Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Tools-Portage Lead

2015-10-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Paul Varner wrote: > Reading GLEP-39, it is not clear to me if a sub-project needs to have > their leads elected or not. No interest in interfering with whatever you guys come up with, but as far as I'm aware subprojects are just projects as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/portage/

2015-10-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are entirely > separate from pushes and are very (as in, extremely!) cheap, while > pushes, particularly if properly repoman-checked, are obviously much more > expensive.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC/announcement] Reviewers project

2015-10-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Ian Delaney wrote: > > Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client to > communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this reads > as the user needs to adapt to the service that the client is offering > and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/portage/

2015-10-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dynamic dependencies

2015-10-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> Proposal 3a might be: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

2015-10-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Another thing that strikes me is separation of stable vs ~arch behavior. > > This applies in particular with in-place eclass alterations. Users on > ~arch should normally expect more activity (in particular number

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dynamic dependencies

2015-10-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > So, here is a consolidated list of the latest proposals: > It has been suggested that there might be rare cases where the exceptions in the eclass proposals might apply to ebuilds, so doing some refacto

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dynamic dependencies

2015-10-11 Thread Rich Freeman
Ok, in the Council meeting today the following was made policy: "Maintainers must not assume that dynamic dependencies will be applied by the package manager. When changing runtime dependencies the maintainer should revision the ebuild if the changes are likely to cause problems for end users."

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgit2/

2015-10-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 10:15 AM, hasufell wrote: > > Nevertheless, we'll try to continue, reduce public noise and keep the > reviews useful. > Bugs would probably be helpful from the standpoint that they also are a mechanism to keep track of whether the issue was corrected.

Re: [gentoo-dev] unnecessary revbump

2015-10-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > Yeah, there can be a benefit, as long as you're not one of the people > who uses --changed-deps for all updates (revbumps for dependency changes > are basically irrelevant to these people). > Presumably those inclined to

Re: [gentoo-dev] unnecessary revbump

2015-10-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/06/2015 06:33 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> I don't think the revbump of net-misc/openconnect-7.06-r1 to -r2 was >> necessary. When the change purely affects use flags, that is picked up >> by the pm and there is no need

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL switch-over progress

2015-10-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > I assume there are developers hard > at work adding the flag to each and every package. Keep in mind that it isn't always a drop-in replacement. If it were we'd just make a virtual for libssl and you wouldn't need to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dynamic dependencies

2015-10-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> Proposal 3a might be: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, the >> eclass must be revisioned unless all ebuilds in the gentoo repository &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

2015-10-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I'll go ahead and start a tangent on this thread right here. As a > first step can we separately consider the proposal to require a > revbump anytime a package's RDEPENDS changes? I'm referring

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

2015-10-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> >> RDEPEND changes in eclasses Proposal 3: Anytime an RDEPEND in an >> eclass is changed, the eclass must be revisioned. Proposal 4: >> Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, all ebuilds that >> inherit the eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Yes you could use symbol versioning, and you can do the side by side by > renaming the library but that's a real pita for us since we'd have to hack > build systems to link against the correct library name. Ths

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves >> in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing they think they're >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > The way I see it this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Admittedly it is a bit tangential, but it didn't seem worth forking the thread over. Certainly I'm not going to invent my own mailing list and post it

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 09/30/2015 01:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I think it was fair to pause to see if somebody could come up with >> a better solution that allows co-existence, but absent that I

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:22 AM, hasufell wrote: > No useful comments, so I will proceed as outlined in the transition plan. > I don't think your attitude is going to win you a lot of friends, and I don't think that we're better off for it. That said, I've yet to hear a

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:43 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/29/2015 03:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> [...] > > I have waited 9 days. I don't see a reason to wait another few weeks, > just because you like to bikeshed a lot. I don't recall suggesting tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 7:14 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/20/2015 08:07 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 hasufell wrote: >>> Friends, >>> >>> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages >>> left that

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > On 19.09.2015 23:04, hasufell wrote: >> Friends, >> >> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages >> left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e.g. dev-lang/ruby). >> >> My idea would

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Yes, that's what gnome team is doing with gtk2 vs gtk3; however, I'm > not sure how much work it is. Only package I know of providing > different slots depending on what it's built upon is webkit-gtk. > > I can't

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:57 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/20/2015 06:47 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: >> On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote: >>> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl. >>> >>> That's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

2015-09-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > Is it possible for projects to be nested, possibly within multiple > super-projects? > > Like, for example, a project dealing with a gnome chat client itself being > members of both the gnome and the chat projects

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

2015-09-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > +1 in general, but I'm a little pensive about allowing non-devs to > become official project members. Becoming a developer can be a > grueling process, so I understand that some don't have the time or > motivation, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

2015-09-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-09-17, o godz. 17:19:17 > Michael Orlitzky napisał(a): > >> Replying somewhere randomly with an idea. >> >> Since projects are now on the wiki, why don't we use that as the >> canonical source of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

2015-09-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 9/17/15 7:05 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: >> >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:57:08 -0400 >> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: >> >>> Totally rethink the idea of emails aliases as something that is >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dynamic dependencies

2015-09-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > So council was called in, and it asked the portage folks to take some > steps that, portage development being what it is, had the effect of > slowing down and delaying things for long enough that, hopefully, people > have had

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

2015-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Hi all, > > here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: > >> Dynamic dependencies in Portage >> === >> During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

2015-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > As for virtuals and eclasses, I don't really understand why anyone > thinks they are special in any regard. In both cases, we're talking > about regular dependency change in metadata, and we need to understand > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

2015-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > If you modify an eclass, you're responsible for the outcome. Even if > means revbumping hundreds of ebuilds for the sake of it. Note that this > is the kind of revbump that wouldn't require resetting stable keywords > as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

2015-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > - - emerge -uD @world would update the dep anyhow > > - - emerge -u @world wouldn't rebuild the package if that package > didn't change, and if the package did change then the new dep would > get built. Just to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

2015-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > So, what are your thoughts for unmessing this? > This sounds familiar. :) Honestly, I wouldn't mind combining them all. Just today I was pinged by an !expn in IRC and thought to myself, "how many times have I typed

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-apps/otrs: needs new maintainer

2015-09-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:13:34PM +0200, hasufell wrote: >> On 09/15/2015 02:00 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> > If you have interest in this package then you can do one or more of: >> > * become a Gentoo developer (ha-ha)

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFI: A better workflow for github pull requests

2015-09-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > I agree. I think that any "master" version of whatever repo we use should > be hosted on gentoo owned infrastructure. > > Github might be allowed to take pull requests but I think it should be a > slave to whatever's

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Raymond Jennings <shent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Just bite the bullet and create entire USE flag families such that an > ebuild can choose the flag appropriate to how it actually uses it. AFAIK > this would need EAPI help, for reasons given below, but it should be >

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE="gui"

2015-09-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > I'm just wondering if we're jumping the gun a little bit on > IUSE="gui".. yes it'll be nice to have one flag that "just works" > for anyone not caring about the details, but it'll also mean > propagating a slew of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:13:48 -0400 as excerpted: > >> USE=gui or something like that if the main effect is to have a gui or >> not. >> That is the sort of thing that SHOULD g

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I like the general 'gtk' flag we generally use to choose *which* > toolkit, and local USE flags for specific versions, if they are > supported. But in that case, the general gtk flag should be > interpreted as the latest

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:13 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/10/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Suppose you want to run on a non-embedded system with limited RAM and the >> ability to choose means you can use one of the two libraries >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:50 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/10/2015 12:45 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:47 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>>> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, hasufell wrote: > > So this makes no sense, since it's already an unsupported corner case. Just what use of Gentoo do you not consider an unsupported corner case, which isn't already better supported by some other distro? The whole point of

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > The happy end result is, sometimes user has choice between 'working > package' and 'package randomly segfaulting when you least expect it'. > Of course, it's all hidden nicely under USE=gtk2 and USE=gtk3, so just >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:47 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be providing a >> package inferior to upstream. > > That sounds like spacefm with gtk3 is lacking anything. It is

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, hasufell wrote: > > So we are breaking consistency and introduce maintenance and > configuration complexity, because we want to support a corner case that > isn't consistently supported anyway and will not be (because that's what > the gnome

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:57 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 04:31 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: >> WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE users what they should use and what they should >> not. > > You should really either reconsider your understanding of opensource or >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, hasufell wrote: >> >> >> If this affects tree consistency and usability, then it is not just up >> to the maintainers. > > There are lots of topics where I concede

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:05 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/10/2015 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Given the fact that we are short on manpower and that most part of the >>> linux ecosystem is moving towards gtk3... there has been no go

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

2015-09-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 08:15 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> tldr: If the problem is USE flags, let's talk USE flags. If it's >> supporting more than one toolkit in general, I see no reason not to >> let maintainers use their

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Allow to configure base patch location for epatch_user

2015-09-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 05/09/15 14:53, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I was suggesting that somebody talk to the portage developers about >> how they intend to implement EAPI6 > We don't know. But our

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Allow to configure base patch location for epatch_user

2015-09-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Julian Ospald wrote: > This is particularly useful for people who run alternative > package managers and want to control their configuration. I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency can we try to coordinate this so

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Allow to configure base patch location for epatch_user

2015-09-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/05/2015 02:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] samba (and related) packages are in desperate need of help

2015-09-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Eray Aslan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:24:05PM +0200, Lars Wendler wrote: >> * We should really get heimdal and mit-krb5 packages in a shape where >> we can install them in parallel [2]. Using the bundled heimdal from >> samba is no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule (2015/Aug/08-09)

2015-08-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: Any news on when git repo with historical commits will be available? Or am I missing something and it is already online? I have no news on anything official but I've posted one at:

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass

2015-08-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) z...@gentoo.org wrote: Great question on the 'cdinstall' flag. Games from Humble Bundle and GOG are basically fetch-restricted and require the user to put the relevant distfile in /usr/portage/distfiles to install. 'cdinstall' could be

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass

2015-08-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: So my point stands. Games require their own set of policies (and ebuild writing guidelines). I think we're somewhat talking past each other. I'm not debating that it may be beneficial for games to have some specific policies,

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass

2015-08-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Saturday, August 22, 2015, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Games differ in a lot of ways and they _require_ different policies. In some cases this also means more lax policies and in some cases more strict policies. An example is unbundling libraries. While unbundling libraries is

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server

2015-08-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) z...@gentoo.org wrote: Based on what I'm seeing in this thread, the problem seems to center around the description and application of the `dedicated` flag. I'm fully in favor of the `server` and `client` flags because they're clear and

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server

2015-08-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: qa team lead hat While i am all for unification, i do not think that this is the case, where QA should be involved. Dedicated server is established phrase, that all users, who wants to maintain such services, know. So, i

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server

2015-08-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: The eclass isn't officially deprecated, but it probably should be. You should install a game just like you'd install a word-processor or a web browser. It is just another desktop application (99% of the time). Ugh, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server

2015-08-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:27 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/21/2015 02:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: Right now there isn't even a functional games team to leave alone, and this isn't just about games. Exactly. Start there, instead of having the council or QA impose games

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass

2015-08-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:10 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote: Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that users cannot expect consistent behavior for games anymore? Sorry, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass

2015-08-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:17 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't know. Stick to your word, maybe? I'm glad we have you here to be our conscience. :) I'm sure this will go on the next agenda. However, the decision to kick the can was actually an intentional one. We were hoping to

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server

2015-08-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote: As an old-school gamer and someone who runs dedicated servers and have done so for years, I disagree. So would a lot of gamers. As an old-school gamer I think the USE=client/server thing makes a lot of sense. So

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server

2015-08-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:18 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/21/2015 12:06 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: This seems quite reasonable, and I welcome QA's efforts at maintaining uniformity and cleanliness. ++ I'd rather see groups like QA making proposals to improve cross-Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server

2015-08-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:03 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/20/2015 07:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: As an alternative, we would use USE=client and USE=server along with proper IUSE defaults to control client server builds appropriately. Both flags use positive logic, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1 to every single commit

2015-08-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:09 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Signed-off-by has a completely different purpose which is not part of our workflow, so that tag is pretty useless to us most of the time. See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Gentoo_git_workflow#Sign-Off I agree.

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1 to every single commit

2015-08-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: It does not other the the metadata.dtd file it checks for updates and updates itself with. But that is very likely to change with the rewrite I have in progress (albeit slowly). I have also seriously been contemplating

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: EAPI 4 deprecated ban

2015-08-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Raymond Jennings shent...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: Finally, the gentoo developer quiz -should- still contain questions about ancient stuff. There are still EAPI0 and EAPI2 ebuilds in the tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: EAPI 4 deprecated ban

2015-08-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: On 8/16/15 3:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: They are deprecated already: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/metadata/layout.conf Deprecated means stop adding them, and move away from them. Repoman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...

2015-08-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: Ebuild: - User copies .ebuild with expanded $Id$ to /usr/local/portage/... - User modifies local ebuild copy - User submits changed ebuild to bugzilla - Developer uses Header/Id to figure out what to base a diff on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Current policy for overlays, was: Moving sci-physics/herwig++ to the main tree

2015-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Jauhien Piatlicki jauh...@gentoo.org wrote: I remember some discussions about ideas to make the tree more for core packages and overlay for specialized stuff. How did we decided finally what is better: having specialized stuff in overlays, or moving it to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...

2015-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: $ git ls-tree HEAD README 100644 blob 08ae16956b8944da2fef75fee892dcba457cf4f0README $ $ (stat --printf='blob %s\0' README; cat README) | sha1sum 08ae16956b8944da2fef75fee892dcba457cf4f0 - $ This is so simple to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...

2015-08-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 7:24 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: No one has proven that git is cryptographically insecure. Everyone claiming that probably refers to https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_se.html and the fact that we don't sign blob objects. While

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mirroring Gentoo project/team members on GitHub

2015-08-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Don't ask me. I was against keeping the official listings in MediaWiki, I already complained that we can't list developers who are refusing to create a Wiki account and that we lack any proper API to access those listings.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...

2015-08-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand k...@gentoo.org wrote: 2. The question is why manifests are modified for rsync. In git manifests are thin (only distfiles are there), in rsync they also contain checksums for ebuilds and files dir content. Do we really need this? These

Re: [gentoo-dev] Cleaning up integration of external repos into ::gentoo

2015-08-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:12:30 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: Hi, Now that we have the official git repository, I've switched user-facing git mirrors from rsync-git to the real git. As a result, users are now complaining

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Referencing bug reports in git

2015-08-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: I vote for a simple Bug: 333531 If it is going to be any longer than that, then you need to make sure it is part of the commit message template magic. Because I'm surely not the only one who is lazy and thus averse to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is the $Id$ line in our ebuilds still useful?

2015-08-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On 13 Aug 2015 10:36, William Hubbs wrote: I understood the usefulness of this line to some when we were using CVS since it expanded into the ebuild revision, date, etc. This expansion doesn't take place under git, so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...

2015-08-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 03:59:37PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: The intent is that the ONLY place the keywords are expanded

Re: [gentoo-dev] git history older than proj/gentoo: Initial commit (56bd759)

2015-08-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: I'd like to start with: kudos for the very skilfully performed migration from CVS to git! I just committed a simple changed and it worked great. I was curious and started exploring the repo a little bit, and the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...

2015-08-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: The intent is that the ONLY place the keywords are expanded, will be in the rsync export. FUTURE tense, it's not ready yet. Will that include any case where the string $Id$ appears in a patch file? That is the main

Re: [gentoo-dev] git history older than proj/gentoo: Initial commit (56bd759)

2015-08-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On 13 Aug 2015 17:29, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: I'd like to start with: kudos for the very skilfully performed migration from CVS to git! I just committed a simple

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rsync mirror security

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Matthias Maier tam...@gentoo.org wrote: That is, I was under the impression signing a tag only signs the references themselves, and then relies on SHA1 referential integrity beyond that. No, a signed tag verifies that the whole integrirty of the entire

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Referencing bug reports in git

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100 packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier partial rollback?

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: Having a quality infrastructure should happen in parallel to github mirrors. Uses may use the proprietary one or the opensource one. While I generally tend to agree with you, if we're just talking about mirroring is

Re: rsync mirror security (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore)

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:29:55 +0200 Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: Users can fetch/pull from Github. Users should not have to interface with or rely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: 11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone wishes to provide support for only one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer branches on proj/gentoo

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: I would not say caution so much as good judgment. The first example that came to mind was working with the profiles which crosses many directories and files. In the past when I did restructuring to the hardened

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rsync mirror security

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Matthias Maier tam...@gentoo.org wrote: constantly adds any security to the tree. What might add security for end-users is if git automatically checked the push signatures, which are the signatures that ensure that branches aren't tampered with (which is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote: I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, than having a bazillion different

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies

2015-08-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Gregory Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com wrote: Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate the preferred interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with a sequential set of preferred order. Then ebuild would consult

Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore

2015-08-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: Expanding on this: the rsync master creates the following files/directories under metatdata. On my own system, I like to symlink them to locations outside my repo so that related portage features continue to work. I

Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

2015-08-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On 09 Aug 2015 14:54, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: Hi all! please don't top post Current repoman complains about headers in ebuilds Creating Manifest for /home/alexxy/Gentoo/gentoo/sys-cluster/open-mx ebuild.badheader

Re: [gentoo-dev] Referencing bug reports in git (WAS: Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sci-libs/opencascade/)

2015-08-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: X-Bug-URL: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557022 How about just: Bug-URL: xxx or Bug: xxx X- is not recommended as a prefix for the various reasons already well-stated by the IETF in the previously-linked RFC. --

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >