[gentoo-dev] Re: newsitem: OpenRC 0.22 updates

2016-09-24 Thread »Q« 
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:39:50 -0500
William Hubbs  wrote:

> In previous versions of OpenRC, configuration information was
> processed so that service-specific configuration stored
> in /etc/conf.d/* was overridden by global configuration stored
> in /etc/rc.conf. This release reverses that. Global configuration is
> now overridden by service-specific configuration.

I get what this is saying, but it would be nice if practical
implications of it could be spelled out.

[gentoo-dev] Re: chromium-54 needs ffmpeg-3.0.1

2016-08-31 Thread »Q« 
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 01:59:21 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:

> Martin Vaeth posted on Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:08:17 + as excerpted:

> > There's palemoon  
> 
> For Linux?  I haven't looked into it personally, but I had read that 
> palemoon was MS-platform only.  So it's news to me if it's available
> for Linux.  Thanks very much for clearing that up for me if it's
> available for Linux, also!

 says it's in Gentoo overlays, but I don't
know which ones.

[gentoo-dev] Re: the graveyard overlay

2016-07-08 Thread »Q« 
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500
William Hubbs  wrote:

> There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the
> official tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it
> doesn't have an active maintainer.
> 
> I don't know why we haven't been using this, but using it more than we
> have makes a lot of sense.

Completely aside from the question of criteria for removing stuff from
the main tree, it would make a lot of users happy if every package
which *is* removed were added to the graveyard overlay.

[gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge

2016-04-10 Thread »Q« 
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 21:18:37 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> 
> > Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr
> > mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in /
> > that could conceivably be needed during early boot we'd end up with
> > everything there.  Bluetooth keyboards is a common example.  The
> > console should work during early boot, right?  
> 
>   Seriously... how many people run Bluetooth keyboards on Gentoo
> anyways?

The sarcasm and the rhetorical questions make it tough to tell -- are
you trying here to make an argument that Gentoo should commit to
supporting boot without /usr mounted early?

[gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge

2016-04-09 Thread »Q« 
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> 
> > It was simply a recognition that we were already in a state where
> > booting a system without /usr mounted early can cause problems.  
> 
> For certain edge cases... yes.  But they were already using
> initramfs or merging /usr into /.  I'm talking about the 95% who
> don't really need it.

Booting without /usr mounted early is something Gentoo already doesn't
support and can't support, right?

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

2016-02-10 Thread »Q« 
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:27:50 -0500
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote
> > On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote:  

> > > the way we're running udev is strongly
> > > discouraged and generally not supported by upstream, with a
> > > statement that it /will/ break in the future, it's simply a
> > > matter of time.   
> > 
> > start a thread then when that actually happens  
> 
>   The problem with that approach is that all at once the Gentoo forum
> will be hit with questions by a whole bunch of people who will have to
> migrate to either eudev or systemd on a short deadline.

That will happen anyway, assuming upstream is right that standalone
udev will break someday;  changing the default to openrc/eudev or to
systemd would prompt a few people to look at change their existing
systems, but most would just leave things alone and carry on.  

> As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
> cure.  I believe that the best way to handle a crisis is to prevent
> it in the first place.  That means getting into a lifeboat before
> standalone udev sinks.

IMO, the lifeboats are already in place.  Never having looked into it
before yesterday, I went to  and
within a couple of minutes I had switched from udev to eudev, including
rebooting.  (I was lucky enough -- eudev was just a drop-in replacement
for me.)

All that said, ISTM sticking with standalone udev as default when
upstream does not support that seems strange, not that strangeness ever
ruled anything out in Gentoo. ;)

[gentoo-dev] Re: New packages up for grabs

2016-01-24 Thread »Q« 
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:37:42 +0100
Hans de Graaff  wrote:

> > net-nntp/leafnode  
> 
> I'll take this.

If you've got enough cycles to spare, I'd love to see an ebuild for
leafnode-2.  I realize that's asking a lot and that upstream's
apparent position is that it will be in perpetual alpha.  When it was
removed from the Gentoo tree, I tried writing an updated ebuild, but it
was beyond me.

Whether you take on leafnode-2 or not, thanks for maintaining
leafnode. :)

[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrites: app-admin/rigo, app-misc/magneto-loader, kde-misc/magneto-kde, x11-misc/magneto-gtk, x11-misc/magneto-gtk3, sys-apps/rigo-daemon, sys-apps/magneto-core, net-fs/tahoe-lafs,

2016-01-06 Thread »Q« 
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:12:34 +
Amadeusz Żołnowski  wrote:

> Pacho Ramos  writes:
> > # Pacho Ramos  (06 Jan 2016)
> > # Unmaintained, upstream dead, doesn't work, bug #548920. Removal
> > in a # month.
> > app-admin/checkrestart  
> 
> I am taking the package.

Thanks!  You might want to have a look at needrestart, which (I think)
has replaced checkrestart upstream.

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

2015-11-18 Thread »Q« 
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:05:26 +0100
Ulrich Mueller  wrote:

> > On 18/11/15 08:25, Ulrich Mueller wrote:  
> >> - If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition an 
> >> advanced user, who will be able to cope with the situation. :)
  
> Only that there is no real difference to the existing situation when
> mixing stable and unstable. It is not guaranteed that all dependencies
> of an unstable package are stable, so already now users may have to
> accept the ~ keyword for dependencies in some cases. Similarly, such
> users may have to accept EAPI 6 for some dependencies, which implies
> that they install a package manager supporting EAPI 6.

When ~ keywording is needed for dependencies, the PM's output makes it
clear what's needed.  In cases where EAPI 6 is needed for dependencies
but the PM is unaware of EAPI 6, will there be good clues in the PM's
output that the PM itself needs to be ~ keyworded?

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

2015-11-18 Thread »Q« 
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:06:23 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, »Q«  wrote:  
> 
> > When ~ keywording is needed for dependencies, the PM's output makes
> > it clear what's needed. In cases where EAPI 6 is needed for
> > dependencies but the PM is unaware of EAPI 6, will there be good
> > clues in the PM's output that the PM itself needs to be ~
> > keyworded?  
> 
> IIRC, portage will output a message like "masked by EAPI" along with
> a longer explanation that you should upgrade portage to a version
> aware of that EAPI.

Thanks.  ISTM that's plenty, and as a mostly-stable user with a 
few ~ packages it's all I'd hope for.

[gentoo-dev] Re: firefox gtk3 status, danger of gtk2 in-tree deprecation? (was: www-client/chromium gtk3 support)

2015-09-09 Thread »Q« 
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:06:30 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:

> So what's the gentoo gtk3 firefox status, 

Ian or someone can probably give more info, but there are builds in the
mozilla overlay which use gtk3.

> While I'm at it, what about claws-mail, which I use but which is
> still gtk2 based?

I haven't seen any interest from Claws devs to transition to gtk3, but
someone's just cited your post in the bug for it,
.

[gentoo-dev] Re: news item for udev 197-r3 upgrade (yes, I know, it's late)

2013-01-23 Thread »Q« 
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:49:09 -0800
Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote:

 On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:03:15 +0100
 Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
 
  On 01/23/2013 04:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:  
   System seems to work fine, so I'm not sure how essential that line
   is. The fact that I'm using an initramfs might also have an
   effect.  
  
  I'd strongly suggest using CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y.
  and stop worring about udev/openrc.
  
  udev/openrc stopped re-mounting /dev that last year.

 Are you sure? I have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT disabled, latest stable
 udev (197-r3) and openrc (0.11.8), and no /dev line in my fstab, yet
 my /dev is still a devtmpfs with a proper set of device nodes.

Me too.  It looks like /etc/init.d/udev-mount mounts it if the kernel
hasn't, but I'd like to know more about whatever best practice is.

[gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping localepurge

2012-01-30 Thread »Q« 
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:09:57 -0500
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:

 On Sunday 29 January 2012 00:01:50 Philip Webb wrote:

  Below is the output from 'localepurge' after this week's system
  update. Please don't drop it till 'should' does = 'does'.
 
 the vast majority of that output comes from like 3 or 4 packages.
 file bugs if you want things to actually get fixed.
 -mike

That was only from one week of updates.  localepurge routinely cleans
quite a bit for me, though I can't guess how many packages.

I'll start filing bugs (as time permits - this doesn't seem like an
urgent issue to me) and see what happens.

AIUI, LINGUAS is the only variable that should affect what locale stuff
gets installed.  Is that right?  Before filing bugs, I'd like to be
sure my results aren't because of bad settings on my end.

I have 

$ grep -i linguas /etc/make.conf
LINGUAS=en_US en

$ env | grep LANG
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
LANGUAGE=

$ env | grep LC_
LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8

Today's offender was webkit, putting a lot of stuff
in /usr/share/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/

[gentoo-dev] Re: Keeping older versions around

2012-01-29 Thread »Q« 
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:17:48 -0600
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:

 On 21:33 Sat 28 Jan , Ryan Hill wrote:
  I've run into this three times today, so I'm a little grumpy.  When
  you bump to a new ~arch version, please consider keeping at least
  one previous ~arch version around, so if people run into major
  issues they can at lease try the previously installed version to
  determine if it's your package at fault. Recent version bumps to
  two libraries have completely trashed a package I maintain, and the
  only option for my users is downgrading them to stable, which
  requires downgrading several other libraries.  In both cases, the
  previous ~arch version, which worked fine, was removed.
  
  Personally I always try to keep two versions in ~arch and one
  stable, excepting security or other major bugs that render an older
  version useless.
 
 Agreed with a slight modification — once you've kept the old 
 {stable,~arch} version around for a reasonable amount of time (say 30 
 days), you should be safe pulling it.

As a user, I'd very much like that to be policy.  It would remove the
main reason I stay away from ~ versions, so I'd use more of them and
file more (hopefully useful) bug reports.

[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: app-misc/gfontview

2007-04-07 Thread »Q« 
In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 070407 Stefan Schweizer wrote:
  # masked for removal: no release since 2001, build broken, bug
  154671 app-misc/gfontview  
 
 I have added a comment to the bug.
 If you want to remove this package, please provide a better
 explanation.

The bug is now marked invalid, but I'm not clear on what's happening,
because the last comment also justifies removal.  Is gfontview still
scheduled for removal?

-- 
»Q«

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla

2007-03-24 Thread »Q« 
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Closing INVALID is like saying they never had an issue - when clearly
 they did have an issue, even if it was just an issue of understanding.

If bugs.gentoo.org users think that it's like saying there's no issue,
ISTM the problem is with their understanding of bugzilla.

IMO a bugs.gentoo.org faq could help, with info about how to file a
useful bug, what to do if your bug is marked invalid, etc.  I'm not
qualified to write such a thing (at least not a good one), so all I can
do is toss the idea into the list.

-- 
»Q«

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] splitting one source package into many binaries

2005-06-16 Thread =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rafael_Esp=EDndola?= 
I am using Gentoo to build some small systems. While things like the
minimal useflag is a joy, the monolithic nature of most gentoo
packages is a headache.

Kde has been spit and libstdc++ can be installed without gcc but there
are many other packages that don't have this feature. For example,
installing qt also installs qt designer.

Has someone worked on changing ebuild so that it could create many
binary packages from one source? Something similar to debian's
dpkg-buildpackage. For example, it would be wonderful to be able to do

ebuild qt-something.ebuild split-package

and have in /usr/portage/packages a package for qt-designer and a
package for the rest of the library.

Is this a bad idea or simply not the Gentoo way?

Thanks for any comments

--
Rafael vila de Espndola

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list