On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should
> be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser;
> but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should stop stabilization.
If we're talking about f
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 25/02/2013 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where
>> it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is
>> exactly the sort o
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> Of course dealing with flags _per functions_ is not possible, as flags
> apply at the very least to a translation unit...
A translation unit can contain a single function, or a bunch of
functions that you want to apply the flag to.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 25/02/13 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> My point was just that:
>> 1. No, the fact that entire packages fail to build/operate using
>> -ffast-math is not a valid bug.
>
> From your email the message was the opp
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> No, an example of _how building a whole package with -ffast-math_ was
> brought up, and you turned it into "something that it should apply to"
> (which is false, and stupid to say).
Perhaps this is part of the issue then. I didn't not
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they
> should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't just do it in Gentoo.
Certainly I think it would be far more productive to talk to the glibc
maintainers first.
However, nothing p
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> To me it's obvious that he did it because it made something easier
> for him. By breaking the Gentoo rule he got something done.
Rules exist for a reason. If we're bending them because we're
accomplishing the goal of the rules in a better wa
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
> packages. If we're talking ~100 I'm fine with it.
Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at
On Mar 11, 2013 6:22 PM, "Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 02:19:55PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined,
&
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> No change intended. This is what happens when you send a thirty second
> follow-up to a policy formed over two weeks, and then step away to eat...
So, clarification now that I'm back at a keyboard...
DCO is mandatory, and
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 12. März 2013, 00:12:43 schrieb Rich Freeman:
>> So, clarification now that I'm back at a keyboard...
>>
>> DCO is mandatory, and is simply a declaration that the committer has
>> checked
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM, James Cloos wrote:
> Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave it
> as is than to kick it. Dropping important packages can only harm the
> community and is never welcome.
Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you a
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>> "RF" == Rich Freeman writes:
>
> RF> Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you aren't
> RF> intentionally trying to buffer-overflow it or otherwise break it?
>
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> I've wondered for years why gentoo invests all that effort into creating
> its own install media, when there's many dedicated projects out there
> whose whole purpose is live install/rescue media.
Tend to agree. I'd focus mor
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> So per https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462366#c4, the package
> now has a new maintainer so it will not be removed.
> See? This is what I call a good solution instead of going around and
> constantly saying "Ohhh bad bad Gentoo remo
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The process for rescuing a package is documented here[1] and
> it takes about 15'' of google searching to find it.
>
I think that something a bit more elaborate with links to the relevant
pages (proxy-maint, etc) that is more user-oriented
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note thought
> that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued (assuming it
> can be rescued). Providing fixes without becoming the maintainer is
> also a viable solution, wh
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> I find the become-a-dev threshold significant so yes, something stops it..
>
So, my personal feeling is that /some/ packages get pulled a little
earlier than strictly necessary. However, the fact is that when a
package gets treecleaned it i
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
> impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
> having an actually inclusive package removal process.
I was going to post something along these lines, but I'
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health indicator
> for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of our installed
> ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the order of six
> months before the package goes red, at whic
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> We (as the kde team) are modifying the profiles/targets/desktop/kde settings
> so if you pick a kde profile you can immediately emerge kde without further
> fiddling with useflags.
That will be ideal, but I was more concerned with the
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> The number of open bugs doesn't really matter, it's what those bugs
> are that matters -- security bugs, sure, are of a higher priority and
> can be fairly easily detected in bugzilla.
Well, our current treecleaner policy seems to be that
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 03/24/2013 09:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
>>> decision.
>>
>> You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
>> impact of y
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Thing is that SRCD does a lot more things than our mini ISO does.
> As a result, keeping it going on half a dozen architectures is
> more work than maintaining our arguably very simple images. There
> is a reason why we abandoned making th
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Justin wrote:
>
> if someone is interested in implementing any infrastructure for a more
> advanced usage of kdump for gentoo, please contact me.
>
I've blogged a bit about this and wrote the wiki page. However, the
last time I actually tried to use kdump it wasn
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Justin wrote:
> During the version bump today, I saw that fedora is providing lots of
> script and services for it. So I thought someone might be interested and
> port that to gentoo.
>
I've given it thought, but I'm not quite at the point where I'd want
to take t
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Not really. Every time I modified anything in there, it just took a few udev
> versions and suddenly I was flooded with deprecation warnings a la "things
> work different now, find out on your own how to fix it..."
Not to mention at lea
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> What do you have there? We cover bunch of those in pkg_postinst of udev
> already.
After a bunch of cleanup (after which I have yet to detect any
problems), I have:
70-persistent-cd.rules 70-persistent-net.rules
80-net-name-slot.rules ki
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Those 70-* and 80-* are in udev pkg_postinst, this news item, everywhere...
> can all 3 be deleted if you haven't modified them yourself.
>
> So that leaves one... local.rules... dunno about that. I'm curious.
Excellent, sounds good then
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> In my mind, the message says "either remove 70-* and setup 80-*" or your
> system will end up broken.
The other bit is that modifying symlinks in /etc/init.d is only
mentioned in passing. That is a VERY important step unless your new
nam
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
> I've never seen this before in 10 years using Gentoo.
> Has anyone verified that Splice's licence is compatible with Gentoo ?
What do you mean by "compatible with Gentoo?"
Gentoo is not a party to the distribution or use of splice, so why
w
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> net-p2p/deluge has open bugs for years[1] and I don't see anybody from
> the net-p2p herd
> to actually maintain it. It would be nice to find a new dedicated
> maintainer for it. If a user is interested in helping us maintain it,
>
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The herd currently maintains 58[1] packages and a number of them are
> being co-maintained by other people.
> I don't think the herd is active and my opinion is to move
> high-profile packages, such as deluge, qbittorrent, rb_littorrent an
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> 1. Get more people to join these herds (devs, future recruits, ...)
>and set up project, leads and proper organization. This is the least
>confusing approach; since the same work is done but just by more
>people, which tackles the co
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> people seem happy with this, so i'll have the release team do a test build and
> see how it goes.
++
If any of the system packages are going to pull in texinfo then it
really should have a use flag for the perl-requiring parts. Otherwise
w
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
> upgrade paths?
>
This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that
we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some
miracle the bash main
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>> That is not possible without the agreement of the eclass maintainers.
>> So you cannot just "ban" an eclass.
>
> QA certainly can, and should. Or failing that, the Council can step in.
(apologies to those who got this twice - my MUA used a from address
that the list likely rejected instead of using the correct one which I
actually did select - Google needs to fix their GMail Android app)
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> We have continued support for base
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> tl;dr: make sure your /dev/pts is mounted correctly w/gid=5 or bad things will
> happen and it's (probably) all your fault
So, who is this directed to? If this is to anybody who uses Gentoo,
then at best this should be a place to hash out
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ^ This will likely cause the patch not to apply, at least with older patch
> versions
> You should be able to delete this section of the patch to avoid the CVS tag
> polluting it
The CVS tags will also create issues during the git migratio
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:25 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> In other words, “Why force folks to do this if there is no benefit?”.
> This is understandable, but I think the broken binary packages [1] are
> enough of a visible benefit.
I certainly agree. As I bump my own packages I'll certainly be
l
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> I am sending this out for review so we can commit it to the tree
> when we commit our alternate systemd ebuild in a few days. This will be
> set up so that users can choose which systemd package they want to
> install, and it will default to
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> It is not an upstream fork, it is a configuration/installation
> approach that follows upstream's recommendations for install locations.
> It also allows the user more choices wrt which parts of systemd are
> built or installed and allows mor
For whoever is interested I tossed together a script to identify
packages that would immediately benefit from slot operator
dependencies but which are not doing so.
The list can be found at:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/missedslotops.txt
This was generated by:
https://github.com/rich0/finddepslot
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Christopher Schwan
wrote:
> Is it possible to check a local overlay? Specifying CPV for a single ebuild
> works, but I wonder if its possible to parse an entire overlay at once.
The script already checks all configured overlays as well as the main
tree if you invo
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it's at times like this i wish we had a git repo. `git log -p -C -M` is great
> at tracking this sort of stuff down.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but I don't believe we have a
tracker for the migration of docs / website / etc to git
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> But nobody owns anything in Gentoo. As a developer
> you're not king of the hill but servant of the users. The only way to
> make yourself more relevant is by doing a better job, not by barking
> at the others to protect your territory.
I
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Er, you can't be seriously suggesting we will drop repoman checks with
> the migration to git? I don't see how that would benefit anyone.
>
Interesting point. One thing to keep in mind with git is that commits
don't affect the "central rep
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>> Er, you can't be seriously suggesting we will drop repoman checks with
>>> the migration to
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Alternatively, we could enforce repoman checks on any commit or push
> operation in master, and leave branches to their own devices. Of
> course, I haven't seen (or looked for, tbh) how tree development will
> be implemented/suggested to
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> 13. Gerrit's push to tree fails, since tree with changeset A isn't in
> changeset B's ancestry.
>
Honestly, this is a problem with any use of repoman with git unless
you let the server auto-merge trivial changes. Cvs tracks commits at
the f
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> if we keep a dependency for a while, even behind something like
> IUSE="+oldnet", when we drop it, people will still be hit if they do
> emerge --depclean before they emerge gentoo-oldnet.
>
> Also, (although I don't really care about this mu
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Alex Xu wrote:
> Seems simple enough, as long as `repoman scan` runs quickly.
>
This is the key, because if a commit happens anywhere in your process,
your push will fail.
At first I thought you were suggesting a server-side hook. This
essentially has the same p
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
wrote:
> Hey, all!
>
> Just one question: why do you all talking about IUSE=+oldnet, but not
> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( net oldnet )" for example?
It it isn't necessary for a system to have support for either oldnet
or newnet. Sure, it is rar
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote:
> I have just one question
>
> When "gentoo-oldscripts" is pulled from openrc
>
> WHAT will be the default network configuration method?
"gentoo-oldscripts"
The intent isn't to remove these scripts (unless for some reason you
don't wan
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> The user is distinguishing right from wrong by setting things like
> USE=bindist, portage simply doesn't seem to be respecting that in the
> case of RESTRICT=bindist.
I think what is missing is a clear set of definitions.
USE=-bi
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> IUSE="bindist" tends to be for adjusting a particular package so that
> it either is generic and CAN be binary-distributable, or will build as
> upstream intended (with, for instance, upstream branding) and
> therefore is not. Right?
Cor
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Based on Rich's suggestion my thought is have a new license group for
> things which are ALWAYS binary restricted, accepted by default, but
> removed from ACCEPT_LICENSE when USE=bindist. That is just what is
> rolling around in m
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:12:05 +0200
> Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> > The correct one should be xslt and that's it..
>>
>> Can you please motivate your opinion? Saying "that's it" is quite hostile.
>
> Terse maybe. Blunt.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> claiming breakage is a red herring. i'll wager that clarifying PMS to match
> realistic intentions and the largest PM won't break a single package.
> appending args over the econf args is asinine.
If many packages actually break with the
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> What ultimately got approved by the Council, and what implementers
> should be following, is the wording which ended up in PMS.
>
I can't speak for everywhere, but even in the highly regulated
environment I work in, an error in a specifica
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:42:22 +0200
> "viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
>> Now, is it possible to alter the behaviour of paludis to act, still
>> following the specs, in a way compatible with portage and which seem
>> more logical to the majority o
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Another analogy would be that these people are human versions of the
> kernel's trinity fuzz tester...
Requirements generally are not intended to be defensible to fuzz
testing, or completely determinate. Rather, they're inten
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> The most annoying fact is, that none of this would have been necessary with
> portage 2.2, but maybe we have to wait for 2.1.11.500 before 2.2 gets
> stable...
Actually, @preserved-rebuild is supported in the current stable
portage. It jus
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> I haven't ran revdep-rebuild for a year, you can set
> FEATURES="preserve-libs" which will preserve any libs, once libs are
> being preserved you can then get rid of them by doing an `emerge
> @preserved-rebuild` whenever you feel like as oppos
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> - genkernel needs to migrate to *udev (or as I did, provide a --udev
> genkernel option), mdev is unable to properly activate LVM volumes and
> LVM is actually working by miracle with openrc. Alternatively, we
> should migrate to dracut.
I'
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Er, we are. Following the spec is not a mistake. If there's a mistake,
> it was made by the Council when they approved the wording.
Both Portage and Paludis are following the spec. The spec isn't
incorrect, it just doesn't fully describe t
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Not all the Gentoo users are as skilled as you (a developer). Having a
> programmatic, bootloader agnostic way to swap /sbin/init is useful for
> the reasons I explained. Yet I haven't read any solid reason not to do
> that.
Well, there is
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM, hasufell wrote:
> We don't need that. We already get QA warnings for severe compiler
> warnings with a note that it should be reported upstream.
>
> Turning them into errors does not improve anything.
Yup - you can't really compare Gentoo build workflows with thos
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Hopefully we might have a gsoc student volunteering to make a
> runscript/lsb-script/systemd-unit compiler and a small abstraction so we
> write a single init.d script and generate what's needed.
> Probably we might even support pure-runit that
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
> would think it is better to add th
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added,
> removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit
> file-bearing package is added or removed from tree.
>
> That would be one insanely hot package.
Splittin
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> OpenRC can't support units directly; if this ever did happen it would
> have to be a tool that converts units to init scripts.
Or an init script skeleton that interprets a unit file. That seems
like it shouldn't be too hard to write for a
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Ambroz Bizjak wrote:
>> Init.d scripts are programs - they could probably do just about anything.
>
> They couldn't monitor a process and restart it when it crashes, as
> specified by the restart options in the unit file. That is, without
> significant modifications
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> You could be looking at someone trying to compromise your system through a
> buffer overflow or similar vulnerability. If you enable automatic respawn
> then congratulations, you just gave the attacker unlimited tries to guess
>
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:31:21PM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote
>
>> The overhead of the files' presence is trivial, and most users won't
>> care. Those who do care have a trivial line to add in make.conf, and
>> that is for the small number of p
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> We should probably consider extending the INSTALL_MASK a bit. A good
> idea would be to allow repositories to pre-define names
> for INSTALL_MASK (alike USE flags) and allow portage to control them
> over those names.
We'd need a correspondin
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
> and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream [1]
> Therefore I'd require an upstream bug for each unit that we add.
Makes sense, though I wouldn
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Adopting a package to distribution specifics is perfectly valid. But
> here it's about adding functionality to a package that wasn't there
> before. The usual reaction in such situations is to tell users to bug
> upstream about it first.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests
there. However, would an outright move be contrary to our social
contract?:
However, Gentoo will never depend upon a pie
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>
> This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> sad to witness this once again.
>
I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The concept of accepting
contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one. The problem i
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Taahir Ahmed wrote:
> It should be noted that the first position (that the dependencies specified in
> the ebuilds are not sufficient) is the position of cave's developers. I tend
> to agree -- How is cave to know that there hasn't been a brekaing change in a
> li
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM, wrote:
> - It supports "Merge Requests", which are almost the same as PRs on Github,
> which allows user contributions to be reviewed quite easily.
So, out of curiosity I set this up on a VM and started playing with it.
It seemed like the UI for merge requests
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Gerrit also requires letting the public push, but those pushes go
>> to a contained area and each commit is isolated.
>
> Hm, how do you mean isolated?
>
> Gerrit introduces the convention to
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all
> packages from the tree that have their upstream on github?
>
Considering that we allow even outright proprietary software in
portage which isn't distributed at all (
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea is
> to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate logind
> ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for GNOME users,
> unless the eudev team is going
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:10:03 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> - those not using the latest glibc (and maybe uclibc)
>
> Did you test this? Are there more specific details regarding this?
> Which version don't work? Is it known why?
>
>> - tho
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:25:11 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> In any case, there really isn't any "decision" to make here.
>
> Then for what purpose is this discussion still going on?
>
No comment
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:18 PM, wrote:
> Question... when Sun made OpenOffice depend on Java (also a Sun
> product) did Gentoo developers run around suggesting that Java be made a
> part of the core Gentoo base system? I don't think so. If a user wants
> to run GNOME badly enough, he'll swit
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> The decision was made long ago. Use flags are not the correct way to control
> solely the installation of a few small files.
This was really the heart of the discussion where the decision was made before.
USE flags should control thing
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> This is missing a reference URL or at least the ML thread subject; last
> time I asked, I didn't got either and wasn't able to find this in a
> reasonable amount of time. I find some irrelevant policy discussions
> but nothing that indicates t
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
Well, I have to at least thank you for turning this from just a
typical Gentoo flame-war into a breeding ground for LWN Quote of the
Week candidates.
Rich
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>>> or, without a response, try to get a different mainta
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> The amount of users misusing a knife or hammer is much lower than the
> amount of users misusing INSTALL_MASK.
Agreed. A typical user would almost never need to use INSTALL_MASK.
If they're using it, they're probably doing something wrong.
I
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> Are the sources for the auto-stable etc. script posted somewhere? I
> don't think i've actually seen a URL at all in this thread (or the one
> from a couple of months ago)..
By all means publish your script when done. That seems like
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then
>> working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to give
>> up maintainership.
>
> Yet another st
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not providing
> systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd integration
> and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I don't know that
> it is a
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Rich Freeman schrieb:
>>> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you.
>>> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Considering the design of OpenRC itself, it wouldn't be *that hard*.
>> Actually, a method similar to one used in oldnet would simply work.
>> That is, symlinking init.d files to a common 'syste
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>>
>> Where is this policy documented?
>
> Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common
> sense enough to me.
>
> If it is to be documented, I think we should
901 - 1000 of 2195 matches
Mail list logo
