Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

2015-08-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org wrote: Hoping someone has the answer for me because I'm at a loss. I'm not canceling the operating or hitting any key after enter. $ git push --signed origin master You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user: Doug

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: openrc mount service prototype

2015-08-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) z...@gentoo.org wrote: So say I want to have an ownCloud instance that provides a single /usr or /etc for any Gentoo system that wants it on my local network. Is that a use case that would benefit from this new mounting? I suppose daemons

Re: [gentoo-dev] useflag policies

2015-08-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Maciej Mrozowski reave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 02 of August 2015 21:37:36 Rich Freeman wrote: | The approach qt4=qt4 | and qt5=qt5 seems simpler on the surface, but it means that users end | up having to set tons of per-package configurations when

Re: [gentoo-dev] useflag policies

2015-08-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: I want to use fooplayer and bargrapher which are two qt-based applications. fooplayer only supports qt4, and bargrapher only supports qt5. What USE flags should I set, without restorting to per-package flags? These

Re: [gentoo-dev] useflag policies

2015-08-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not for ordinary users — they will confused by qt qt4 qt5: what is 'qt', how is it different from 'qt4' and 'qt5'. What you are really doing is implementing

Re: [gentoo-dev] useflag policies

2015-08-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: I find setting USE=qt4 -qt5 a lot more obvious than having USE=qt (why not USE=X ?) which then does different things based on another useflag, sometimes. Maybe. It's horribly inconsistent and even might change result over

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: improve file system mounting and unmounting in OpenRC

2015-07-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:26 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Some of the advantages of this approach are listed in the bug. Here are a few more I can think of. As we discussed this is similar to the approach taken by systemd (though it parses fstab and creates service files

Re: [gentoo-dev] Managing etc/* in an embbeded system

2015-07-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos pchr...@gentoo.org wrote: you can subscribe to gentoo-embedded mailing list and ask there, as your product is embedded. Also, man make.conf and search for CONFIG_PROTECT. If I understood you correctly, it may be what you need.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Managing etc/* in an embbeded system

2015-07-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote: There can not be any manual merges after an SW update here. I started to look at INSTALL_MASK, what if I set INSTALL_MASK to point to all conf files I want to manage myself. Then /etc/inittab etc. will not

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Rebooting the Installer Project

2015-07-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: I personally don't think Gentoo needs installer as-is. However, I think we'd really benefit from having some kind of helper scripts / checklist of tasks to be done prior to/after install. I think something that would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

2015-07-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, the strongly recommended commit signing will become MANDATORY. So, we are at 50 devs with valid gpg keys now, with 200 more gpg keys listed in LDAP that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

2015-07-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, the strongly recommended commit signing will become MANDATORY. So, we are at 50

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] News item about mysql client and server packages

2015-07-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Brian Evans grkni...@gentoo.org wrote: Developers and ebuild writers should reference virtual/libmysqlclient when linking against the libraries as the package will keep the subslot the same as the soversion for easy rebuilds. This isn't super-relevant to the

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

2015-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: What I meant is when I get a stabilization bug for cat-egory/foo-1.2.3 which depends on =other-cat/bar-1.0.5. The latter is amd64 but not alpha or ~alpha. And it, in turn, has yet more deps in the same vein. Now I

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

2015-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Lots of stuff except for the part below. So basically Gentoo Sunrise? :) In any case, to some extent the review workflow already exists on the proxy

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

2015-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm not sure if you followed my argumentation. I basically said that it is unrealistic to enforce a review-only workflow and that it should/can start within gentoo-internal projects. You are just repeating what I already

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

2015-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code review) then you solve several problems at once, because you need _less_ developers. Are

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

2015-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Rich Freeman wrote: I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit, I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right here

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow

2015-07-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: I would think that there would be a very small number of branches to the main master tree. Those would be for the large projects like kde, gnome,... They would still do their development work in their overlays, then move

Re: [gentoo-dev] signatures in git work flow

2015-07-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 4:01 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I've been hearing lately that the newest versions of git allow you to sign pushes. Once we have a version of git stable that allows this, can someone fill me in on why we would need to sign commits if we sign pushes? If

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow

2015-07-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:17 PM, C Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: What I personally prefer is a rebase workflow. The recommendation is to rebase when practical. Rebasing makes the history look clean, but it sometimes does this by obscuring the real history. It also discards original

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow

2015-07-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: C Bergström wrote: 2) merge commits lead to multiple parents, which breaks a clean and simple to follow linear history This is either a bug or a feature depending on whether development was actually linear. Sometimes it is,

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

2015-07-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:19:41AM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: As I see from git docs only commits and tags may be signed. There is no way to sign a push. Moreover there is no need to sign each commit, see what Linux

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

2015-07-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: We have a rule of one year compatibility period. ChangeLog shows that git-2.2.0 was introduced on 02 Dec 2014. So pushed commits can't be enforced before 02 Dec 2015. (And yes, my laptop still uses an older version,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban EAPI 1

2015-06-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:33:36 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: Maintainers can still use --force if there is no other way. i'm definitely not convinced it is good practice to encourage people to do that

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban EAPI 1

2015-06-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:38:35 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: These errors are not user-visible. I really don't have a problem with repoman errors for deprecated features. I don't have a problem

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 2:18 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On 11 May 2015 15:59:40 CEST, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I'd REALLY like to see a FOSS alternative to Gmail (a good one, that is), and ditto for Google docs (or whatever the latest branding

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: Sylpheed supports filters which allow you to have e-mails in multiple directories based on arbitrary user-defined filtering. It supports IMAP also, though I never use it as I prefer POP3 and SMTP. Well, besides not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat.com) n...@syndicat.com wrote: Am 23.05.2015 um 15:07 schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org: Well, besides not being browser-based as far as I can tell, without integration with the IMAP server those emails in multiple directories

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat.com) n...@syndicat.com wrote: Am 23.05.2015 um 16:20 schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org: With Gmail I can have an email with 14 tags. Via IMAP it shows up as if it were in 14 folders at the same time. It is a bit kludgy

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: SquashDelta syncing support

2015-05-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: The new item doesn't really cover this much -- that the feature is for supporting storage and synchronization of the gentoo repo on squashfs rather than on a regular filesystem. Perhaps it would be enough to link to an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sparc and Ia64 keyword clean up

2015-05-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jack Morgan jmor...@gentoo.org wrote: My over plan is to reduce the total number of keyworded packages to a more maintainable level. Many thanks. This is really the best possible solution. Arch teams can stabilize packages at their discretion, and if they get

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Eray Aslan e...@gentoo.org wrote: The correct solution is to stop forwarding spam and the easiest way is just stopping forwarding. There are valid policy reasons for not going that route but continuing forwarding because it is too difficult to configure gmail

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, C Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: Sorry to shoot and run, but I think you're trying to tackle this problem in the wrong way. The problem isn't to drop the mail. The solution is to change email hosting providers. As a non-profit I believe Google hosted

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:44 AM, C Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: What I'm describing is not gmail - it's everything that gmail has and offers, but @gentoo.org domain. I'm using it right now in fact. You get the web interface, IMAP, POP, 2 token authentication (if you want to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail

2015-05-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:21 AM, C Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:44 AM, C Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: What I'm describing is not gmail - it's everything that gmail has

Re: [gentoo-dev] New basic systemd profile

2015-05-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, 1 May 2015 11:28:52 -0400 Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: Due to popular demand, I have added a basic systemd profile for amd64: what about we start telling people /etc/make.profile can be a dir and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

2015-04-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be parsed. For clarity, are we talking about parsing by a human brain, or parsing by a computer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Becoming a Gentoo developer?

2015-04-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:15 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/17/2015 07:15 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote: On 17/04/15 16:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote: The problem is double effort: previously one developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Becoming a Gentoo developer?

2015-04-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 9:03 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Having a proper review workflow/platform increases the contribution factor of the community. And not just that. Define contribution factor. If you mean the number of people writing patches vs the number of people with commit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Becoming a Gentoo developer?

2015-04-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote: On 17/04/15 16:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote: The problem is double effort: previously one developer effort was needed, now effort is doubled at least You have correctly identified the problem; in order to do things

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Becoming a Gentoo developer?

2015-04-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: The best argument I have for why the quizzes being what they are is they require you to engage with gentoo staff in order to get them answered, and thus ensure you know how to ask questions. That, and that you're able

Re: [gentoo-dev] CI services for Gentoo Social Contract meanings of dependant notifications on depgraph breakages

2015-04-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Robin H. Johnson wrote: Why should we not be able to benefit from really good closed-source CI tools that are offered for free to the open-source community? Because it may not be in line with Gentoo politics. Jenkins,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Make manifest signatures mandatory for repoman commit

2015-04-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Jason Zaman perfin...@gentoo.org wrote: I dont think it can be fixed without getting rid of the $Header$ line. I'd be all for it, those lines seem like more trouble than its worth to me. Those problems cause headaches all over the place. I'll be very happy to

Re: [gentoo-dev] CI services for Gentoo Social Contract meanings of dependant notifications on depgraph breakages

2015-04-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: Argument about saving Gentoo Foundation financial resources by using hardware for CI for free is heard and taken. This is a serious one and I can't argue here. But frankly it looks like to me that we are just selling

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies

2015-04-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote: My suggestion is something in between - less invasive (and, in particular, less time consuming) than your suggestion to recalculate the USE-settings with every emerge, but more automatic than the current state. Keep in mind

