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

2017-07-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > I see no problems with compatibility. In case of software needs to > write to efivars (bootloader installation, etc) algo is simple: > > flag = false; > if (mounted(efivars) == RO) { remount(efivars, RW); flag =

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

2017-07-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:09:45 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:42:50 -0700 Matt Turn

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

2017-07-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:42:50 -0700 Matt Turner wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Lucas Ramage >> wrote: >> > What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

2017-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 >> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 07/11/2017

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

2017-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered >> questions here: >> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? >> - should

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

2017-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:27:54 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: >> > This is why stabilisation, if not for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > I am aware in a way. Depends on how implemented. This has to hit > package.env files. But what you see below comes from a dependency list. > I have packages with even more deps. > If you want to cope with poor

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks >> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> >> The --unmerge option is there to let people shoot themselves in the >> feet if they kn

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > I dunno where you've been lately, Rich, but for most devs, would-be > devs, and observers .. there -are- no arch teams left .. just a few Arch > devs, or arch 'people' .. Obviously. I was describing how the arch team

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > >> In the case of amd64 we already >> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own >> packages > &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> > You aren't taking the time to read your own emerge output. > > It always says that same generic message. If that is the case, then

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > For what it's worth, Jack Morgan was recently getting his sparc and > ia64 systems back up, but then decided to retire instead when he saw > all of the discussions about dropping the architectures he cares > about. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > Now, since I work on these arches just to help, i.e. I don't have any business > and I do non have any installation of those arches and the work I'm doing is > not appreciated at all I decided to stop for now. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5: > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt > I realize a warning will address most of the issue, but when creating lists like these it can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Let's say I try to do this as a meta package. So in my overlay I > create a category "meta-set" and a file "meta-set/pmbuild-0.ebuild" > > EAPI=5 > SLOT="0" > KEYWORDS="amd64 x86" > DEPEND=" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:34:55 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other >> direction and just have pa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Bug #272488[0] proposed a PROPERTIES="set" feature to combine the power > of sets with the flexibility of ebuilds. > > 1: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 > What do sets get us that packages do not?

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

2017-06-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On śro, 2017-06-14 at 11:11 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >> >> I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for >> container-related utilities. >> >> Currently, the best place to put them

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

2017-06-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:17 PM, A. Wilcox wrote: > > just have users of a *source based distro* where the emphasis is > *choice* actually choose what they want? > > What is the big deal with the way REQUIRED_USE works now? "Users have > to do something". The issue is

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

2017-05-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On śro, 2017-05-24 at 11:54 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >> >> I was using the Firefox PulseAudio event as another example of stuff >> that happens in some obscure location that ordinary users don't know >> about. It was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

2017-05-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2017-05-24, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On śro, 2017-05-24 at 03:48 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:41:25AM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote > [...] >>> Note where I said "...posted on Gentoo-User for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

2017-05-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:41:25AM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote >> Next time such a thing happens, the discussion will happen on a >> completely private media or not happen at all because of the state >> of this mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

2017-05-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > A. It gives a wider choice of tools for developers (and privileged > contributors) -- they can choose either the open or restricted mailing > list depending on the type of requested feedback. > > B. The gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla package list editing

2017-05-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:24 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Or one is punished for things others are not. Even if other's actions > are far worse than those of the person being punished. > Considering that we don't disclose whether anybody is punished or what they're

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla package list editing

2017-05-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > From a non-gentoo developer who seriously looked at joining the community > over the last few years as a new developer, this entire conversation thread > is absurd, and is a wonderful example of why I decided to not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dropping ia64/ppc/sparc profiles to dev/exp

2017-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Yury German wrote: > > we can not call for cleanup or release the GLSA, > waiting for a stabilization of a non-core package, while the actual > package has been in a tree in ~arch status for weeks or months. Why not? If an arch is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dropping ia64/ppc/sparc profiles to dev/exp

2017-05-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > It isn't like security project adds any additional load to any arch > team, an architecture capable to keep up with normal keyword and > stabilization requests should also be able to keep up with security. What

Re: [gentoo-dev] No Java Team, Java neglect was -> Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions

2017-04-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:21 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Why are no new people coming? its hardly because of me Maybe > someday the majority will make it past the denial and blame others. You > cannot blame the community for how people within Gentoo act > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] No Java Team, Java neglect was -> Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions

2017-04-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:15 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Signs are all around. Lots of posts about packages up for grabs etc... > Of course I am the one killing Gentoo. Despite having been gone for > years. Not posting for months etc. > > People need to wake up. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] No Java Team, Java neglect was -> Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions

2017-04-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Given the attitudes of some. I am glad I stay clear. If only... -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

2017-03-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Yury German wrote: > > > The maintainer also knows the package, dependencies, other bugs filed, etc. > Removing things for your > packages might be simple, but it is not the same across all packages and that > is the reason we ask the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

2017-03-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > Looks like we are disagreeing about the role of a project lead. > > The primary goal of any Gentoo project is to group people working > towards the same goal(s) in small, manageable groups. It shouldn't need > a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

2017-03-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > In most cases lack of maintainer participation is likely the issue to > begin with. The primary issue with a package mask of this nature is that > it is more permanent than temporary in nature. To what extent would

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

2017-03-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 03/11/2017 11:23 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> My point is that users must be informed about security problem, but >> they still should have a choice. So it should be either a rule >> "mask without removal" or

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to deal with package forks?

2017-03-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:34:20 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> 1. classic forks -- package B is forked out of A, and the development of >> both continue independently (eudev/systemd, ffmpeg/libav); >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to deal with package forks?

2017-03-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > 1. classic forks -- package B is forked out of A, and the development of > both continue independently (eudev/systemd, ffmpeg/libav); > > 2. large patch sets / continuously rebased forks -- where the particular > set of

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Update bitcoin eclass to default to knots

2017-03-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: > >> The kernel doesn't give you a choice of multiple independent patch >> sets. We have just a few options that bundle many patches. You can't >> selectively turn them on and off. >> >> I'm not asking whether patching

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Update bitcoin eclass to default to knots

2017-03-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Matthias Maier <tam...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 10:52 CST, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience >>> changing without

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Update bitcoin eclass to default to knots

2017-03-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Mathy Vanvoorden wrote: > > 2017-03-06 15:53 GMT+01:00 Anthony G. Basile : >> >> Bitcoin Knots includes a number of enhancements users may find useful. I >> think it would be a good idea to make it the default for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal of CVS headers

2017-02-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Lars Wendler wrote: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:24:38 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >>Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2017, 21:16:28 CET schrieb Lars Wendler: >>> I am completely against removal of this header line. It does _not_ do >>> any harm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal of CVS headers

2017-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > >> Typical questions for tree-wide cleanups: > >> - Are new ebuilds forbidden to have '$Id$' or just discouraged? >> - [same as above] Will new version of repoman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal of CVS headers

2017-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Therefore, I am going to remove the remaining CVS headers throughout > the tree (except for patches, of course) in two days from now. > Speaking from git migration experience, I'd be really careful about how you go about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inquiry about research paper

2017-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Jaewon Choi <1500...@dwight.or.kr> wrote: > > 2) What do you think of the systemd as a service manager? Do you have an > opinion about its pros and cons? > Picking a random question here. Can I ask that people respond privately by email and not to the list? A few

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > OK, can we all decide out of this thread,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide >> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, >> because you will

Re: [gentoo-dev] REQUIRED_USE, global USE flags, user-friendliness...

2017-02-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Christopher Head wrote: > > Why? It’s just another dependency. Why does DEPEND="dev-libs/bar" work > so beautifully but DEPEND="dev-libs/bar[baz]" work so horribly? If I > haven’t explicitly said I want baz, and I haven’t explicitly said I > *don’t*

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: >> >> Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts >> building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to >> find that half of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defau

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:28 PM, james <gar...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 02/02/2017 04:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> The problem is the new user experience. When somebody is new to >> Gentoo and not super-knowledgeable the first thing they're going to do >> is s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM, james wrote: > > I think that unikernels are something everyone should be aware of > as they purport to be the latest trend in securing all sorts of systems. > (a brief read). > Not really for all sorts, more for servers. Otherwise I get it,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added > to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, I'll go further and say that it is unacceptably bad. > but if > (base ==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > The upstream defaults would > build on top of the minimal base profile, in plain old package.use. In > the profile is exactly where the upstream defaults belong in an > "upstream defaults" profile. > > I think (base ==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) > on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in > the base one. The base profile isn't "headless server" - it is just generic. Somebody

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

2017-02-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > And we should be keeping the @system essentials set required for new > installations > to be as minimal as possible without losing functionality. > Keep in mind that it is pretty safe to put openrc in package.provided,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

2017-01-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 01/27/2017 11:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> It isn't like inconsistent UIDs are the end of the world. However, >> IMO it still makes sense to at least try to standardize such thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

2017-01-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:13:53 -0600 > "A. Wilcox" wrote: > >> Having a file that user.eclass would use to map new users/groups to >> IDs would be extremely beneficial to me. I was thinking about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

2017-01-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > I don't think we need to have stable UIDs/GIDs in the "normal" case of > standalone users with a single Gentoo system at home. Of course, but as you point out the enterprise case has more sophisticated solutions. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

2017-01-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > My first impression is that any package that doesn't care > about its UID should default to "first available", but if that causes > problems, then that's exactly the sort of use case I'm looking for. > The ones I listed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

2017-01-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 01/27/2017 01:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> This doesn't really seem like a problem though. Just have a table >> somewhere (wiki?) to track who is using what UID/GID and encode those

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

2017-01-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > You don't really have to care what UID/GID is assigned, because each > user/group will only be created once and referenced by name (as $PN). By > default, we could pick the first available UID in most packages. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Cron <gmirror@dipper> /usr/local/bin/pidlock -s rsync-gen /bin/bash /usr/local/bin/mastermirror/rsync-gen.sh

2017-01-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> I should point out that: >> >> 1) CI is detecting this kind of issues much faster than you are, >> and reporting them both to the committer and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

2017-01-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic infrastructure > for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to keep it simple, > and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able to start defining >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Announce e-mail sending nonsense (Was: Last rites: x11-libs/gtk+:1)

2017-01-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, L, 07.01.2017 kell 14:18, kirjutas Rich Freeman: >> >> Not all replies to gentoo-dev-announce should go to gentoo-dev. Some >> belong on gentoo-project, or maybe even ge

Re: [gentoo-dev] Announce e-mail sending nonsense (Was: Last rites: x11-libs/gtk+:1)

2017-01-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > If gentoo-dev feel the need to set Reply-To in my place, then gentoo- > dev-announce should do the same and not throw my mail into /dev/null, > but into some regular moderation rules after setting the Reply-To > itself

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

2017-01-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > So my understanding of the status quo is that maintainers get to make the > call with regard to what is reasonable to keep or drop. I'm loathe to add > additional policy here; mostly because the expectation is that the >

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

2017-01-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > If packages had a field called "BUGS=" it could contain an array of > bugs a package is known to contain, but can be conditionally avoided if > you're careful. > > Packages with non-empty BUGS= fields would be treated as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

2017-01-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > In that, by making the submitter resolve it all, its either "good" or "bad" > > Instead of leaving the person doing the testing in a confused state about > which packages > are expected to be used. > Well, assuming that

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

2017-01-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > Ideas like this is one reason I'm looking for a corpus of pros and cons for > treecleaning. I don't see it as black and white. But having ideas like these > brought up is at least useful. > Sure, and almost any rule has

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

2017-01-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > For security's sake, even mature software needs, at minimum, routine auditing. > Unless someone's doing that work, the package should be considered for > removal. (Call that reason #π, in honor of TeX.) > Are you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

2017-01-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + >>> Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

2017-01-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an >> associated category atoms? > > Sets /are/ still

Re: [gentoo-dev] The changes about the stabilization process

2016-12-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 20:49:02 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 >> Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> > >> > Description how to test this package... >> > >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] gpg: signing failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device

2016-12-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:27 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > I do, but only usually if its the last package of an emerge because > otherwise its lost many many thousands of lines upwards. Thank goodness > for portage's savelog feature. - Actually that reminds me .. someone >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Proposal for addition of distribution variables

2016-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:24 PM, A. Wilcox wrote: > > The original intention wasn't to guess, but I see how PMS is more for > things that are determined at run-time by the package manager rather > than static variables. > To be clear, PMS is more about package manager

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-12-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 5:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > There is also the charitable donation and write off aspect. Which they may be > able to do. But since Gentoo has never received official 501c6 status or any > from the IRS. I am not sure if companies or anyone can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

2016-12-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:47 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 9:33:00 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 12/03/2016 09:25 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> >> This is generally considered infeasible: >> > I would not think such, just need a

