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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > A pure udev system is in comparison, much simpler than a systemd system. I don't buy that at all. In systemd you have a unified object model across device nodes, mountpoints, services, and cron jobs. In the

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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > IMHO, switching the order within the first (i.e. !systemd) USE > conditional would make a lot of sense. Why should we default to the > systemd udev for users that request USE=-systemd in their flags? > Well, if we're

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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Anthony G. Basile <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 2/9/16 6:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Anthony G. Basile <bluen...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >>> On 2/8/16 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>

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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Given that the push for kdbus is more a political API move than > anything, I can see eudev sticking to the current interface and > working just fine. I doubt udev is going to make that switch until kdbus is merged into

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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Perhaps that's because each of those things should not actually be > considered the same object type. That sort of design may be convenient > to users, but is more akin to treating everything like a nail when you > have a

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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Anthony G. Basile <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 2/8/16 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users? > > gentoo is very unpopular as a distro. however, it excels as a meta > distro. if you

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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > Why must it become yet another shouting match. And I'm sorry to have to > tell you this, but you have been leading the charge in that direction. > Fair enough. I'll admit that this has been a lot of venting for me, and

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

2016-02-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > I'd personally rather the list of "automatically turn this on if > required" be something I had the power to restrict than have a blanket > "autodostuff", because in the event some USE can't be satisfied, the > first

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

2016-02-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On 2/8/16, Patrick Lauer wrote: > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev. Might I suggest a slightly different approach. I don't

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

2016-02-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work > on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. > > some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i've > spoken with the

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

2016-02-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 08/02/16 11:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> It seems like this should just be another step in the handbook - >> pick your desired device manager. >> >> This just seems m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Automatic Bug Assignment

2016-02-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > I find that often in schemes like this people get caught up designing the > optimal / perfect solution (which is often tricky) as opposed to using a > nice solution that works 95% of the time; but 5% of the time is wrong.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Automatic Bug Assignment

2016-02-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 February 2016 at 07:19, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> 'd be all for automated bug assignment. Usually when this comes up a >> bunch of hero bug wranglers step up and say it

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

2016-02-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > - Augment/replace rsync with git repo that has thick-Manifests, changelogs, > metadata > You're missing an option to replace rsync with a git repo that has metadata, but not the other stuff. Of course, this already

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

2016-01-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Patrice Clement wrote: > > , I quite like your idea but what about > first? I don't see any strict dependency on these two ideas. By all means both of you should feel free to get them implemented. If we only implemented ideas when all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Herd likely up for grabs: kernel-misc

2016-01-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 20 Jan 2016 19:48, Duncan wrote: >> Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:40:04 -0500 as excerpted: >> > if base-system@ isn't going to maintain it, we'll punt it from the herd >> >> Umm, you mean project,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

2016-01-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:41 PM, wrote: > I think you misunderstood Roy. He was speaking about "unmaintained > but perfectly functional software". You're talking about "a package > that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply doesn't work, could not > have worked for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Herd likely up for grabs: kernel-misc

2016-01-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 18 Jan 2016 00:57, Joshua Kinard wrote: >> On 01/17/2016 14:57, Michał Górny wrote: >> > sys-apps/kexec-tools : >> >> Better suited for base-system, maybe? >> >> > sys-fs/jfsutils : >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Herd likely up for grabs: kernel-misc

2016-01-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:40:04 -0500 as excerpted: > >> if base-system@ isn't going to maintain it, we'll punt it from the herd >> -mike > > Umm, you mean project, right? Because the whole discussion here

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

2016-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:32:30 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: >> The problem was, is and will be that packages are unmaintained. Not >> that stats show that they are many. > > No it's not.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: News item format 2.0

2016-01-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Therefore, we could use the opportunity to add some other features. > So far, this includes: > I don't have a solution for this in mind, but I do see a problem that could use a solution with our current approach to news

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: News item format 2.0

2016-01-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > For example, for foo-1.0 to -2.0 upgrade notes, we'd do: > > Display-if-installed:Display-if-visible: >=foo-2.0 > > which would basically mean that all people having old foo installed > would get the item as soon as

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=desktop-file request

2016-01-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:47 PM, tot-to wrote: > > It would be great to make the intallation of desktop-files optional, > but I mostly concerned about the dependency on > dev-util/desktop-file-utils... > > I think such dependency should be either removed, because it's

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: Apache "-D PHP5" needs update to "-D PHP"

2016-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 01/04/2016 01:26 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> Hi! >> >> >> Better late then never. Posting 72 hours from now the earliest as >> advised by GLEP 42. Feedback welcome as usual. > > Do you have any timeline in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: Apache "-D PHP5" needs update to "-D PHP"

2016-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > And while at it, in additional to news item, this should likely follow > a few version upgrades as elog messages before actually being > implemented anywhere > I don't want to be too prescriptive with the

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: Apache "-D PHP5" needs update to "-D PHP"

2016-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Brian Evans wrote: > > On 1/4/2016 11:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 01/04/2016 11:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: >>> >>> So pkg_postinst for >=eselect-php-0.8.1 should say something, >>> but ideally also the invocation - but I don't know if

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New project: Crypto

2015-12-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 12/28/2015 07:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand >> <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> On 28 Dec 2015, at 15:58, Jam

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New project: Crypto

2015-12-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > [Sent from my iPad, as it is not a secured device there are no cryptographic > keys on this device, > meaning this message is sent without an OpenPGP signature. In general you > should *not* rely on > any

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New project: Crypto

2015-12-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 28 Dec 2015, at 15:58, James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:42:40 -0500 >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

2015-12-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > I'd replace gkeys-gen with a ~10-line shell script ... if I had some > motivation to dig through some old experiments of mine where I managed > to set all parameters for pgp from CLI. Which is all that gkeys-gen > would

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

2015-12-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Wiki says: > > "In this guide we are going to show you how to create a GLEP 63 > based OpenPGP Key using > app-crypt/gkeys-gen >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo.git, or how committing is challenging

2015-12-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: >> You want me to use a potentially unstable live ebuild instead? >> Well, no, that's not gonna happen. > > Are you demanding that someone else produces for you, and refusing to > do anything but consume? >

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: GRUB security update

2015-12-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Tobias Heinlein wrote: > Hi, > > On 18.12.2015 21:06, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> Hi, please review the news item below. > > thanks for drafting this news item. However, the usual way to inform > users about security flaws is by sending a GLSA.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

2015-12-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 16/12/15 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I don't see how this is dishonest. > You answered this yourself, > >> T

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

2015-12-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > I agree with Mike that this isn't kosher. It just isn't honest. > I don't really have a horse in this race, but I don't see how this is dishonest. What is being proposed is moving from attribution scattered all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Breakage and frustration

2015-12-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > The key point to remember is that it is NOT neccessary to be part of > the team in order to contribute solutions. You *first* contribute > solutions and only *then* have a chance of becoming part of the team. > > I for one am

[gentoo-dev] RFC: MythTV Project

2015-12-14 Thread Rich Freeman
As part of the general herd migration we decided to create a mythtv project, keeping the same alias/etc. The project page is at: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:MythTV and I'll be updating the herd mapping shortly. I don't forsee any bold new direction for the team, and we have yet to elect

Re: [gentoo-dev] Breakage and frustration

2015-12-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > In the long run I am considering just creating my own clone of all > infrastructure bits so I can fix things I just wanted to comment that things like this should never be viewed as a bad thing. Many contributions to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: automatically mailing people on pkgcheck problems with their packages

2015-12-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > I think there are a few issues: > > 1) Not everyone cares. I think you can either go for an opt-in approach > (hard..you need to keep state) or offer clear opt-out / filtering > instructions (link in the bottom of the email

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: automatically mailing people on pkgcheck problems with their packages

2015-12-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Does that include stuff that breaks on systems using musl instead of > glibc? Or uclibc? or eudev instead of udev. What about openrc vs > systemd? Shall I go on? Of course its murky. Sure, but none of that

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: automatically mailing people on pkgcheck problems with their packages

2015-12-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 12/06/2015 11:00 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>> Of course. Add the commit author, too: I want to know if I break someone >>> else's package. >> >> So far, can't do that since we don't know which commit exactly broke.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: automatically mailing people on pkgcheck problems with their packages

2015-12-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

2015-11-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:01:21 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >> > When I do QA in proje

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

2015-11-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 11/18/2015 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >>> When I do QA in projects I'm involved wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

2015-11-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:59:19 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Actually, what is less clear to me is how portage versioning actually >> works, or if we attach any mean

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

2015-11-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > We are talking about people who run Gentoo stable who need to > keyword several specific packages because the lack of manpower > leads to Gentoo stable by itself not being very usable for most > people. > In this

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

2015-11-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of > Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the > details as an exercise for the Gentoo developer. > People who run ~arch are not

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

2015-11-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > And on what basis would you stabilise Portage, when there are no > ebuilds in the tree to test its EAPI 6 code? > As long as the EAPI6 code in the new portage is no more broken than the EAPI6 code in the current stable

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

2015-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > As a possibly relevant side note, I've observed how api changes are handled > in the linux kernel: > > You can change whatever you want if it's a good idea, but as part of proving > it, you have to be willing to take

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI 6 portage is out!

2015-11-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Gentoo has never really guaranteed the stability of a mostly-stable > system with a few ~arch accept-keyworded packages as that's simply not a > properly testable setup. > True, but Gentoo has never really guaranteed much

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

2015-11-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:29:43 +0100 > "Justin Lecher (jlec)" wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> On 16/11/15 10:14, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> > Probably those that want

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Tho I get Dale's somewhat confused and now belabored point as well. For > people who don't know how to do git on their own, as clearly he doesn't, > the official signaling of what the stopgap changelog alternatives were >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Apparently my complaining finally re-triggered some action, so sadly > this looks like the currently best strategy. You could have simply made a simple post pointing out that changelog generation appears to be broken and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Matt Turner schrieb: >> >> The git transition had been 9 years in the making and has massively >> improved Gentoo development. Look at the graph of contributions per month: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >>> I know if I were still on rsync (or webrsync), I'd be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Dale wrote: > > Then perhaps all this should have been worked out BEFORE switching to > github? We didn't switch to github. > > I don't mind change but it seem this one wasn't really ready to be done > yet although most made it sound like it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Dale wrote: > I thought Gentoo was not depending on git/github either. Take 5min and read the wikipedia articles on both git and github, please. Gentoo is not going to depend on github, because of the social contract issues. Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Dale wrote: > That is why a link was posted for me to use github instead. I > do realize and understand that git and github are two different things > but it seems they can work together as well. It ended up that the info > I needed was on

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

2015-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Мисбах-Соловьёв Вадим wrote: > And why don't just only generate them on rsync mirrors, but remove them from > git repo (like was planned initially, AFAIRC)? > That is in fact how it works. Or, at least how it is supposed to work. I don't use the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

2015-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 10:17:54 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> I haven't heard anybody propose a new plan. I certainly am not >> proposing one. > > The par

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

2015-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 09:19:25 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > [...] >> What discussion or decision is necessary? > > One that announces the initial and current plan

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog

2015-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Considering the original plan was to have changelogs auto-generated > from git and still serving the tree via rsync, where's the relevant > discussion and decision about this? What discussion or decision is necessary?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Please do not break all these possibilities for users > who do not have to waste the resources for a full git > clone and want to see regularly ChangeLogs nevertheless! I don't think anybody has proposed breaking anything.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > I know if I were still on rsync (or webrsync), I'd be raising hell about the > lack of > changelogs well before now Perhaps rather than raising hell you'd do better to raise money to hire an infra team to fix the bug or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ChangeLog

2015-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> What discussion or decision is necessary? >> What is needed is for those who want changelogs >> to fix the bug > > The bug can only be

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

2015-10-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote: >> >> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>> We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then >>> libressl, and never openssl'. >> >> I don't think this

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

2015-10-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> The pain is for a short time. Then we have to live with this for a >> long time. USE flags should have one meaning. The fact that this >> isn't the case right now is already a bug. We don't need to >> perpetuate it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

2015-10-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:16 AM, hasufell wrote: > > This is outside of the scope of this thread, but there are already > distros that have fixed this: > 1. NixOS [0] with truly declarative configuration format, e.g. something > like: > packages.ssl.provider = openssl; Well,

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

2015-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:06 PM, hasufell wrote: > > B) 1 feature flag, 3 strict provider flags > * ssl: enable any sort of SSL/TLS support > * gnutls: only to enable gnutls provided ssl support in case there > is a choice > * openssl: only to enable openssl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why is my news item not showing up.

2015-10-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > I pushed out my news item and it landed in /usr/portage/metadata on my > hardened servers, but its not showing up with eselect news. Does anyone > know why? 1. Do you have hardend-sources installed? 2. Do you

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: Future Support of hardened-sources Kernel

2015-10-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > However, does this mean the hardened kernel package must stay in ~arch > since it's technically the testing version? Or would we keyword it > based on our own findings of stability? I'd recommend that the team does

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:49:06 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > It's not about correctness vs convenience: eapply_user idempotent > doesn't prevent from doing it correctly.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Ok, that's what I'd call "forced correctness" :) > But again, theory tells you that if you want algorithmically checkable > correctness then you have to seriously limit your possibilities, which > is why I usually

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell wrote: >> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: >> """ >> amd64 stabilizations >> >> >> """ >> possibly pre-pending the rough domain like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > But there is something important we've overlooked: should eclasses that > export src_prepare call eapply_user ? I think yes, otherwise they'd > make packages inheriting them violate the 'at least once rule'. This sort

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
(To avoid repeating the same exception over and over, please understand that nothing said below is intended to apply to the do-everything eclasses used by KDE/etc, where the eclass and ebuilds are carefully maintained in conjunction with each other.) On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Alexis

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:13 PM, hasufell wrote: > > We already know that. But if e.g. ago runs his scripts at 00:00 with > ~300 packages stabilized, the history (without git command line) on > github/gitweb will be fun to read (and people DO that). > It doesn't seem like it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:20 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > [...] >> > >> >> I'd say the best approach for compatibility if you have an existing >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. >> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > However, as you say, putting it in cmake-utils needs to be properly > thought so that it doesn't conflict with other eclasses: Hence the need > to properly define what eclasses should call eapply_user and apply >

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

2015-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple > unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so > comfortable with that idea.. Nor am I. A commit should be a set of related changes.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > But the big gain for everyone is in replacing a weird, overly clever > and highly fragile collection of weirdness that's designed to mostly > accept any dodgy input, with one that just gets you to give it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:05 AM, hasufell wrote: > > If you are messing with the build system in a patch, there is no > guarantee that eautoreconf will be enough. It might or might not be true > (see net-irc/hexchat for an example). Are we going to run eautoreconf >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 >> Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>> So the question is if we should add a sentence like the following to >>> the spec: >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:37 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/17/2015 08:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:49:36 +0200 >> hasufell wrote: >>> You can apply the patches post_unpack or post_src_prepare witht hooks. >>> What's the problem?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> >> The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and >> eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? >> IOW, it'd be nice if every

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:49 AM, hasufell wrote: > >> The other feature that is supposed to be in EAPI6 (I didn't read the >> draft yet) is that the PM should refuse to install the package if >> eapply is never called (ie src_prepare is overridden and the ebuild >> didn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 08:38:51 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On 10/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review

2015-10-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > That eapply_user is called can be enforced by repoman, or by a QA > warning. > I hate to reply again on the same topic, but how would repoman even know whether eapply_user will always get called? Isn't that equivalent

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

2015-10-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > if it's just used by catalyst to pre-seed world then indeed pms > doesn't have anything to do with it, but if it's meant to be some set > that profiles add to 'world' set dynamically, then interoperability is >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Alexander Tsoy wrote: > > I was wrong. This patch was not merged upstream. It is still needed and > included in latest genpatches for 4.2: > > $ tar tf genpatches-4.2-6.base.tar.xz | grep XATTR > ./1500_XATTR_USER_PREFIX.patch I suspect what we

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only > installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require > all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long idea of > releasing

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > So it's not a BTRFS problem, but one of tmpfs. So I wondered if I > maybe had missed to activate xattr suport for tmpfs, but no: > > # zgrep -i tmpfs /proc/config.gz > CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y > CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Jason Zaman wrote: > > Can you try this: > > # getfattr -d -m- /bin/ping > security.capability=0sAQAAAgAgAAA= > # setfattr -n user.test -v "foo" ./ping > # setfattr -n user.pax.flags -v "me" ./ping > # getfattr -d -m-

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > What's probably desired is to create a stage3 profile which adds > whatever extra stuff you want to @system, and to use the stage3 profile > for to build stage3. After the stage3 is built, catalyst could set some > other

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 10/15/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> Given the goals, having catalyst seed /var/lib/portage/world see

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Given the goals, having catalyst seed /var/lib/portage/world seems > pretty reasonable to me. Then the question becomes how. Does it diff @profile between the two profiles and put the extra stuff in @selected? Or, does

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 02:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> The only change in moving it to @profile is the warning. > > What's the point of getting rid of the warning if the package is going > to get pulled back in on the next

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > items to sort out: > - should the list of packages be in catalyst or profile-stacked content > -> imo it should be entirely in the profile ++ This would be really nice to combine with mix-ins so that instead of

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >