Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

2016-06-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Yeah, I also fail to see what is wrong with suggesting the items for > the agenda... is not that the purpose of this call? Or maybe I am > missing some replies to the thread :| > I'm not entirely sure I've caught

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

2016-06-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, james wrote: > On 06/10/2016 08:00 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >> >> The Exherbo model is not "packages are all over the place and there is >> no coordination whatsoever". The model is "packages that lots of people >> use are in a small

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

2016-06-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > On 09/06/16 22:15, Michał Górny wrote: >> Didn't you just contradict yourself? First you tell that everyone >> should have their own public repo... then you tell that we should >> merge stuff from those repos. So

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

2016-06-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > On 09/06/16 12:14, Johannes Huber wrote: >> This statement is not feeded with numbers. Distrowatch tells >> something else. > I don't know what "feeded" means. Distrowatch is useless for anything > but figuring out

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

2016-06-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 08/06/16 16:53, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Do you propose that you can have cross-repo dependencies? > Sure. This works well in Exherbo

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

2016-06-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely > superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where > they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree > would just

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

2016-06-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > an ordered list of the gui toolkits in their preferred order of > desirability. This should be an all inclusive list. Note: these are > subject to package.use setting overrides. > This has been my thought as well. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

2016-06-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > To play devil's advocate, can we get a citation on "users don't want to > care"? Which users? Does Gentoo have a lot of users who don't care, or > does it attract a more passionate audience that enjoys the control that >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

2016-06-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Igor Savlook wrote: > Ok if i want just disable gtk i use USE="-gtk -gtk2 -gtk3". > And that is fine if your goal is to disable gtk. Most people don't have goals like this - their goal is probably to prefer qt, not to disable gtk, and so

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

2016-06-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > We understand that some people have goals like 'I want Qt everywhere, > I hate GTK+ so much I'd rather not be able to do anything than have > GTK+ on my system'. We respect them. But we're no longer going to > optimize

Re: [gentoo-dev] What are eblits?

2016-05-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> What I would love to see is this be standardized. An eclass or a >> GLEP seems like the logical approach. > > If there really i

Re: [gentoo-dev] What are eblits?

2016-05-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > Whether the idea is useful in the present day and age, eh, who knows. For the > mips-sources ebuilds, eblits let me centralize the per-machine notes and > unpacking logic, which reduced each ebuild's size from ~18KB a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

2016-05-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Sébastien Fabbro wrote: > On 17 May 2016 at 08:34, Luis Ressel wrote: > >> >> Automated post-merge tests sound kinda dangerous to me. And I don't >> think there's any stipulation about src_test() only running >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

2016-05-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Pallav Agarwal wrote: > Because we are already expecting an arch tester to conduct tests for the > package. And knowing what to test is something I expect to come more > easily from the maintainer. > It would come even more easily from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

2016-05-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 17 May 2016 at 20:46, Tobias Klausmann wrote: >> And as for my pet peeve, tests that are known to fail, can we >> also annotate that somehow so I don't waste hours running a test >> suite that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Committing without testing, as long as you don't push, is fine, even > meritorious. It's the push that uploads those commits to the gentoo > reference repo, however, and testing should *definitely* be done before > pushing,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 12:48:12 AM JST Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 >> >> Aaron Bauman wrote: >> > Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong >> > language

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong language of > "seriously" or definitively stating that the individual did not perform the > necessary QA actions before committing? He actually didn't "state"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:21 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > On 14/05/16 18:52, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:07 PM, landis blackwell >> <blackwelllan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> No fun allowed >>> >> Are you sayin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:07 PM, landis blackwell wrote: > No fun allowed > Are you saying that you don't want people to have fun developing Gentoo? Or are you trying to say that it is impossible to have fun developing Gentoo without insulting strangers? I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 14/05/16 17:53, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >> Gordon Pettey schrieb: >> >>> So, it's perfectly okay to make direct commits of obviously broken >>> code that >>> has no chance of working, because community

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-05-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:52:09 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 >> Michał Górny wrote: >> > >> > Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or >> > reading

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > There's an added security measure that exists /outside/ the gentoo > source control. > It also fails differently. If I find out that somebody compromised ssh in some way, doubt is cast on any commit during the

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > oh okay. sorry if i misunderstood. nonetheless, doesn't the fedora > installation cd double as a rescue cd? i think that uses systemd. > It might - no idea. I'm not sure if it is as loaded with useful

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > While you can in theory rebase merge commits with rebase --preserve, > my experience has shown me that its very difficult to get right, and > the presence of merge collisions in the "preserved" rebase risks > getting

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Matthew Marchese wrote: > Looks good. Nice work, fellas. ++ > > I'll do some testing of my own on those stage tarballs so that I can write > some docs, unless you'd like to write them, blueness. This should ease the > path on the systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 05/08/2016 07:07 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve >>> commit signatures when

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 00:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> 1. announce to gentoo-dev@ the intention to start a branch intending to >> merge >> >> 2. hack hack hack >> >> 3. test the merge for any conflicts

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > * However... as the past months have shown, when using merges it is much > easier to accidentally mess up the entire tree than using rebases alone. > How does a merge make it any easier/harder to mess up the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES

2016-05-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > And it means we're missing opportunities where "pure" interpreted > packages may test corner cases of the language implementation and find > bugs in (JIT or previously) "compiled" code. And that means we're > calling things

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES

2016-04-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > As you said, however, it's a choice of the maintainer. Things like Perl > and Python may be less prone to this issue since they're meant to be > portable. > The concept is that the maintainer will only use this when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-04-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > And I don't really see the point in the libressl USE flag in this > case; I think that was only needed so the slot-operator would resolve > correctly. > Somebody else may be better informed, but I thought that there was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

2016-04-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Congratulations! ... But why would anyone... Not really picking on you in particular, but this is not the first snarky comment on a commit we've seen today. If somebody makes a mistake, just point it out. I think we

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > Create like, a table on the Wiki or some kind of metadata property per-package > that can contain a boolean or tri-state flag indicating whether it works or > doesn't work (or kinda works) on split-usr. Or a tracker on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge

2016-04-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Tho with the initr*, I did go the dracut route myself. But I'm still not > entirely convinced that I wouldn't have been better off rolling my own, > as I'm still not entirely comfortable with the level to which I >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:28 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Ok I'm gonna push the Big Red Button here, and assume you may not have > met 'genkernel' .. Genkernel has been around for a LONG time. I'm well aware of it. > ok its not a package, but its the nearest thing to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:17 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I take your point, but I would argue that the kernel and boot subsystem > really are special cases .. you don't go hacking around the chromium > sources to fundamentally alter the way/order it works, right?! Likewise, >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:35 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I think that is the potential for a stage4-style install. I think > previous list discussions have maintained that the flexibility of gentoo > is maintained by having a very basic install image, and a stage3 to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:37 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I may have contributed to the latter point, but addressing the former > specifically, I, like others, have /usr mounted on an NFS server for > thin clients (not in the full-true sense, but with a very minimal / >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:09 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not genkernel end up > with a convenient boot system. > > I have 2 disks, both encrypted. > I prefer only to enter the decryption password once. Both Dracut and

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : > I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. > I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6 mth ago . > When setting it up, I suppressed

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/04/16 13:53, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Put the very same stuff in the initramfs? Most initramfs creation >> scripts should already do this automatically, and with compat symlinks >> eve

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote: >> Thoughts on any of this? > > The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting > the very same stuff in the initrd when something different from busybox > (or

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 1:32 AM, wrote: > > now - an arbitrary decree comes down that *EVERYBODY* who wants a > separate /usr needs to have initramfs. > The "decree" wasn't some kind of law that the Gentoo police will come out to your house and arrest you for violating.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Anthony G. Basile <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 4/8/16 11:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> What problems are you anticipating, especially in light of the fact >> that many distros actually do it this way already? > > RBAC polic

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Alternatively, this may introduce problems. So it seems like we're > fixing something that isn't broken. > What problems are you anticipating, especially in light of the fact that many distros actually do it this

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Joseph Booker wrote: > The difference between "system software" and "regular applications" isn't > clear-cut. > This. Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr mounted during early boot is that if we actually put

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:14 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Being serious though, and playing Devil's Advocate of course, assuming > you have no use for a desktop manager, etc, hence no need for dbus or > it's 'friends' and policykit or it's pals, and you're not a "systemd > fan"

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its > predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system? > The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the Linux kernel.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > As I'm getting into this thread, I'm looking at debian, fedora and I'll > add openSUSE. I just don't get why a usr merge is as good as that > fedora page says. > Keep in mind Fedora's purposes here: 1. It is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:41 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:31:03 -0400 > "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: >> >> @anyone, can you list the reasons we're doing this (I'm sure there's >> more than one). If systemd if one of them, then I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:44 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > 2) "Today, a separate /usr partition already must be mounted by the > initramfs during early boot, thus making the justification for a > split-off moot." - no, not all gentoo users have an initramfs and > need/want one

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default > installation location of all coreutils binaries is /usr/bin, then we > move everything around in the ebuild. > We are deviating from upstream in this

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

2016-04-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:32 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > In the spirit of hearing arguments for/against .. could someone with the > appropriate 'fu' throw up a quick survey for those on this ML (and/or > possibly the g-users?) to indicate a preference for a change to a >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge

2016-04-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:46 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> #!/bin/bash will work whether you've done a usr merge or not >> #!/usr/bin/bash will probably only work if you've done the usr merge >> #!/usr/bin/python will work whether you've done a usr merge or not >> #!/bin/python

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge

2016-04-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > William Hubbs posted on Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:40:49 -0500 as excerpted: > >> After the testing period is over, I'm confused about why we should >> support both layouts. With separate usr without initramfs gone, the usr >> merge

Re: [gentoo-dev] CVS headers in ebuilds

2016-04-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 5:57 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:03:59AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 4 April 2016 at 08:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> > Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds' >> > headers, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: upgrading to Plasma 5

2016-04-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > If you normally use KDM to launch Plasma, note that it is no longer > supported. > Upstream recommends x11-misc/sddm instead which is pulled in by > plasma-meta by > default. To switch, edit /etc/conf.d/xdm and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:48 PM, malc wrote: > I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't > need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the > github API directly... > The main downside to using github would be that you don't get a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > For example, the message of the initial commit 56bd759 appears in some > 18000 files, which accounts for 25 MiB. Not discounting the general issue, I wouldn't count the initial commit. All that space will get taken up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

2016-02-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> And currently the git history is still almost empty... >>> >> >> If you want pre-migration history you need to fetch that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

2016-02-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > > And currently the git history is still almost empty... > If you want pre-migration history you need to fetch that separately. It is about 1.7G. Considering that this represents a LOT more than 2-3 years of history

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

2016-02-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 02/24/2016 01:33 AM, Duncan wrote: >> >> IMO, what's actually happening here is the slow deprecation of >> rsync mirrors in favor of git. I doubt they'd be created at all >> if gentoo were > > I don't agree to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

2016-02-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Which means it's the tools that expect reverse-chronological order that > must change. Either that, or people /that/ concerned about the > changelogs can simply switch to the git repos and use the existing git > tools to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:46:34 -0500 as excerpted: > >> When systemd says "target" - think "virtual service." The equivalent in >> openrc would be an init.d sc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > dracut does not assist those who do not want generic kernel > configurations. Unfortunately, the handbook does not do a good job in > saying that the initramfs generation and generic kernel configurations > are optional. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > Dracut handling it well is not up for dispute. When I checked last year, > dracut simply did not tell systemd to use this functionality because it > was unnecessary functionality that only served to slowed down the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > 1) NFS v4 shares can't be unmounted if server is unreachable (even > with -f). If filesystem (e.g. /home or /) contains such unmounted > mount points, it can't be unmounted as well, because it is still in > use. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by > sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was > obvious. About the only "system-breaking" change I'm aware of in udev over

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Genkernel's initramfs generation was what we endorsed for the most > part, until dracut came around. it's hard to say what "most" are > doing but i expect dracut and genkernel based initramfs's make up > the vast

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > Systemd installs that go back into the initramfs at shutdown are rare because > there is a > hook for the initramfs to tell systemd that it should re-exec it and very few > configurations > do that. Even fewer that do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Initial shutdown is via two targets (as opposed to specific services), Since not everybody in this thread may be familiar with systemd, I'll just add a quick definition. When systemd says "target" - think "virtual

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the > logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what > the Linux ecosystem will be using going forward. > Uh, if we cared solely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Ryan Hill <rh...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:58:10 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Well, if debugging is your only concern, on the system you're going to >> debug from: >> touch herds.xml &

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh when the list of PIDs using a > mountpoint includes "$$" which is shell shorthand for self. How can the > current shell claim to be using /usr when it is a shell that only has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to *running* udev > without systemd as opposed to building (which upstream already made > impossible). > > Here is the exact wording: > "Unless the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging > squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a virtual. All other > providers will continue being listed and available. The change affects > none

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

2016-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > The reason it exists is very vague to me; I think it has something to do > with claims of data loss in the past. > Is there some other event that will cause all filesystems to be remounted read-only or unmounted

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can still be >> extracted and run standalone from systemd. > > and even with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >> > If, fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Systemd users/developers should not mind what the default is as they > are forced to use one variant anyway, these users/developers should > not force their opinion upon others. Posting an opinion on a list isn't forcing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > The new schema collapses herd (err, project!) into maintainers (err, > sustainers ... staff ... linchpin?) > And maintainer is defined as: > > > Which means that only email is mandatory. So instead of search by name >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 02/14/2016 02:16 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Raymond Jennings <shent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So what do you guys think of leaving behind

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the > virtual back. One-line change. Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching the default to eudev in the first place. -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > The guys making the API change bear the burden of fixing anything it breaks, > however, if something gets officially deprecated, don't go out of your way > to support continued use. We tend to do this already for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > So what do you guys think of leaving behind empty stubs for compatibility > and then simply filing a tracking bug blocked by any packages that removing > herds broke? It isn't entirely clear that anything is actually

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > I still don't see the advantage in that. Maybe I should have expressed > my concerns more vocally, but in general I don't have time to worry > about all the little things. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 18:56, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> So my USE="-* ..." (without letting portage do autounmasking) would >> continue to work just like it does now, correct? > > I would hope so. That

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you >> wouldn't disable it either. Portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on your >> system when you're using something like wine. Just don't set the &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > No, lazy USE in this discussion is akin to installing, say, Steam. > That requires a lot of packages that must be rebuilt with abi_x86_32. > In such a situation, if there was something like USE="~abi_x86_32" > (the ~ is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Please, next time someone has the brilliant idea of changing stuff just > to change it (I still don't see a reason why we had to change > metadata.xml?), it should be required that support tools are fixed > *before* the

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Ah, I think I see what you mean now. That's actually a bit more > predictable and requires less action on behalf of the user. I'd like > to add that, if we do this, could Portage output which USE flags were > being

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:27 AM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote >> On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: >> > Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: >> > > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Micha?? Górny wrote: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] The Beauty of Unix

2016-02-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Paul Varner <fuzzy...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 2/9/16 7:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I thought the whole beauty of unix was the everything-is-a-file design? > > No, the beauty of Unix has always been the architectural phi

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > > soft enable = Enable, unless it would break dependency > soft disable = Disable, unless it would break a dependency I don't really see why these are needed. Just do what we are already doing - use the settings in

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Hence, this requires me to lie to portage about what my preferences > are to get it to play ball, constantly going "Hey portage, I actually > want python 2.7 shit, please install it". > In this case you just wouldn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > I also mask all systemd files that somehow find their way into my > system thanks to your past decisions as systemd supporter, instead of > installing these only when systemd USE flag is set and adding openrc > USE flag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 02/09/2016 05:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > If you go with systemd, you have to like or agree with > every change they make or every design decision on everything. There is a bit o

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