Re: [gentoo-dev] libressl status

2015-04-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: Since as you point out the two packages are vastly API compatible, it makes them ABI incompatible and conflicting. ++ If they really want to improve the security of function calls that they consider inherently

Re: [gentoo-dev] libressl status

2015-04-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote: They're pretty much decided on allowing both openssl and libressl to be installed concurrently and for a given application to use one or the other. The specific method for that packaging system is what they call a prefix;

Re: [gentoo-dev] libressl status

2015-04-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:35 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: You are ranting at the wrong place. If you want to make a difference, take this to the openbsd mailing lists. It seems unlikely that this would make much of a difference. I think that allowing this package to create another

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies

2015-04-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote: One suggestion around this problem would be to use different directories for these two types of use-flags, say package.use and package.use.needed. I still think we need a better long-term solution, but the workaround is

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Dynamic USE dependencies

2015-04-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: So I'm basically having trouble with groking the logic you're proposing of add a new use flag - implied change of useflag - rebuild when useflags change - but don't rebuild for this useflag change using some kind of

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies

2015-04-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:32:41 -0400 as excerpted: Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are? If portage can

[gentoo-portage-dev] Dynamic USE dependencies

2015-04-02 Thread Rich Freeman
Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are? If portage can figure out that I need libxml2 installed even if I don't put it in /var/lib/portage/world, why can't it figure out that I need it built with

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Dynamic USE dependencies

2015-04-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 April 2015 at 05:32, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are? If portage can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy regarding enablement of drop-in configuration files

2015-03-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: - Do we have a policy regarding enablement of drop-in config files? - If so, what is it? Where is it documented? - If not, do we need a policy and what should it be? - Keep in mind that any policy needs to be technically

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:14 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 07:49:32PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: Not everybody uses logrotate, xinetd, cron.d, and so on. It still makes sense to just install the files, since they passively sit there doing nothing

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] Re: This nite's switch to full multilib

2015-03-29 Thread Rich Freeman
(crossposting to -dev since this is fairly high-impact) On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: On 30/03/15 03:43, waben...@gmail.com wrote: I also have dev-qt/qtcore-4.8.5-r2 and some other qt packages installed but I had no problems with that. I'm on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Current Gentoo Git setup / man-in-the-middle attacks

2015-03-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: On 29.03.2015 19:39, Andrew Savchenko wrote: On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:41:33 +0200 Sebastian Pipping wrote: So I would like to propose that * support for Git access through https:// is activated, * Git access through

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] Re: This nite's switch to full multilib

2015-03-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Davide Pesavento p...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: qt is a pretty significant package to have break with multilib, and trying to run qt-5 on a stable system is already a nightmare with the qtchooser

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:28 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:11:34AM +0200, Matthias Maier wrote: Thoughts? One point in favor of the current practice (installing add-on files unconditionally) is the fact that you can basically do it for free - you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should Gentoo do https by default?

2015-03-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org wrote: * Hanno Böck schrieb am 27.03.15 um 15:33 Uhr: Certificates are too expensive Gentoo already has certs for all pages, so this is not an argument here, but if this ever becomes an issue there are a number of CAs

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

2015-03-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting the rdepend

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming of repositories: gento-x86 edition, bike shedding wanted

2015-03-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: It is that ebuild tree that is the core to what makes it a gentoo system. I think this is really the heart of your argument and others who feel gentoo is the best name for the repository. I'm not going to argue against

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: media-video/mplayer2 media-video/smplayer2

2015-03-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 16 March 2015 at 21:54, Юра Цимбалов yura.t...@gmail.com wrote: That would be great, but it depends on getting newer mpv stable, while (s)mplayer2 is dead and broken right now.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming of repositories: gento-x86 edition, bike shedding wanted

2015-03-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Instead of trying to emphasize it's the main repository, we ought to drop the notion of 'main repository'. That was the goal of all changes in Portage, so stop trying to regress for the sake of good ol' times. But, if the

Re: [gentoo-dev] multilib amd64 news item for review

2015-03-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Michał Górny wrote: Starting with 2015-03-29, we are enabling the true multilib support on amd64 and masking the old emul-linux-x86 package sets for removal. This change provides I'm not a native

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming of repositories: gento-x86 edition, bike shedding wanted

2015-03-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld zx...@gentoo.org wrote: Calling it gentoo makes sense, because the entire tree is what makes gentoo. But since it's namespaced in ebuilds/ and because ebuilds/ might have other gentoo-official repos too, then perhaps gentoo-main makes more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming of repositories: gento-x86 edition, bike shedding wanted

2015-03-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: 0. What names for the tree/repository. Suggestions: gentoo-repo gentoo-repository gentoo-main gentoo-repo-main gentoo-repository-main 1. We have some namespaces in Git: proj, dev, priv, data, sites, exp; should the

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

2015-03-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid unnecessary changes on bugzilla. Out of curiousity, what makes the changes necessary in the first place? It seems like an incredible amount of effort is

Re: [gentoo-dev] what's the correct format for bugs containing package name and version?

2015-03-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote: It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Policies for games dirs, new group gamestat for sgid binaries

2015-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:44 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/21/2015 10:16 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Samstag, 21. Februar 2015, 20:16:31 schrieb hasufell: What did the council say again about the functionality of the team? What's the argumentation to not do anything,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Policies for games dirs, new group gamestat for sgid binaries

2015-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: What specific action are you advocating for which hasn't been done? Start with enforcing GLEP39 which is still violated. I said specific - what do you mean by enforcing GLEP39? -- Rich

Re: DKIM [gentoo-dev] Hello Everyone

2015-02-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 02/22/15 12:08, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: * Fun is lost for a long time. This is is extremely false. It's a very subjective matter. I don't doubt that Gentoo is fun for some or many or even all

Re: DKIM [gentoo-dev] Hello Everyone

2015-02-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht nicolas.s-...@laposte.net wrote: * Gentoo is mainly splitted in two: the developers and the council. A bit of an odd statement considering all the council members are developers, and were elected by them. If it seems like most devs are at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

2015-02-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:30 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: * teams in gentoo are a mess, because they mostly work without much communication and are sort of a badge for people to randomly touch ebuilds they are not familiar with So, this is also something I don't like about our

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list for ebuild review

2015-02-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: Please explain this proposal in more detail. If code review is supposed to be mandatory for each commit, this will effectively stop development. If it is supposed to be used as an auxiliary but not mandatory tool, e.g.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

2015-02-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand k...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/19/2015 10:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: On Thursday 19 February 2015 10:07:30 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 02/19/2015 09:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: On 02/19/15 06:10, Mike Gilbert wrote: What saddens me

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

2015-02-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Justin (jlec) wrote: This is part of the set of topics which we cover outside the scope of the quizzes. A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

2015-02-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Rich Freeman wrote: The only things devs need to do with respect to copyright is follow the law Ah, but which law? I understand that law in e.g. Germany does not permit non-natural persons to own copyright. The public domain

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

2015-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Since gentoo lacks this sort of formal signed-off policy and in fact has yet to move to git where it could be most easily tracked and enforced (let alone such a policy created and formally agreed in the first place), the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Can we just have repoman directly fix the entry automatically since in itself is nearly-pointless? That would leave the door open to somebody arguing that the line was changed without their knowledge. Absent some kind

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote: I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a lot of work as well. Maybe another

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all copyright statements as they are in whatever form? Obviously appealing for its simplicity. But, I can see some issues: 1. What if you want

Re: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote: Keep the core git tree constantly rolling forward, have a dedicated branch get cut say, once a year (or less -- Debian is ~18mo?), another group of devs works on stabilizing that (and periodically cherrypicking from the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote: As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as we think we can. Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords A published script might

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger: even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is complete bs. The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional,

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

2015-02-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió: [...] Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/ Yeah, let's not bring

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Rich Freeman: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care: When did I claim to not care? That's my interpretation of the council mocking

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:08 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: So let's summarize: * the council said it will deal with it Cite? I just posted what the council ACTUALLY said, and this wasn't on it. I'd re-post it, but I think it was only two posts ago for my part. What we have now

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care: When did I claim to not care? It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by the members of the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Rich Freeman: On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The council has (at least implicitly) stated that people may stop using common eclasses that standardize stuff in gentoo if they don't like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The council has (at least implicitly) stated that people may stop using common eclasses that standardize stuff in gentoo if they don't like them (that includes python, ruby, perl... eclasses as well, FYI). Maybe we should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:06 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The council just chose the worst way, because it didn't want to upset either party involved in the discussion. The council simply upheld GLEP 39 - people don't HAVE to work with a project team to work on packages. There is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: You are making it sound like there is some huge work to be done. There isn't. And no one has to step up to change the current situation, except the council. Are we that politics driven now? If you feel so strongly about it,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Dnia 2015-02-06, o godz. 17:20:48 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a): Rich Freeman: On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Ben de Groot (yngwin): yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in games-board/stockfish: stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

2015-02-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Ben de Groot (yngwin): yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33 Added:stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog Log: Initial commit (bug #318337) EAPI=5 inherit toolchain-funcs This breaks

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

2015-02-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:20 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: 57% is not pretty strongly. It's a bit more than the half. Sure, but libav as the default only got 5% of the vote. I think the poll suffers from over-complexity. :) I don't think we should be putting all of our stock in

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

2015-02-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 11:04:57 Jason A. Donenfeld zx...@gentoo.org napisał(a): I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

2015-02-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow?? I think

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >