. Either the kernel mounts it
based on the kernel command line, or your initramfs mounts it based on
whatever your
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ah, good to know. I'm used to dealing with my little homegrown
initramfs, where I parse root from the kernel command line in /init.
genkernel does the same thing.
Yeah, dracut generally does the right thing but that
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Michael Haubenwallner ha...@gentoo.org wrote:
The only way I've found to keep the system bootable with both kernels
(for the upgrade process until the new kernel config was good enough)
was to replace /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 by /dev/root in /etc/fstab.
How would
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
That said, presumably udisks would choose not to make its check fatal,
altho changing the default to fatal could complicate things for existing
ebuilds until they're fixed.
That was basically my whole point - it can't be
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
a fatal die in pkg_pretend could be circumvented by an environment
variable such as ${PN}_I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING being set. Just a thought.
If we're going to do this I'd definitely have the ${PN} bit as you
suggested.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
How about, you know what you're doing and are going to build a new
kernel as soon as the emerge finishes (since the emerge is also
bringing in a new gentoo-sources)??
Or my earlier example - USB_SUSPEND and such. If
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 01/24/13 13:58, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
How about, you know what you're doing and are going to build a new
kernel as soon as the emerge finishes (since the emerge is also
bringing in a new gentoo-sources)??
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
Using package.env is preferable, since it basically exists in lieu of
prefixing every environment variable with $PN. But I don't particularly
care about the details. I was just curious if there are real cases where
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
please review this news item, seems we need one after all
Here's a crazy idea: can we patch our kernel to let make oldconfig
default
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
Is there any syntax to check if something is either disabled or built as
a module?
Very problematic. What is built in for the currently running kernel
can be fairly reliably determined by grepping /proc/config.gz - IF
1 - 100 of 2142 matches
Mail list logo
