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

2016-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
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, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:52 PM, William Hub

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

2016-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > here is the new version of this news item. > Shouldn't this be conditional based on openrc being installed? I don't think other rc implementations are impacted. -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on Android stage3

2016-10-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Benda Xu wrote: > > Homework received. I have little experience blogging though. > > I will need first to set up a blog and then draft a writeup. > > Any hints? Gentoo can set them up, or you can just use Wordpress or whatever (Gentoo wasn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on Android stage3

2016-10-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:42 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 29/10/16 16:35, Benda Xu wrote: >> No SD slot on Nexus. We will stress the internal NAND flash with >> millions of ebuilds and rsync :) >> >> That makes me think of squashdelta sync, but probably after gaining >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on Android stage3

2016-10-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:18 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 29/10/16 16:14, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 29/10/16 16:09, Benda Xu wrote: >>> >>> This is an announcement of the latest Gentoo on Android stage3 tarball, > > Actually .. given my nosiness in -pr matters lately,

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

2016-10-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement >> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a >> straightforward solution to make it

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

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > This is not unlike the kerfufle that occurred when systemD was introduced > not so long ago. To use it folks had to make major changes to their systems > that took several months to iron out the kinks. Additionally,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind >> of bootstrapping stage1. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > With a DCO, it greatly complicates things. Would my right to keep my > contributions in an overlay be infringed upon? What would change if we > switch to this? > The DCO doesn't change your rights at all, or change the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux > kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted > otherwise. > Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Maier <tam...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under >> trademark law than copyright la

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > >> > You can't change the text of a license and

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:22 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> I do think that this is one of the areas where hasufell's concept of >> making the 3rd-party workflow

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

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Neither were network device names. But now they are! As long as you > predict to which USB port the dongle will be plugged ;-). > It would be nice if standards like USB incorporated some kind of GUID. I ended up having

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under trademark law

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> >> I think this reflects reality. You can submit all the patches you >> want via bugzilla

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are defined, > how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? Defining all > dependencies means the graph is completely cyclic. Well, we'll need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman: >> >> Actually, that isn't allowed, and was the very issue that kicked off >> the entire matter. You can't just take somebod

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or CLAs > are those that want to be able to re-license the code without getting > permissions from everyone (some of whom might not be possible to > contact at

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

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Personally I'd rather see us go the other way, ensure udev settles >> before localmount runs, and maybe ewarn if /dev/disk/by-* is in fstab >> or something. Leave the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Please review the following draft: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC > Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo project provides a specific set of official channels of contribution in which all project

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote >> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: >> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated >> > tools are a vital part of the distro. >> >> A stage4

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > That said, we could always make it possible for the developer to > voluntarily assign copyright to the foundation if (s)he so desires. > And I would certainly do that for myself. > The envisioned approach was being

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Under this interpretation, developers using this header to add other > peoples work to tree is making our use of DCO pointless. > > Because DCO has to be the person who *authored* the commit, not the > person who merely

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

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to > move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles. > > I do have a question about the newsitem -- how do I make it display only > for Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: > >>> Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is not >>> entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote: > > However, I don't think this is the criterion used to determine what > should be in @system. The wiki defines the system set as the set that > "contains the software packages required for a standard Gentoo Linux >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > If I write a QT gui that forks/exec x264 cli and want to sell it as the > best H264 encoder on the market, then I have to comply with x264 > license since it won't do what I claim once x264 is removed. The QT gui

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:17:08 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >> > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is not > entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed > ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be distributable at all. Honestly, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > This made me think of another scenario; let's say I have my own fork of > Gentoo, maintained in an overlay complete with docs, etc, under an MIT > or BSD license, but as a Gentoo developer, I must copyright under GPL. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> I personally tend to favor a mandatory DCO (we absolutely need to know >> the copyright status of our code), and a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: >> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:34:14 -0700 >> Matt Turner wrote: >> > In order to contribute to GNU

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > Yeah, it seems to be painful no matter what you do (CLA, copyright > assignment, listing copyright holders) just in different ways :) > Well, the advantage of assignment is that it does simplify copyright tracking,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 7:07:41 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that header on >> your work is an assignment of copy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: >> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that >> header on your work is an assignment of copyright. > > I very much doubt that. > Well, like I said you can argue it either way. Everybody is going to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> In order to contribute to GNU

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> You cannot currently commit anything with a different copyright notice >> to gentoo.git > > Ac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright > assignment statement. > > Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes > me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > A former co-worker of mine is now at Google and wants to contribute > ebuilds he wrote for ChromeOS to Gentoo. They add packages necessary > for Vulkan (new 3D graphics API). > > For instance: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote: > > On October 23, 2016 11:29:49 PM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote: >>Dnia 24 października 2016 07:32:26 CEST, Daniel Campbell >> napisał(a): >>>On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> The last draft DCO was: >> Gentoo DCO 1.0 By making a contribution to this project, I certify >> that: (a) The contributio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo, > --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two. > > So I think the intent for this is "X reviewed these changes for Gentoo > and takes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Local workarounds with no reported bugs

2016-10-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > > Changing the status quo may require some adjustment though, but I suppose we > could start by openly documenting a bug if we find a workaround that does > not already have a bug number associated with it. I've seen

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

2016-10-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:22:12 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> How do you generate your grub-0 config files? > > I didn't, it came as a stock example file with comments whic

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

2016-10-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Hence, a more sensible default instead of mkconfig that emits a config > file that mortals can sensibly edit ( including relevant inline comments > describing what is done ) would be a smart move that would go a long >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Package up for grabs: skencil

2016-09-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 09:54:42 PM Duncan wrote: >> >> Why treeclean it, if it still works and can still be built against in- >> tree python? >> >> Sometimes mature packages don't get further maintenance because they

Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch testers need themselves an IRC channel so I can love them more

2016-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > As such, I believe Arch Testers should have themselves an IRC channel, > where Arch testers are OP, and membership of arch testers is voluntary > ( but encouraged ). > The history here is that ATs typically hung out in

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Erik Mackdanz wrote: > Kristian Fiskerstrand writes: >> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is not >> updated to handle it solves it. >> >> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? > > Wouldn't a

Re: [gentoo-dev] chromium-54 needs ffmpeg-3.0.1

2016-08-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:28:14 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Sure, but we're talking about a major version here, and a web browser >> where future security updates nee

Re: [gentoo-dev] chromium-54 needs ffmpeg-3.0.1

2016-08-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > For years we've been patching packages to work with >= our latest stable > version of ffmpeg/libav and unbundle it. Even mplayer. Chromium shouldnt > be any exception. > > Patching consumer packages that way has some

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > (and what abuse? it did exactly what it was supposed to do quite nicely, > until it stopped doing that. Now you need to track state and hope you > don't have race conditions ... ) > You were tracking state before; in

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Then tools forgot to properly update mtab because hurr why u no symlink > to /proc/mounts (oh wait, /proc/self/mounts ) > > So everyone migrated to /etc/mtab as a symlink (even OpenRC, because > everyone does it) > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > I never said /etc/hostname was necessary for operation of systemd. > > It *is* the way that normal people set their hostname for a system > that doesn't get configured via DHCP or some dynamic method. > Correct, this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/24/2016 07:37 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> I imagine _someone_ out there wants it, otherwise we wouldn't be >> discussing it. > > The thread started out proposing it as a solution to a docker problem > that, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Christian Kniep wrote: > Hey there, > > as for the /etc/hostname when sharing /etc/ as a volume… This ain’t a > problem as /etc/hostname is taken care of by the docker-engine (in previous > versions they used it to discover other hosts). >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:57 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > I am planning to change the logic in /etc/init.d/hostname so that if > /etc/hostname exists, the first word out of that file will be used as > the hostname rather than any setting in /etc/conf.d/hostname. If you >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Christian Kniep wrote: > Hey Rich, > > nice idea, but unfortunately this provides the hostname of the container > itself. > As it should. /etc/hostname inside a container should contain the hostname of the container. It shouldn't actually be

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > It makes a bit more sense to rely on previous configuration > (/etc/conf.d/hostname) and write a tiny 'script' that populates > /etc/hostname. bash could do it (naively) in two lines: > > source /etc/conf.d/hostname >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > Yes, wouldn't the Docker project be happy to take on a patch that uses > gethostname() or so? > This might be another option: symlink to /proc/sys/kernel/hostname I'm not sure if somebody can find a flaw in this. It

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > I'm not sure about putting this in /run for a couple of reasons: > > The contents of this file is a setting, like /etc/conf.d/hostname, which > will be set by the user. There is no reason a script can't populate /run

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

2016-08-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:11 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 22/08/16 16:58, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> it looks like app-emulation/docker expects /etc/hostname to exist. >> >> On Gentoo, this file does not exist, so I'm wondering how we can make it >> exist? >> >> I know in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developers, please work on underlinking issues!

2016-08-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:21:16 +0200 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400 >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developers, please work on underlinking issues!

2016-08-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Lars Wendler wrote: > > And as long as I keep reading such statements I won't use ld.gold > anywhere on my (dev-)systems. A linker IMHO is a far too crucial > toolchain component to blindly play around with. > There really isn't any need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developers, please work on underlinking issues!

2016-08-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Is it as simple as switching the linker and re-merging packages that one > maintains? Is gold supposed to be a big deal? Does it do the job of > linking better? I read the blog post and all but nobody's explaining > what

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree

2016-08-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 15:27 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > > [...] > > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just > > that I think it is better than call

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree

2016-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > This works unless you are talking about packages in @system. > I do see core packages on these arches also languish in ~ for months > with open stable requests. > > The only way to handle one of those would be to remove

Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)

2016-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to > normal bug resolution. > * There is one version to be stabilized. > * One precise package version Can you clarify what this means? Do

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree

2016-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break >> the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup t

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree

2016-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > I have some trouble with not being able to close bugs as resolved when > the fixes have been released. But I do see that the majority of what is > being discussed relates to pkg ebuilds more than it does to coding >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree

2016-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > If we have to wait for a fix to hit stable before I can close a bug, who > should I assign it to? I don't want 200 bugs, that I can do literally > nothing about, assigned to me for years while I wait for them to get >

Re: [gentoo-dev] libpcre.so.3 - Compatibility with Debian

2016-08-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > I regret to say, although it's a well-known problem .. that the Gentoo > bike-shed is never ever going to fall down - as the layers of paint > applied will grossly outlive the materials it might once have been built >

Re: [gentoo-dev] libpcre.so.3 - Compatibility with Debian

2016-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, James Le Cuirot wrote: > >> That makes it slightly more awkward for binaries you may have >> installed manually. > > It is impossible to support all third-party binaries, especially if > they link

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs

2016-08-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:47 PM, james <gar...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 08/07/2016 09:47 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Sounds great. What's stopping you? >> > > Why Rich, thanks for the triple compliments; is that a vote that the basic > idea(s) have merit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs

2016-08-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:24 AM, james wrote: > > As a team, we could have a simple default program for a simple default > disk format, and a variety of 'stage-4' images, maybe updated every 3 > months, to get a gentoo system up, quickly. Not an anything you want it to > be,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs

2016-08-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > GitHub works for us. GitHub works for our contributors. GitHub boosts > our productivity, unlike those vain discussions. We don't have time for > all this tin foil hat nonsense. > Then just ignore it. If somebody wants

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs

2016-08-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Michał Górny wrote: >> Or file a pull request @ https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pulls. >> That's the most convenient solution for most of proxy-maint team members. > > How can I help improve that problematic situation? > > It's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signed push & clock drift rejection

2016-07-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:03:30 + Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> >> The tolerances are presently set to: >> - 5 seconds of clock drift. > > Set it for a minute or two. This will protect from commits from > really

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

2016-07-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > I'm sorry for harping on that topic again, but if we had used grobian's > initial proposal for git migration[0] - one repository per package, and the > portage tree would be an aggregation of those - then

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

2016-07-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > I think the point of a graveyard repository is that discovering and > extracting deleted ebuilds from git is more cumbersome than from CVS attic. > > It would be even better if the graveyard repository

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

2016-07-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Now, there's a significant difference between lastriting unmaintained > packages at treecleaner's leisure and having a clean tree to work on, > and having to figure out how many of the packages blocking some global >

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

2016-07-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are > not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 07/06/2016 03:49 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I understand that. However, I just sometimes wonder whether that >> approach makes sense. The result of the current system is that we >

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 07/06/2016 02:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> announcement (which is something we lack - we issue GLSAs sometimes >> ages after something is fixed on x86/amd64). Granted, that should be &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > It doesn't matter, there is a problem here which needs to be addressed. > I'm complaining because we need to fix a problem in our workflow. It > sounds like K_F is working on a glep for that, which I applaud. > Is

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM, james wrote: > > OK, but with the attic, you can browse by category, read descriptions to get > an idea of what is available. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with github, you > have to know the name of the packages and that is a limitation when

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Big difference. Gentoo's tree is not hosted on github, and infra isn't > going to put an attic equivalent there. > Either way admittedly git makes finding deleted files a bit of a pain. However, it is certainly

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > The same applies for the tree-cleaners team. While their job is > very important, sometimes they are too hasty, like in commit > 34181a1045d13142d959b9c894a46ddcebf3c512. If package builds and > works fine, have no

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] Official support for migrating ebuilds out of games.eclass

2016-07-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I'm not sure the SSD-for-games-only is the most effective solution > either, but there are plenty of use cases that I disagree with that tend > to get by without issue. Are / or /usr on SSD the proposed solution for >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] Official support for migrating ebuilds out of games.eclass

2016-06-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Our ebuilds are maintained by developers, with the occasional > proxy-maintainer or contributor. Your previous statement combined with > this amounts to "QA owns and manages the Gentoo repository." You just > said teams

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] Official support for migrating ebuilds out of games.eclass

2016-06-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Do teams hold any authority (or veto power, whatever you want to call > it) over their own ebuilds? Is it reasonable to rip functionality out > from under a group of developers and tell them to deal with it? Generally

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] Official support for migrating ebuilds out of games.eclass

2016-06-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > I'm glad to see some reach-out here and taking responsibility for > decisions. However, what does the QA team have to say about systems that > want games on other media (such as an SSD or separate HDD), or wish to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

2016-06-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 06/17/2016 07:05 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> >> Then everyone PLEASE stop referring to the Gentoo ebuild tree as >> portage. Reserve portage for the upstream PACKAGE MANAGER. > > indeed > Agree, though this

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

2016-06-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 06/17/2016 03:48 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Also, in the case of STABLEREQs would we treat them more like security >> bugs - the last arch would just post a comment that all ar

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

2016-06-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 06/17/2016 03:58 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> That could actually be generalized. I could see many types of bugs >> where the issue is with upstream, and we might want to track

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

2016-06-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> On 06/16/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > Hello, everyone. >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > What I'd like to introduce instead is a new

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

2016-06-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 06/17/2016 02:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> If I'm a maintainer and I resolve a bug, how do I know if I should >> mark it resolved or not before it is stable? > > If package is in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

2016-06-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 06/17/2016 01:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> It might be better to just close the original bug, and then open a new >> STABLEREQ bug on the tracker whenever we're interested in tracking >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

2016-06-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > I would not want to tie our choosing RESOLVED to be tied to whether > there is a stabilised package in the tree or not, because there are > other Portage users than Gentoo. But I would not oppose such an >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

2016-06-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:21:45 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >> Am Montag, 13. Juni 2016, 09:50:15 schrieb Alexander Berntsen: >> > > I still think you're underestimating the need

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