On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> This is not primarily about distfiles mirroring, about about giving
> users a choice what distfiles they will accept on their systems (for
> whatever reasons, e.g. legal or philosophical). Besides, not all users
> are under the same legisla
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> If you think the transition period for that is long, how long do you
> think it will take for people to become aware of the magic USE flag and
> begin populating the other-LICENSE-contained-within-LICENSE variable?
> How long until it has
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> But Gentoo can't distribute MS Windows to you in the first place. Is
> there a package that Gentoo can distribute to you, but you can't
> redistribute within your organization?
Well, ACCEPT_LICENSE is about more than just whether a packa
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Is there a real example where the license matters for something
> redistributed to yourself?
Well, "yourself" is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS
Windows across 300 PCs for my employer I suspect some people would
have somethin
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes
> the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use
> temporarily). We could generalize this to "any file accessed during
> emerge" to be on the safe
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ...
>
Sure they do. They declare wants, after, wantedby, etc. Looking in
my /usr/lib/systemd/system it seems like all the units I looked at
declared their dependencies. I don'
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the
> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc ->
> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that change
> concurrent with a
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here.
Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that there are
issues with ARM, hence my previous suggest
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by
> default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as
> networking. What I'm wrestling with is this, what if I want to slap a
> stage3 on a devi
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> For the dependency syntax, having :* as a default breaks things or
> causes a lot of work. If explicit slots (or :0) were the default, it
> works and you spare out dealing with lots of reverse dependencies when
> you introduce a new slot.
I was
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I can honestly say most of the time when setup my arm systems I'm
> unpacking the arm stage3 on an amd64 and then booting the arm device
> with the base stage3 and fixing things from there. I suppose it is
> possible to use qemu to
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote:
>
> How about defining a QA workflow for introducing a new slot of a
> library, such as "mask it and open a tracker bug until every individual
> reverse dependencies are checked"?
>
The problem with this is that it puts the onus on the person who wants
to m
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that have no
>> SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a specific
>> SLOT; given that this is a not so common situat
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Our rules of slot/subslot dependencies and slot operators are just
> complicated enough, so I really would dislike complicating them even
> more by having an EAPI dependent default. In addition, from a package
> manager view there is nothing
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> PMS just provides a mechanism, but doesn't prefer one SLOT value over
> another. Such a change would introduce policy into PMS which is not
> the right way to go.
Sure it does - it defaults to :* when :* was never specified. I don't
see ho
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Given that the retroactive change I suggest causes a lot of complexity;
> changing it on the next EAPI indeed sounds like one way to go, the
> alternative is to make it a suggestive guideline or policy and cover
> it as a QA check in repoman.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Choice is fine, I love choice, but to have a user unpack a stage tarball
> and find no way at all to handle their networking that's just ugly.
> I mean we could just have dhcpcd in @system and let people figure it
> out from th
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
>
> 2.) having dhcpcd in this list will cause everything else to be cleaned
> out that that is bd. imho, dhcpcd shouldn't be on this list at all
> purely from a safety perspective. The stages will have dhcpcd so they
> wouldn't
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> In this day and age not having a network-capable install out the box is
> silly. The first major action after unpacking the tarball is going to be
> adding new packages and doing updates, the source code for which is on
> the network.
A netwo
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:36:38PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Paul B. Henson wrote:
>> > In openntpd ebuilds starting with version 20080406-r3, logging was changed
>> > from using the default standard syslog to running the daemon in debu
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> when doing a fresh installation I noticed that during I get to see many
> old news items. There used to be a problem with Portage so no news items
> could be removed. I think that has now been fixed for years so we
> should be able to do this
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> To the extent patches are larger than the rather blurry "trivial" level,
> I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative. In the case of
> literal patches, literally and provably so, due to the context-diff which
> li
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>
> I don't really want to bring up this episode again, but it is a
> telling example, which you asked for.
I appreciate that. I did ask for an example. I'll also limit my
comments just to things that I think are more helpful moving forward.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> We are pleased to announce the stabilization of GNOME-3.8. Users are
> strongly encouraged to read the GNOME 3.8 Upgrade Guide to avoid any
> possible issues relating to the upgrade. The guide will also show you
> how to migrate to systemd as
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> I was particularly hit by this as maintainer of freetype, see bugs
> 455070 and 459352 for some of the mess that could have been avoided.
Looks like 455070 was the source of problems there (the other is just
a tracker with the aftermath). T
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> I said
> As it is always happy to point out, Council doesn't see itself as
> leadership, just as a supreme court of appeal, when everything else
> seems to have failed. It likes to get involved as little as possible.
The last time I talked
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Francesco R. wrote:
> Rich, that made me smile, none of my remote machine has cvs since a
> _very_ long time say 2006.
> We are speaking of box that have troubles to emerging anything new, plus
> me and most of the internet barely remember cvs up :)
You don't nee
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> Apart from me masking a few things because portage couldn't figure out a
> way to a consistent state, and all that ...
That is vague. It may be true, but it does nothing to help anybody
understand what is going on. I haven't had to mask
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 14 November 2013 13:13, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> And how is it possible to discuss anything properly in Gentoo?
>
> That's because we have no proper leadership. We're an anarchistic
> collection of people working at cross-purposes at the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> So just "fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time" ...
Have any problems appeared that impact anybody who hasn't tried to
take advantage of the new multilib features (ie modified their config
files/etc)?
>
> Well, you acci
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> The GPL obliges us to keep such patches around for three years, iirc.
> Don't we do that ?
Why? We own the copyright on the patches (to whatever degree that
they're copyrightable), so we don't need a license to distribute them.
If somebody e
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Francesco R. wrote:
>
> long story short
> having a portage-20130126.tar.bz2 snapshot (before the EAPI 5 switch)
> greatly simplified the upgrade of an old server on a client.
>
> Why not keep a copy on the servers? I mean
> http://distfiles.gentoo.org/snapshots/
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >> Users who take advantage of new features in these kinds of states
>> >> are going to run into problems. That's just the cost of being on
>> >> the cutting edge.
>&g
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Users who take advantage of new features in these kinds of states
>> are going to run into problems. That's just the cost of being on
>> the cutting edge.
>
> Why should a feature
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is
> {package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to manage the partial
> transisition between emul-* and multilib-build dependencies on stable
> or mixed-keyworded syste
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 12:39 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:28:02 + (UTC)
>> Martin Vaeth wrote:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> The new "features" use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
>>> have turned maintaining systems with mixed
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> But I don't see the point in saying "well, nobody cares about nagios but two
> people, so we're moving it to a nagios herd". Might as well just use the two
> maintainers there, then.
++
Aliases and herds make sense when you actually ha
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> I'm still a little concerned about the potential security issues
> caused by embedded V8's in projects, but as we've already concluded in
> that other thread, there's no other way until the API stabilizes..
Yup. When a project uses a libr
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Denis M. wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 08:59 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> iirc, we give $200 if infra for developer accounts for a couple of
>> months. If a deal is struck it would likely be more and forever or
>> something.
>
> I've been running my VM for Ago for 13 month
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Denis M. wrote:
> Almost every Gentoo dev that does software testings of some sorts could
> benefit from these "build farms" (although I'd refrain from using that
> term ;) ..).
Don't let me put a damper on your plans as-is, but I'd be interested
if developers who
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I agree with this sentiment. It's always been my view that the needs of
> a package are driven by the package itself, not by the tree.
>
> Rationale: A package will build and run as long as it's own requirements
> are met regardless of what t
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:06:52 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> But after a person has used Gentoo a while, they figure out what
>> process leads to the most stable update process.
>
> Do they? What do you consider a stable update process?
>
> I come acr
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> The last revision includes this reference:
> "The guide will also show you
> how to migrate to systemd as it is the only supported setup now."
>
> But the news item cannot contain all the information needed for that ->
> people need to read t
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> Lets compare it with the 2.32 one that looks to were valid in the
>> past:
>
> That we had less than optimal news items in the past doesn't mean that
> we shouldn't do better now.
I also thi
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Markos,
>
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>> This is not a great way to invite more users to participate. If you
>> intend to make the game overlay and team a developer-only thing you
>> are doing a great work.
>
> Everything in the Gentoo project is
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM, P.C.
wrote:
>
> Is that "ebuild decay" intentional? How long I can expect ebuilds to
> stay useful?
There really are no guarantees for anything not in the current tree.
The EAPIs/eclasses themselves are pretty well-designed and while
breakage over a period of year
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
> So to work around that limitation we insist that everyone change how their
> systems are set up, and still have to reintroduce mtab under a different
> name ("utab", hidden away under /run) because /proc/self/mounts *doesn't*
> contain every
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
>
> If only someone would invent some sort of kernel feature that could make the
> name "/etc/mtab" refer to different files in different processes
>
Well, the symlink seems like the simpler solution to be honest. I
mean, instead of havi
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> 1. What are mount namespaces? How do they integrate with the kernel?
> 2. What does systemd do with them? What does systemd's use of them
> provide to users?
>
> Saying to google "per-process namespaces" does not really answer that.
> Per-pro
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That does
> not mean that we must support them too.
>
> With that said, how does changing things benefit/affect users, especially
> non-systemd users?
Better support for names
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> I don't see a compelling case being made for why we should make this
> change apart from "all the other distros are doing it", and quite a
> few reasons why we shouldn't. I'm open to being convinced, so please
> tell me why this is good for Ge
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:42 AM, yac wrote:
>
> Curiously I don't see any difference on my gentoo box, which I think I
> should see but I'm not sure.
On mine the main difference seems to be bind mounts. In /etc/mtab the
bind mount "device" is the directory that is being bind-mounted. In
/proc/
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> And the magic trick is to keep "system mounts" like /run out of
> /etc/mtab (willful desynchronization) so that umount -a doesn't nuke
> them by accident.
>
> ... why else would you keep such data in two non-synchronized locations?! :D
>
Sou
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:58 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Agreed. I was always told that it is up to the arch teams to test the
> reverse deps.
While I think this makes the most sense in general, I think
maintainers do have a role.
If some package has 75 reverse dependencies, and 1 of them tend
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 12:54 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 29. September 2013, 23:41:03 schrieb hasufell:
>>> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
>>> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM, JD Horelick wrote:
> My only issue here is that I feel like we should give users a bit longer
> than one month (34 days, close enough) to make this change. In some cases,
> it may require a large, architectural change which may take a while to be
> engineered and
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> It seems a bit long to me, but I'm not sure how to make it any shorter
> if we include the information about why this is happening.
I would use the newspaper article approach - put the most important
and actionable material at the top, and s
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks a
> one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have in the
> news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these sep-/usr
> issues will get an idea of wh
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>>
>> What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with
>> separate /usr forced to use an initramfs?
>
> I'd say it's supported as long as it gives a compatible end result.
> I suspect that the number of cases supported
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> So, something along the lines of:
>
> Linux systems with /usr on a separate file system that do not use
> an initramfs will become unsupported, starting on 01-Nov-2013.
>
++
> Then go on like:
>
> This decision has been taken beca
The Gentoo Council would like to put out a call for volunteers to join
the GLEP team. Right now the alias has only a single member.
I do not see anything in GLEP 1 that requires GLEP team members to be
Gentoo developers, so interested community members are welcome to
apply.
The GLEP team works w
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> It's only an issue at system-level when your code is dependent on what the
> higher layer is going to do with your output, or requires a specific higher
> layer to run at all(!).
I think the real issue is the lack of any kind of standardiza
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> At what point do we draw the line? Today my mailbox is full of email with
> changes like "app-foo/bar-1.2.3: version bump" -> "app-foo/bar-1.7.3 -
> Version bump.", changing keywords on years-old bugs etc.
Jer - can you comment on how the
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
Nothing, since the kernel build system doesn't source make.conf. If
somebody creates an ebu
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> You will be expected to fix them, and `append-flags
> -fno-stack-protector` is not an acceptable fix. You can't champion for more
> secure defaults and then just disable them when they get in your way.
Why not? Surely a system where 99.9% of th
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Personally I'm using the hardened profile already and find the
> performance penalties negligible for a desktop user, and someone trying
> to run realtime on defaults is likely suicidal anyway.
I suspect what keeps people away from
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Martin Vaeth
wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>>
>> * -fstack-protector{-all}
>> No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
>
> I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made,
> practically without a severe impact on execution time or code size.
> In
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:54:27 +0200
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 05 September 2013 12:47:01 Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> > What I wonder about here is at which cost this does come, when
>> > looking at the fstack-protector then I see that
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 23:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It seems to me that the cleaner situation would be to capture
>> information in the logs, and use a pretty-printer of some kind to make
>> it look nice. Terminate output should
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> How would you handle progress reporting with this? Something like
> 'capture one thousand lines of updated percentages and merge them with
> a magical pretty printer'? I don't see real gain compared to what we
> have now.
There is no value of
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> The solution is obvious - default to writing plain text to log files and
> give the user an option to enable escapes in the log if {s,}he chooses
> to have it. This does mean you can't use tricks with tee.
Not sure it is so obvious.
Log file
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> If you want to help, please join the herd. If nobody joins, we will
> likely proceed with dropping it in a month and moving its packages
> to maintainer-needed letting everybody want the packages they prefer.
>
> Another option is to combine th
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
> 1. The license expressly forbids redistribution, so RESTRICT=mirror is
> mandatory. RESTRICT=fetch may be required, but I haven't read it that
> carefully.
RESTRICT=fetch generally has nothing to do with what is written in the
license, and everyt
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> I've noticed that some people are using internal eclass functions
> in their ebuilds. I mean, functions that are explicitly marked
> @INTERNAL and that start with an underscore. What should I do to them?
Seems crazy to need a written policy t
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
>> Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package
>> maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and
>> running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise
>>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
>> problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
>> running ~arch
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
>> might still keep them.
&g
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
>>> exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
>>> s
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
> unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
Sounds like Prefix, lite?
Rich
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> That doesn't make it a special case here, imo; especially not, since
> we are designing and implementing ebuilds that _build_ the kernel.
> Whether it provides the sources, or build it; what does that matter?
Yes and no. I don't think the
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> That's not to say that gentoo-sources shouldn't follow the regular
> overall stabilization policies, but focusing on the kernel as the
> impetus for adjusting the stabilization policy or pointing out what's
> wrong with the policy as a wh
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date packages ..." ~
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Stable implies "not so often changing". If you really need newer packages on a
> system that has to be rock-solid, then keyword what you need and nothing else.
++
30 days is too long? How can something new be stable? Stable doesn't
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> While I don't, and asked it just because of the large amount; it
> appears from some things lately, and not just OpenRC, that there is a
> certain group that regards ~arch as some kind of new stable.
People have been talking about that for yea
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> For everyone's information -- The conf.d/net removal on upgrade is a
> packaging issue, which could not have been tested prior to
> openrc-0.12.ebuild hitting the tree. There are details in
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few people
> lost their net configs
>
> So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice
And hence the value of having a group of volunteer guinea pigs
(anybody running ~arch) is dem
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
>
> If upstream doesn't support something it's not a regression. This
> upstream removes features all the time in the name of progress. Either
> get on the train or get run over by it. If /usr isn't mounted at boot
> then systemd
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 23:53 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> [...]
>> Well, it should reflect reality.
>>
>> PMS is still broken as much as it does not reflect the state of portage
>> before PMS was written, and we've had to patch it up a fe
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> The discussion at stake here is "Can we add sets to the tree? If so,
> should everyone be able to do that free or by prior discussion?" and I
> don't think that any reply to this whole sub thread benefits anyone.
So, I already added my two ce
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Should everyone be free to add sets at will, or should each addition be
> discussed first, similar to adding new global USE flags?
While I don't want to deter people from creating them, it probably
wouldn't hurt to at least do a little bi
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> If kept, word it something like "When filing bugs; if maintainers are
> unable to translate the necessary information from the build log,
> please attach an English build log [1] and then reopen the bug.
So, this is why I wanted a vote on whet
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-13, o godz. 22:59:49
> "Andreas K. Huettel" napisał(a):
>
>> Note that submitting localized build logs to the Gentoo Bugzilla
>> is discouraged, and that such bug reports may be closed as INVALID
>> by the package maintainer.
>
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> One thing I think is really important is respecting the maintainers. If
> maintainer said "please send the patch upstream before committing to
> cvs", it is _not_ OK to just ignore that. There are other options
> available like masking
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Suggestion, before all the rest of gentoo-dev chimes in and the situation goes
> from messy to hopeless:
>
> 1) Hold a regular, public team meeting of the systemd team.
> 2) Confirm or elect the lead.
> 3) First figure out what you as a
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I've been considering packaging systemd in sys-fs/udev with USE="systemd"
> and use of 'if' and 'else' plus creating virtual/systemd for proper /
> installation and some other minor, but bad design choices done in the
> systemd packaging
W
On Aug 10, 2013 2:41 PM, "Steven J. Long"
wrote:
> It's also easier for developers to handle, similar to the KDE profiles.
Though I'm
> not sure why it's necessary to use a "non-base" profile. We have several
> "non-minimalist" profiles already, and the suggestion seems to fit into
the
> existing
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mike Auty wrote:
> Just because companies pour money into something does not mean they
> know what they're doing, or that they've done their market research
> into what their users want. I've tried several of the forks, and
> sadly Gnome, because of the backing it
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation they
> were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported
> configuration.
Since when was installing half the packages on your system a supported
configuration (w
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration,
> well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing
> and sends the wrong signal.
>
There is no one official supported configuration of Gentoo. Nobo
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> You just removed the upgrade path for users.
>
Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative.
Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with
OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs.
>
> So
1301 - 1400 of 2195 matches
Mail list logo