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-12-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:20 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Which was one of the last articles Gentoo mentioned in on Distro watch, till I > believe the OnHub router. Based around that topic, quoting Ciaran. > > http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

2016-12-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:08 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Friday, December 2, 2016 2:10:27 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: >> Hi, everyone. >> >> I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being >> started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Who runs Gentoo was -> RFC: Userkit.eclass

2016-12-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > OT, who runs Gentoo > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 12:21:55 AM EST Daniel Campbell wrote: > >> There's also our downstream neighbors: Funtoo, Pentoo, Sabayon, >> Calculate, Exherbo, etc > > Two of those are more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

2016-11-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote: > > I beg affiliated Gentoo developers to stay sane and be thinking not just > about numbers of your commits, but also about community spirit and > relationships. Of course inexperienced contributor gets things not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure

2016-11-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: >> >> What about maintainers that are away without writing it in their >> maintainer bug ? >> After how many days of no replay can be fair to

Re: [gentoo-dev] rsync.gentoo.org rsync modules: ChangeLogs dropped from gentoo-portage

2016-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:57:26 + > "Robin H. Johnson" wrote: > >> - eg metadata.xml (nothing for user systems is impacted by it, other >>than to give output about packages). > > Idle thought:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: tmpfiles virtual

2016-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > > For instance, the systemd-tmpfiles implementation has some > features concerning btrfs which are not (yet) supported by > opentmpfiles. Some users might want to use that features. > Well, this was the main reason I

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

2016-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Realistically, software should ensure the directories it needs at > runtime are created through their own code, but upstreams are lazy and > so they don't bother because, hey, we can have this tmpfiles.d *.conf > file

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure

2016-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Just to be clear, I'm not advocating banning runtime testing. I just > think that, considering the state of the stable tree, we should consider > very careful in which situations we actually gain value from it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure

2016-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 17/11/16 20:16, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >>> * A leaf package such as {{package|kde-apps/kca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilisation procedure

2016-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > In cases where all USE flags combinations are not being tested, it is > still recommended to test: > * with all USE flags enabled > * with all USE flags disabled > * the default USE flag settings > I imagine that

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

2016-11-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 16/11/16 06:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> On 16/11/16 06:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:09:59PM -0500, Ian

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles virtual

2016-11-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Dustin C. Hatch wrote: > On 2016-11-14 23:09, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:23:10 -0600 >> William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have been working on splitting the tmpfiles functionality out of

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles: call for testers

2016-11-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 11/08/2016 10:44 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> On 11/08/2016 05:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> On T

Re: [gentoo-dev] tmpfiles: call for testers

2016-11-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:02 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: >> >> The plan, once the first release is out, is to rewrite this utility >> in a better language. I'm considering C, but if I am comfortable

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-11-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Christopher Head <ch...@chead.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:25:39 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> It would be nice if standards like USB incorporated some kind of GUID. >> I ended up having to write a ude

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code shutdown requires 524 ebuilds to be fixed before end of 2016

2016-11-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:30 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Apologies, getting ahead of myself here .. there must be a portage > utility, but I've forgotten which one interrogates metadata .. I'll > defer to a more authoritative source ... > There might be a command line utility

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code shutdown requires 524 ebuilds to be fixed before end of 2016

2016-11-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Jonas Stein wrote: > > If you maintain one of these packages, please fix the SRC_URI and > HOMEPAGE variables. > It would probably be better if the output included the maintainer. Hopefully this isn't using anything deprecated, but you should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Optimizing toe stepping

2016-11-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thursday, November 3, 2016 9:14:56 AM EDT William Hubbs wrote: >> >> I am also in favor of the metadata approach. > > Also it may start inching things towards restricting areas of the tree to said > members of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting version-related tree policies

2016-11-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 03/11/16 01:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version numbering and so on. >> Dates might be used in cases where upstream doesn't publish sane >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting version-related tree policies

2016-11-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > 1. Revision number must be no longer than : > 1a. to make <=X-r reliable, > 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. > Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version numbering and so on. Dates might

Re: [gentoo-dev] Optimizing toe stepping

2016-11-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > Although metadata.xml is one way to do this, since it is more of a social > thing than a technical one I think it might be better to wikify it instead -- > each dev can list their "please fix my package" preferences

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab and localmount update, round 2

2016-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:44 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:14:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:53 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 01:30:56PM -0400, Mi

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