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

2018-03-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > On gentoo-dev list: k_f > points out that this should have been talked about during previous > discussion periods... > > It was discussed "to death" over and over, and many argued against it > till they were blue in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How to deal with git sources?

2018-03-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:21 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > I am in the same camp as Martin and James. I would rather see the issues > fixed for the specific packages involved than us try to host tarballs > for every package that doesn't create them. > ++ If github didn't

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

2018-03-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:11 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Alec Warner wrote: >> The containers are nominally stateless, so there is less chance of 'gunk' >> building up and surprising me later. It also makes the lifecycle simpler. >>

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

2018-03-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > In contrast with disposable containers: > > Automated build process for my containers. > > If there is a bug in the build, I can throw my buggy containers away and > build new ones. > > Containers are encouraged to be

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

2018-03-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:11 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > > Sadly interest in the patches seems to have waned. The functionality > is not exactly duplicated in containers, but they do make it easier to > find changes. > Well, the idea with containers wouldn't be to monitor anything, but

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

2018-03-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Benda Xu <hero...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> writes: > >> 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 >&g

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

2018-03-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:00 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> 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

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

2018-03-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:44 AM, R0b0t1 wrote: > > I think I was equating containers to Docker as well. My point was > instead of trying to manage dependencies, containers allow people to > shove everything into an empty root with no conflicts. The > enthusiastic blog post seems

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proliferation of IUSE=static-libs in Gentoo

2018-03-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > So, developers, please *stop adding USE=static-libs* to random libraries > that have no reason whatever to be statically linked to. And by that I > mean a good reason, not creeping featurism, not 'user asked for it', not

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

2018-03-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:55 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Alec Warner wrote: >> >> Because containers are awesome and are way easier to use. >> > > I think you missed my point: Why are they easier to use? > I suspect that he was

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

2018-03-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Perl/g-cpan is a project is in a > similar space and basically reads perl CPAN metadata to generate stub > ebuilds. > Portage tracks these stub ebuilds (and so for example, it tracks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

2018-03-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, R

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?

2018-03-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Is it worth the effort? Yes, see below. > Is it a high priority task? No. > It sounds like all that has been done is to log a tracker and create some bugs. That is hardly a major burden on anybody. If it nudges

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

2018-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > At least for QA this is quite an oversimplified description of the > team's role. Quoting GLEP 48, first bullet point of the specification: > "The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

2018-02-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Dean Stephens schrieb: > >>> Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it >>> a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member >>> of comrel to vote in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] systemd's DynamicUser= in .service files

2018-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > > What I'm asking for is your opinion if it's something that should be used in > gentoo or should I try to avoid it if possible, especially if a static user is > alredy present in the system. > If the systemd behavior is

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: baselayout 2.5 changes

2018-02-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/08/2018 06:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> There is no bug here. The problem, as I said before in this thread, is >> that what goes in *sbin is arbitrary, and as Rich said, if you are >> relying on the path to

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: baselayout 2.5 changes

2018-02-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:17 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > > On 08/02/18 22:13, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:55:02PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> However, there are plenty of examples of commands that normal users >>> may run from sbin. Moving these

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News Item: Portage Dynamic Deps

2018-01-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 01/24/2018 12:15 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 01/23/2018 07:40 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: Did you come up with a solution how to handle eclass-generated dependency changes then? >>> >>> No.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News Item: Portage Dynamic Deps

2018-01-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 01/22/2018 09:28 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> Am Montag, 22. Januar 2018, 08:01:08 CET schrieb Zac Medico: >>> >>> According to Gentoo policy, future ebuild dependency changes need to be >>> accompanied by a

Re: [gentoo-dev] version/slot locked dependencies in eclasses like autotools.eclass and vala.eclass

2018-01-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu nie, 21.01.2018 o godzinie 20∶24 -0800, użytkownik Zac Medico > >> Should we tell users to use the emerge --changed-deps=y option? Maybe >> make --changed-deps=y a default setting? > > No. The idea is that not all

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

2018-01-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Tom H wrote: > > Gentoo's singling itself itself out as less receptive to its users > simply because some its developers are too Trumpian to resist arguing > with people who criticize their work or Gentoo. > Wouldn't it be a bit exclusionary

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

2018-01-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Maybe this is a discussion for -project, then? > Getting these kinds of non-technical discussions off of -dev is most of the point of this. The purpose of this list is discussion of things like eclass changes, fixing bugs,

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

2018-01-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:27 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > On 10/01/18 23:20, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> Being somwhat old and cynical, I'm seeing signs of history >

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

2018-01-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: > > Being somwhat old and cynical, I'm seeing signs of history > repeating itself. > > Does being 'struck off' the list in this way apply to devs, including > Council and comrel members? > It would seem that this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Masking 4.12

2017-12-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Toralf Förster wrote: > On 12/30/2017 07:52 AM, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: >> Hello, >> >> We recently dropped the stable keywords for 4.14, >> but 4.12 (the next stable in gentoo-sources) is no more >> maintained from upstream. >> >> The last update

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: News: systemd sysv-utils blocker resolution

2017-12-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > You might want to mention that alternatively, uninstalling > openrc on a systemd profile system is fine to do > these days, despite the warning. > Does this still cause a warning? I thought that openrc/sysvinit were

Re: [gentoo-dev] The problem of unmaintained packages in Gentoo

2017-12-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2017-12-21 01:35, William Hubbs wrote: >> ~arch *will* have breakages from time to time, sometimes major >> breakages, until they are masked or fixed. We are not supposed to leave >> major breakages there, but

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

2017-12-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:00:16 -0500 > "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote: > >> However, what alternative do we have to throwing the patches up in a >> devspace? > > mirror://gentoo, aka

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

2017-12-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Francesco Riosa <viv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/18/17 14:01, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Whether we remove all files/ or the entire package dir from the repo, >> I'd suggest that this become more standardized if we wanted to

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

2017-12-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Francesco Riosa wrote: > > It would be interesting instead to evaluate ways to remove _all_ files/ dirs > from the tree, keeping ebuilds separated from data. Arguably you could go a step further and not distribute even the ebuilds except on

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

2017-12-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > On 2017-12-14 13:58, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:58:05 +0100 >> Slightly modified suggestion: >> >> Add a flag called "autostabilize" with [unset], [y], [n] >> >> Default is 'unset', and if found

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

2017-12-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > But well, for the beginning we don't need the perfect solution. We can > start with an easy mode and blacklist most packages. So devs interested > can remove their packages from blacklist. And like said, build bot

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

2017-12-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > It seems that we've started lacking arch testers for AMD64 architecture. > At this moment, there are already 159 bugs in amd64 backlog, and there > is no noticeable progress. New stabilization requests are usually >

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

2017-12-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Well, let's consider the order of events here: > ... > This looks awfully clear to me. >... > I'm not focused on the ban, or whether it was deserved. That's exactly what you've done here. You've connected a bunch of

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

2017-12-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Other developers are required to subscribe to -dev, and are > expected to follow it so they stay informed. Developers are not required to subscribe to -dev. > If they missed something covered on the list, they are

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

2017-12-06 Thread Rich Freeman
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 when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other >> members of the community in private after bei

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

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people >>> who ha

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

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people >> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private. I'm not sure >&g

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

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand >> <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>

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

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate > some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences > of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into

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

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way t

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

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate > developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an > incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will > be dropped or

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

2017-12-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800 >> Matt Turner wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson

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

2017-12-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to > view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers / > staff leave It isn't just the risk of leaving, but the risk of them never joining

Re: [gentoo-dev] NEWS item for games destabling

2017-11-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:15 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 27/11/17 18:44, Christopher Head wrote: >> For those of us who run mostly stable systems, there is one question I don’t >> know a good answer to. >> >> If I add a specific version of a game to

Re: [gentoo-dev] NEWS item for games destabling

2017-11-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:46:02 +0100 > David Seifert wrote: > >> games in Gentoo are not part of crucial Tier 1 packages. > > It's the first time I hear the term. How "crucial Tier 1 packages" are

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

2017-11-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:21 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > The council has no power > over Trustees, and Trustees do have legal power over all of Gentoo. Sure, just keep in mind that legally Gentoo is basically nothing but a name and a logo. The Trustees could ask the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th: 3 hashes for the tie-breaker case

2017-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 24/10/2017 06:11, Michał Górny wrote: >> W dniu wto, 24.10.2017 o godzinie 06∶04 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny >> napisał: >>> Three hashes don't give any noticeable advantage. If we want a diverse >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Informations about Systemd Stage3 Image and Systemd profile

2017-10-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Geaaru wrote: > > So, my first question is why dependency to openrc is not inserted to a > specific profile and so when is configured a systemd profile is > possible prepare a pure systemd environment without openrc package ? > My understanding

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

2017-10-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/20/2017 11:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> >> I support Hanno's suggestion of doing just SHA512, but would be >> interested in hearing opinions from others who have apparent >> security/crypto experience.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Providing a `service` scripts that speaks OpenRC and systemd

2017-09-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 30 Sep 2017 00:20:31 -0400 as excerpted: > >> But, how do we reliably detect the currently running init system? Are >> there running processes, or entries in /sys/ or /proc/ or /dev that are >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Providing a `service` scripts that speaks OpenRC and systemd

2017-09-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Austin English wrote: > >> Talking with Whubbs about it, I found that our service script only >> supports OpenRC, via rc-service. I looked around, and from what I >> can tell, most distros ship a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: An example overlayfs sandbox test

2017-09-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> I wouldn't be surprised if it works with a single bind mount with >> /proc and /dev and so on mounted on top of that. > > Either you start w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: An example overlayfs sandbox test

2017-09-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: >>> Tim Harder <radher...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: An example overlayfs sandbox test

2017-09-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Tim Harder wrote: > > It is the big advantage of overlay that it is implemented in > kernel and does not involve any time-consuming checks during > normal file operations. > Why would you expect

Re: [gentoo-dev] An example overlayfs sandbox test

2017-09-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > We could try forcing failures (say, by not having / mounted as lowerdir, so > syscalls against the rootfs would just fail as E_NOENT) but then we are > still stuck with the tricky part; which is that sometimes things *do*

Re: [gentoo-dev] An example overlayfs sandbox test

2017-09-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:29 PM, James McMechan <james_mcmec...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:43 PM, James McMechan >><james_mcmec...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] An example overlayfs sandbox test

2017-09-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:43 PM, James McMechan wrote: > > # now create a separate mount namespace non-persistent > unshare -m bash > If you're going to go to the trouble to set up a container, you might as well add some more isolation: unshare --mount --net --pid

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project

2017-09-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > Some other distros try harder to isolate build environment either > through chroot and/or private mount/user/network namespace that > contains only explicitly specified files in build environment. > > That would

Re: [gentoo-dev] [openrc] [systemd] make `service` common for both OpenRC and SystemD (like Debian/Ubuntu/whatever did)

2017-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > > I'd like to suggest to remove `service` widget from openrc and make it the > part of (which package? baselayout?)? IMO this really should go in its own package. By all means have openrc and/or systemd pull it

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

2017-09-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > But in my experience, crappy and easy > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become > the sole contributor, and

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

2017-09-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Johnson Steward wrote: > Well, I guess the owner of the machines may want them to be under personal > possession, be taken care of personally and, hopefully, extend the love he > has with them even though he had to part with them. Sentiment

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

2017-09-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶19 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman > napisał: >> >> FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed >> devmanual changes to impleme

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

2017-09-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > What do you think about it? Is there anything else that needs being > covered? > FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed devmanual changes to implement the new tags please comment at:

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

2017-09-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Quoting from "all-rights-reserved": > > | This package has an explicit "all rights reserved" clause, or comes > | without any license, or only with a disclaimer. This means that you > | have only the rights that are

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

2017-09-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Maybe find yourself a lawyer, and ask him. We're all volunteers, I've already done the research. There is no legal requirement to contact the authors before changing the SRC_URI. > and we're no in way obligated to give

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

2017-09-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 16∶42 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman > napisał: >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godz

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

2017-09-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman > napisał: >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > > > >

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

2017-09-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:32 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:26:10 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > >> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:03:21 +0800 (HKT) >> Brendan Horan wrote: >> >> > Just an update for everyone :

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

2017-09-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Don't you think there is a difference between downloading a package > that has a known upstream and that is also carried by other distros,

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

2017-09-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has >> permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery

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

2017-09-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Gordon Pettey wrote: > >> Can these package.mask notes stop saying "no alternative found" when >> it's obvious five seconds of Google searching was not even performed >> to find an alternative? >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

2017-08-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > But even if that's the case (I wouldn't know), it's the case due to a > deliberate decision of those going "under the bus", because portage is > the default, and by choosing to use some other PM, they've deliberately >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [FRC] News item: Changing USE flags for >=app-backup/bacula

2017-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/15/2017 02:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> For example, could you say that a client-only install that still >> installs the X11 components is "minimal?" > > Its somewhat co

Re: [gentoo-dev] [FRC] News item: Changing USE flags for >=app-backup/bacula

2017-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/15/2017 11:33 AM, tom...@gentoo.org wrote: >> Quoting Kristian Fiskerstrand (2017-08-15 10:37:39) >>> On 08/15/2017 12:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 14

Re: [gentoo-dev] [FRC] News item: Changing USE flags for >=app-backup/bacula

2017-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:19 AM, <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Quoting Michał Górny (2017-08-15 08:43:07) >> On wto, 2017-08-15 at 06:55 +0200, tom...@gentoo.org wrote: >> > Quoting Rich Freeman (2017-08-15 00:29:19) >> > > >> > > I guess to make it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [FRC] News item: Changing USE flags for >=app-backup/bacula

2017-08-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On pon, 2017-08-14 at 21:58 +0200, Thomas Beierlein wrote: >> >> * 'bacula-clientonly' becomes 'clientonly' > > This is still negative logic in disguise. clientonly = noserver. > >> * 'bacula-nodir' will be replaced by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

2017-08-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is debate > on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug request and > makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and PMS

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

2017-08-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > I cannot explain why those who do portage development are not the PMS > authors. > Have you considered asking them? -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

2017-08-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I am sure > that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from > PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are > all better off for it. > Honestly, I've yet to see any portage developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

2017-08-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/12/2017 08:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

2017-08-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 08/12/2017 09:50 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> Q. But what about the rebuilds? >> >> For most packages, the rebuilds simply don't matter. Unless you're >> the maintainer of libreoffice, firefox, chromium,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisions for USE flag changes

2017-08-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit >> from revbumps. >> > > There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

2017-08-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 08/08/2017 06:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> I make a lot of binaries for use on other systems, to expedite updates. >> It does not make sense for some packages to ever be a binary package. > > Any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

2017-08-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > As most things I think this would require support in PMS, or next EAPI > at minimum. But I think the EAPI comes from PMS, so they are related. > Actually, I'm not sure about this since it doesn't really affect

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 > repos instead of 1. > > 1) Rolling. > 2) Stable. > > Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they > want; they can't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > wrote: >> >> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: >> > >> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > Here's a data point you may, or may not, find relevant. in 16 years of using > Gentoo exclusively, the only one time I used stable on one machine for about > 2 years it ended up being much more of a pain than unstable.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

2017-07-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/26/2017 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> The same applies to #123456 in the summary line, though. I don't see a >> good reason for using a URL after the "Bug:" keyword as long as bare >> numbers are used

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

2017-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Or

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

2017-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage >>> 'automatic'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Markus Meier wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:03:30 +0200 > Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > >> On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote: >> > 1. lack of automation >> I'd summarize the techical steps into: >> 1) get

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > I feel like this is going towards 'anybody can do keywording / > stabilization'. I'd rather not go this route right now, and just let > arch teams recruit people as they see fit. > I think this depends on the arch team.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

2017-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Except that there is no machines using it. In all contexts, using full URL > for machine readability is better as it works with all software out of the > box. > Until the domain name of the bugzilla server changes/etc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > The 30 day waiting period is useful for smoking out major upstream bugs, > but can't replace stabilisation integration testing. For example, > package foobar may build fine in ~arch but fails in stable because it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Hans de Graaff wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > More troubleshooting and fixing "hard" problems, less routine work. > > Except that some of that routine work is actually what I enjoy doing in > Gentoo. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

2017-07-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > The question is whether devs would start

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

2017-07-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > But in some scenarios this command is normal. E.g. user installs > Gentoo from some live dvd/flash, makes some mistakes, understands > that system is broken beyond repair and decides to start over again. > If there

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >