Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage news announcement review

2015-02-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: You can't fix crap code to both keep the old crap handling while still giving you new decent handling for the same config. I think that makes sense, and certainly many upstreams have made changes this large. However, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage news announcement review

2015-02-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: sys-apps/portage-2.2.16 is ready for release and is just waiting for the news announcement about the new plug-in sync system being used and the changes in it's operation. Attached is the news announcement for review. You

[gentoo-dev] Re: news item: nfsmount renamed nfsclient

2015-01-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:22 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: this is covered in the nfs-utils-1.3.1-r1 ebuild by ewarns; however, qa asked me to write a news item as well, so here it is. There was a similar

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: news items vs ewarns

2015-01-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:06 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: When should ewarns vs news items be used to inform users about changes? I'm not asking for a policy, just thoughts about when one or the other should be used. IMHO it is almost pointless to issue news this far after

[gentoo-dev] Re: news item: nfsmount renamed nfsclient

2015-01-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:22 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: this is covered in the nfs-utils-1.3.1-r1 ebuild by ewarns; however, qa asked me to write a news item as well, so here it is. There was a similar change in the systemd units (also mentioned in the ewarns). It might

Re: [gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2015-01-25 23:59 UTC

2015-01-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: A while back, Daniel Quinn asked what the Gentoo devs that follow the G+ Gentoo Account what they think of making it possible to thank/donate to Gentoo developers for their work on the Distribution: Wow! Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Review: USE=libav news item

2015-01-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:37:09 +0100 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: media-video/mplayer2 or media-video/mpv may be used as a more modern replacement. Don't recommend mplayer2, afaik it's dead. Also, I'd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Things one could be upset about

2015-01-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: The result of the current policy is that if you're waiting for the GLSA, unless it's _extreme_ priority (heartbleed level), on at least amd64, you're very often sitting there exposed for well over a week, and too often a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Review: USE=libav news item

2015-01-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Dnia 2015-01-26, o godz. 12:15:49 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se napisał(a): the ffmpeg fork above is very confusing because libav is the ffmpeg fork, and I think what you mean here is simply ffmpeg. I suggest: Well, you

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] LibreSSL, introduce virtual/openssl

2015-01-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Jan 26, 2015 11:01 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Rich Freeman wrote: there wouldn't be an /etc/init.d, but rather a bazillion /pkg/guid/etc/init.d directories or something like that I guess an abstraction akin to pkg-config could solve the problem. Sort of. You can't call

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] LibreSSL, introduce virtual/openssl

2015-01-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Rich Freeman wrote: I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] LibreSSL, introduce virtual/openssl

2015-01-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:18 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: The problem I see now is that people will have a hard time to actually switch, because unlike gnutls we cannot have openssl and libressl be installed at the same time. I personally find it annoying when people fork

Re: [gentoo-dev] Figuring out the solution to in-network-sandbox distcc

2015-01-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:05:34 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello, developers. As you may recall, the main blocker for wide-establishment of FEATURES=network-sandbox prohibiting network access within

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog

2015-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:02:11 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: You're complaining about how somebody made a fix that they wouldn't have had to make but for the commit you made without consulting with them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog

2015-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:21:15 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog

2015-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild in question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision bump with no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump was required: You'd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libuv: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild ChangeLog

2015-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: Do not get me wrong, Patrick. You, as QA team member, can touch other's packages without prior noticing, if fixing serious issues involved. But with great power comes great responsibility. Please, use your power more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Things one could be upset about

2015-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: repoman doesn't check reverse dependencies for the package you're working on. Indeed, it doesn't even check forward dependencies which are blockers. kmod-19 was just stabilized accidentally despite having a blocker on all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable?

2015-01-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: So, i like your idea to stick stable to the LTS kernel. While it can lead to potential problems with some external modules(which are, for example, marked stable now but does not support 3.4 kernel) the majority of really

Re: [gentoo-dev] First release of Gentoo Keys

2015-01-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:44:46 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand k...@gentoo.org wrote: Shor's would be effective against discrete logs (including ECC) as well, so wouldn't be applicable to this selection. For

Re: [gentoo-dev] First release of Gentoo Keys

2015-01-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand k...@gentoo.org wrote: One issue with DSA/ElGamal is the requirement for a random k value while signing/encrypting, Thanks - that was very informative. I guess the thing that makes me more concerned about RSA is that Shor's algorithm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: qa last rites -- long list

2015-01-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: But I must admit I lost the track of this issue some time ago and I don't remember why the eclass is still allowed and then both policies are being used in parallel depending on the maintainer, that is the reason I haven't

Re: [gentoo-dev] First release of Gentoo Keys

2015-01-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: Of the remaining devs, only 16 keys total pass the GLEP 63 requirements. More info can be found in the First-Use wiki page [4] If you just create a gpg key with 5yr expiry and otherwise-default options, typing a larger

Re: [gentoo-dev] First release of Gentoo Keys

2015-01-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote: But for the rest, yes, you don't need gkeys to create your key, It is just most people seem to know little about using gpg, so creating the template where you just filled out name, email, password, makes it easy. Makes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: qa last rites -- long list

2015-01-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió: [...] The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other games like it) on Gentoo, and only on Gentoo, is that the games team policy requires that

Re: [gentoo-dev] qa last rites multiple packages

2015-01-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:47 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I am particularly concerned about packages with known security vulnerabilities staying in the main tree masked. If people want to keep using those packages, I don't want to stop them, but packages like this should not be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-sources - should we stable?

2015-01-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: As a gentoo/~arch btrfs user myself and reasonably active on the btrfs list, I'd *never* recommend btrfs in anything like its current state to a gentoo-stable user. Just tonite, before I switched to this list I was on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable?

2015-01-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mike Pagano mpag...@gentoo.org wrote: To summarize. In this instance, as this moment: 1. Only enter stable req bugs for 3.18 and 3.17. I assume this bit is just a transition since we don't want to downgrade from 3.17/18 to 3.14, and that once we get the next

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable?

2015-01-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: The thing about stable gentoo-sources is that it shows that it's been tested, and ideally that testing's been done against the rdeps of the kernel package too (ie, external modules). ... That said, given the frequency of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable?

2015-01-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/01/15 02:57 PM, Mike Pagano wrote: I understand your point. Maybe waiting a few days to auto stable makes sense, because less than 7 days later, a new version with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable?

2015-01-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Diamond diam...@hi-net.ru wrote: On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:25:56 -0500 Mike Pagano mpag...@gentoo.org wrote: Kernel versions are coming out 1-2 a week at this point. There's also a problem to upgrade kernel for a user every 1-2 week by hands using make oldconfig

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: glibc versions prior to 2.19-r1

2014-12-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Because of that, i see no reason to keep the older versions of glibc around. This would also give us a chance to clean up the ebuilds without causing massive breakage. the eblits need to die. Who is actually

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: glibc versions prior to 2.19-r1

2014-12-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:04 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Matthias Maier wrote: IMHO, maintaining a sensible set of old glibc versions of the last 5 years makes sense, and we should try to support it: We have a general policy in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: glibc versions prior to 2.19-r1

2014-12-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: On 12/22/14 10:39, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:04 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Matthias Maier wrote: IMHO, maintaining a sensible set

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: glibc versions prior to 2.19-r1

2014-12-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:11:01 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: [...] (On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2, 4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, 4.5.4,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: glibc versions prior to 2.19-r1

2014-12-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 17:20:31 schrieb Andrew Savchenko: And please don't say just fix it, I'm not saying just fix it, I'm saying ... and of course you will happily join toolchain team and/or maintain the

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

2014-12-21 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 03:15:48PM +0300, Сергей wrote: Today two bugs from 504116's dependencies were resolved and two other bugs were removed from 504116's dependencies list. Thanks to maintainers who decided to solve

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

2014-12-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Сергей protsero...@gmail.com wrote: I see. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo-functions/pull/2 It is my pull request. Seems like these packages' maintainers are busy solving other problems now. If this really gets in somebody's way they will just post a notice

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: metadata.xml unherd/-ization, v2

2014-12-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: This would be by far the easiest solution. Some herds already have an alias like this eg. freedesktop - freedesktop-bugs. Much easier than mass-editing every single metadata.xml with what amounts to a cosmetic

Re: [gentoo-dev] metadata.xml unherd/-ization, v2

2014-12-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: I thought we were generally agreed we wanted to get rid of herds. The goal wasn't to rename them, but to get rid of them. We could have email aliases for bugs so that people can

Re: [gentoo-dev] metadata.xml unherd/-ization, v2

2014-12-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Dnia 2014-12-09, o godz. 12:59:26 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a): As the previously stated goal was to get rid of herds, I don't understand why you want to reintroduce them as a value of the type attribute.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: net-im/linpopup, app-office/teapot, net-irc/bitchx, sys-power/cpufrequtils, x11-plugins/gkrellm-cpufreq, media-sound/gnome-alsamixer, sys-devel/ac-archive, net-misc/emirror

2014-12-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: El lun, 08-12-2014 a las 14:46 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió: On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote: It doesn't look like it's going to work so well without cpufrequtils. There's a new

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-devel/gcc::mgorny up for testing

2014-12-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: On 12/07/14 08:18, Michał Górny wrote: I will also be happy to work on replacing the new versions of original sys-devel/gcc completely. With QA process against toolchain.eclass if necessary. Let's get the list of

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-devel/gcc::mgorny up for testing

2014-12-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: Forking code does not address the QA issues currently against toolchain.eclass. The two issues are orthogonal and I don't think I connected them in my emails. I disagree with forking but have no right to obstruct

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-devel/gcc::mgorny up for testing

2014-12-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: eclasses are pretty great for sharing code akin to a library, but when *all* of your ebuild's logic is in the eclass, well, that's not really the intended use case as far as I can tell. It works well in cases like KDE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: net-im/linpopup, app-office/teapot, net-irc/bitchx, sys-power/cpufrequtils, x11-plugins/gkrellm-cpufreq, media-sound/gnome-alsamixer, sys-devel/ac-archive, net-misc/emirror

2014-12-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote: It doesn't look like it's going to work so well without cpufrequtils. There's a new homepage with a few new releases at: Are there any actual issues with cpufrequtils, beyond having a dead upstream? I've been maintaining

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-devel/gcc::mgorny up for testing

2014-12-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Anthony G. Basile bas...@opensource.dyc.edu wrote: On 12/07/14 05:37, Michał Górny wrote: If you're interested in testing it, 'layman -a mgorny' and enjoy. I'd appreciate any bug reports, except for those covering things i've already listed as missing :). Any

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc service script dependency checker

2014-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: I didn't ask why we need local.d. I asked why we need to run it LAST, and why we need to run all of that other stuff LAST? Of course, the reality is that we aren't running all of that stuff last since exactly one

Re: [gentoo-dev] About reversion of last pulseaudio ebuild change

2014-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Andrew Savchenko wrote: If GLEP doesn't reflect current best practices maybe this is a good time to supersede it with a new one? Not this again, please. :( The GLEP outlines the framework under which

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc service script dependency checker

2014-12-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote: 1. There are multiple services having after $all statement (an analog in Gentoo is after *, which is currently used only by local init.d script). Seems to me that the solution to this is to ban this sort of syntax

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-11-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 26/11/14 22:52, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:34:33 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: While it pains me to say

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-11-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:34:33 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: While it pains me to say this, unfortunately it looks like we have another toxic person situation to deal with, with all the implications that

Re: [gentoo-dev] tb logs attacher

2014-11-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: Hi, did you end up running the script only for RESO/NEEDINFO or for all of them? If you have a chance to run it for every bug I will just turn down the S3 account afterwards. Would it make sense to start

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-project] Re: towards a more distributed model

2014-11-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote: In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-11-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 31 October 2014 09:28, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: So who wants to pick up the pieces now? Because I'm almost pissed off enough to turn down the tinderbox and give a big FU to Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-project] Re: towards a more distributed model

2014-11-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: But keep in mind that the core is supposed to shrink with this idea of a distributed model! So it would be less work to actually roll/tag releases than it would be right now (or even do that stuff in branches). This doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency

2014-11-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: On 14/11/14 15:01, Rich Freeman wrote: And I do apologize for piling on a bit - trying to get rid of @system has been one of my soap box issues for a while. It really seems like an ugly, if practical, solution

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency

2014-11-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: Sorry Zac, I posted my reply before I read this. This is essentially the point I was making. However, I think this will be cumbersome. With the current way we do things, its easy to delete packages from @system by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deps on slotted executables (implicit @system tangent)

2014-11-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:08:17 -0500 Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote: Question 1: is it desirable to e.g. switch compilers, compile systemd, and then switch back? This will horrifically break things

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency

2014-11-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system set may be omitted

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency

2014-11-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical. Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little benefit in maintaining a virtual/system clone of @system. Well, the idea would be to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency

2014-11-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote: Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific additions. Will that work? Some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage dependency solving algorithm

2014-11-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 11/08/2014 08:32 PM, hasufell wrote: On 11/08/2014 08:01 PM, Matthias Dahl wrote: Hello Ciaran... On 08/11/14 19:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No. It would make sense to introduce a cultural change, where developers stop

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: future.eclass

2014-11-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Donnerstag, 6. November 2014, 22:56:21 schrieb Rich Freeman: I think we are well-served by taking Ciaran's advice here. Utility eclasses should just passively export functions. Anything that does overrides

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: future.eclass

2014-11-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 11/06/2014 01:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: # This eclass contains backports of functions that were accepted # by the Council for the EAPI following

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: future.eclass

2014-11-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm still concerned that in general we tend to have packages hang around at older EAPIs for a long time as it is. That isn't really a problem if those EAPIs are stable and supported for a while. This seems likely to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: future.eclass

2014-11-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: # This eclass contains backports of functions that were accepted # by the Council for the EAPI following the EAPI used by ebuild, # and can be implemented in pure shell script. I'm not sure that I like this sort of a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: future.eclass

2014-11-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 22:32:17 +0100 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:40:33 -0800 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 11/06/2014 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: #

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing the concept of herds

2014-11-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:45:49 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Let's keep it short: I think herds don't serve any special purpose nowadays. Their existence is mostly resulting in lack of consistency and inconveniences. Resurrecting this thread per the last council decision: The

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:38 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: But there will be no improvement if we don't take such issues more seriously. I don't really see that happening. It's something the oldtimers have more power over than the council. In a community project, the folks with

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: The newest member of Gentoo can have more power to direct the course of the distro than every oldtimer or council member there is, if they just contribute more than them. If the maintainer of package A or provider

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-10-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 19 October 2014 16:57, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: If maintainers want to NEEDINFO or WONTFIX a tinderbox bug, well, they'll be the ones picking up the pieces when the gcc upgrade moves ahead. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of bugs blocking gcc-4.8.3

2014-10-31 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: lu - hoping rust won't have such issues. Funny - I first heard of this earlier this week. Biggest issue I see with rust is that it seems like it has joined the every-language-needs-its-own-package-manager club, and it

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-10-31 Thread Rich Freeman
I'm going to speak generally - this is a list and not really the best way of dealing with individuals. If you think the principles apply to you, feel free to apply them. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: I'm more convinced than ever that either

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-nds/openldap/files: openldap-2.4.40-db-6.patch

2014-10-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov m...@mva.name wrote: Btw, since Gentoo do not (mostly) provide packages itself, but only build instructions (ebuild), can't we just ship ebuild that patches openldap violates to force to use db6=19 with bindist USE? Can we do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: News item regarding c++98 vs c++11

2014-10-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote: Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: Since gcc-4.7 there is a -std=c++11 option, do not use it {+yet+} since it breaks the ABI, resulting in a non-functional system. Yes. Eventually we'll have to clear the road for

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-10-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Samstag, 18. Oktober 2014, 19:34:52 schrieb Pacho Ramos: Perhaps a stupid question, but: why is it a problem if the logs are linked rather than attached? Supposedly we always must attach files to bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual: virtual/podofo-build

2014-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: In order to solve bug #503802 [1], I would like to add a virtual/podofo-build package to pull in app-text/podofo and dev-libs/boost. Then packages like app-text/calibre can put virtual/podofo-build in DEPEND and

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual: virtual/podofo-build

2014-10-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Alex Xu alex_y...@yahoo.ca wrote: I feel like there should be a DEPEND specifier for packages required to build against this package. For example, xproto is required to build against SDL (at least using pkg-config), but not to simply use it at runtime. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item review: bash-completion-2.1-r90

2014-10-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Many of our users do care what's going on, that's why they run gentoo, and for those that don't, a bit of extra information won't hurt 'em. Sure, though it may help to format things from a more actionable standpoint. By all

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: bash-completion-2.1-r90

2014-10-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Michał Górny wrote: the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in. Why is it desirable to make that change? //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: bash-completion-2.1-r90

2014-10-13 Thread Rich Freeman
Disregard previous fat-finger reply... On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Michał Górny wrote: the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in. Why is it desirable to make that change? See my previous email: 3. Unlike in the past, there is no longer a

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: bash-completion-2.1-r90

2014-10-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: I really do not want that to be chosen for me. Opt-out is not cool. :( Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc. It always seemed pointless to me that there are a million bash completion filters

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-10-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm working on that. I'm not sure that #46 is hardened i686 specific right now. I'm hitting it on vm with even the vanilla gcc so something else might be going on here. VLC built fine on stable amd64 with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: virtual/{posix,stage1,2,3} Was: Add bc back to the stage3

2014-10-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: Not arguing with your use-case. Just wondering why ed and bc are considered such major burdens, but polkit+systemd+udev+dbug+glib+glibc+godknows are a minimal base. Nobody is talking about adding most of that

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-10-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 4:07 PM, M. Ziebell ziebell_ma...@posteo.de wrote: But if anyone would ask me to stabilize gcc-4.8 I would say amd64 ok. If there is general consensus that this is going to be a stable target it might make sense to start running mixed stable+gcc-4.8 systems as widely as

Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization, chromium starts heavily using C++11

2014-10-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: I would say the following still should be fixed: ... These look like some namespace issues, and different use of registers (on x86). #46 is hardened specific. Do any of these actually apply to non-hardened

Re: virtual/{posix,stage1,2,3} Was: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

2014-10-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:31 PM, W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:22:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: In a similar vein, would releng be open to moving stage1/2/3 package sets to virtual packages or package sets? Presently they are inside catalyst, and I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

2014-10-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: I know that our policies state that technical issues should be raised in the dev ml, although they also support doing the discussion in specialized mls, but they also mention that one should make an effort

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: I had just given some reasons above, in the part that you haven't quoted. My main issue was with the burden of proof bit. This isn't a court - we're free to do whatever seems to make the most sense, and not worry about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

2014-09-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: No, there isn't a need for a Council vote here. This is something up to Releng (in respect to what is in the stages) and to everyone in respect to what is part of the system set. I don't think many

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

2014-09-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: Although, I must say, Jorge's is being little premature here, and I doubt the Council will act rashly. So, while I was trying to be balanced in my reply, I'll admit it may have still been a bit too emotionally

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: Please provide some examples of when and how that piece of information, herd, is important. Don't shift the burden of proof, please. Meh, knowing if the status quo is useful is

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing the concept of herds

2014-09-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: The question becomes does every herd want to become a (sub)project?. So, there was some discussion on -dev, apparently some discussion I wasn't a part of, and some that I was (such is the nature of IRC). I think it would

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

2014-09-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well. The call for agenda

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

2014-09-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: And now for something completely different ... drum roll ... Really! We have to have a council vote on whether bc goes into stage3? If this does go to the council, then I want a pre-vote vote: should we bounce the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing the concept of herds

2014-09-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM, W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:18:40PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: 4. A mail alias that is not project :). For example, we have clang@ for easily aggregating all clang-related build failures and other bugs but it isn't a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo git workflows and the stabilization/keywording process

2014-09-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Devs doing gentoo all day could easily do one or two pushes a day, with many commits in each. Those with less time might do the same work over several days or a week and might push just once or twice that week, if none of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: ChangeLog perl-module.eclass

2014-09-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Also, CVS gets your name wrong. I wonder how it is possible with such an awesome modern piece of technology ;). CVS itself does support unicode in the commit messages. I have no idea where the name comes from in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo git workflows and the stabilization/keywording process

2014-09-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, hasufell wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow But so far, not many people have been particularly interested in the details of these things. I'm also not sure if the ML is the

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >