[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] udev.eclass: minor @USAGE fixes

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/udev.eclass | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/udev.eclass b/eclass/udev.eclass index baf60584938..2873ae9a92c 100644 --- a/eclass/udev.eclass +++ b/eclass/udev.eclass @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ get_udevdir

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] texlive-common.eclass: fix several @USAGE problems

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/texlive-common.eclass | 14 +++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/texlive-common.eclass b/eclass/texlive-common.eclass index e9a2eee65bd..b36be7a4db3 100644 --- a/eclass/texlive-common.eclass +++ b/eclass/texlive

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] s6.eclass: minor @USAGE fixes

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/s6.eclass | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/s6.eclass b/eclass/s6.eclass index 32521515497..245df1e1118 100644 --- a/eclass/s6.eclass +++ b/eclass/s6.eclass @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ s6_get_servicedir

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ruby-fakegem.eclass: function name typo fix & minor @USAGE fixes

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/ruby-fakegem.eclass | 14 +++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/ruby-fakegem.eclass b/eclass/ruby-fakegem.eclass index a6a7654f9e6..f75e1669b0c 100644 --- a/eclass/ruby-fakegem.eclass +++ b/eclass/ruby

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] qmail.eclass: minor @USAGE fix

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/qmail.eclass | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/qmail.eclass b/eclass/qmail.eclass index 150b6c00aab..8dd3ae99043 100644 --- a/eclass/qmail.eclass +++ b/eclass/qmail.eclass @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ dospp() { } # @FUNCTION

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] prefix.eclass: minor @USAGE fix

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/prefix.eclass | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/eclass/prefix.eclass b/eclass/prefix.eclass index 8ae3e3a531d..435e99fdf92 100644 --- a/eclass/prefix.eclass +++ b/eclass/prefix.eclass @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ hprefixify

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] perl-app.eclass: remove unneeded @USAGE lines

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/perl-app.eclass | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/perl-app.eclass b/eclass/perl-app.eclass index 6b762dd83b3..074902294e5 100644 --- a/eclass/perl-app.eclass +++ b/eclass/perl-app.eclass @@ -21,7 +21,6 @@ case "${EAPI:-0}"

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] bash-completion-r1.eclass: minor @USAGE syntax fixes

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/bash-completion-r1.eclass | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/bash-completion-r1.eclass b/eclass/bash-completion-r1.eclass index 7a69f485a74..636371df9d6 100644 --- a/eclass/bash-completion-r1.eclass +++ b/eclass

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] common-lisp-3.eclass: fix various @USAGE inconsistencies

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Some of these functions are missing @USAGE even though they do require arguments. There's also a redundant function name in a few places. Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/common-lisp-3.eclass | 10 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/common-lisp

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] tmpfiles.eclass: fix @USAGE to not include function name

2019-09-06 Thread Ben Kohler
Signed-off-by: Ben Kohler --- eclass/tmpfiles.eclass | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/tmpfiles.eclass b/eclass/tmpfiles.eclass index 68478ffbcd6..360c5e3b816 100644 --- a/eclass/tmpfiles.eclass +++ b/eclass/tmpfiles.eclass @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ esac

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support

2018-08-22 Thread Ben Kohler
Hi guys, For some time now, we've been shipping broken i486 stage3s that do not run on pre-i686 hardware [1]. Due to a change in catalyst [2], we no longer set CXXFLAGS in the default make.conf, so the x86 profiles' (imho wrong/broken) defaults [3] kick in. I'd like to get this fixed, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

2018-07-26 Thread Ben Kohler
On 07/26/2018 02:59 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: Hi! On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

2018-07-25 Thread Ben Kohler
On 07/25/2018 02:28 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: Adding udev to the base profile will make customization much harder for people unwilling to use udev. This is the problem. To stay on the original track, I was suggesting adding it to the linux profile component, not base. And people who are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

2018-07-20 Thread Ben Kohler
On 07/19/18 23:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > No I'm not. I'm saying add them per-package, because it's a better > design. We have package.use in profiles now, not just IUSE defaults. > > Global defaults have problems: > > * They can't be undone. It's next to impossible for me to undo >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

2018-07-20 Thread Ben Kohler
On 07/19/18 22:40, Benda Xu wrote: > > To represent the Gentoo Prefix users, we would like to have USE=udev > turned off or even hard masked on linux-prefix profiles. > > Yours, > Benda > I believe this is an argument in favor of moving the default to profiles then, out of IUSE defaults,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

2018-07-20 Thread Ben Kohler
On 07/19/18 20:54, Mikle Kolyada wrote: > +1. widely used profiles should have as least flags enabled by default > as possible, I would not be happy with +udev on my servers. > I disagree with this premise. The default and most widely used profiles should fit the most common use cases. I'd be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

2018-07-19 Thread Ben Kohler
On 07/19/2018 05:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: Please add defaults per-package, only where they make sense. Enabling flags globally creates a huge headache for people that want them off. If I want to undo your new flag, I have to set USE="-udev" globally, and that clobbers any important

[gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

2018-07-19 Thread Ben Kohler
Hello, I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite a few packages used on non-desktop linux systems. This flag provides useful functionality that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: News: systemd sysv-utils blocker resolution

2017-12-26 Thread Ben Kohler
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Does this still cause a warning? I thought that openrc/sysvinit were > now pulled in via a virtual these days (alongside systemd), and were > not directly in @system. Or do we still have functions.sh issues? > > -- > Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

2017-07-13 Thread Ben Kohler
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > We are actually talking about protecting people who run something like > rm -rf /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/ as root. > > If you are dumb enough to do something like that, you almost deserve > to spend a couple hundred on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Ben Kohler
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > If people understood, then saying use -c or -C makes no sense. It does > not address the lack of output from either I am talking about. > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. > I really thought I understood you in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Ben Kohler
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > Not sure why anyone would have objection to such a warning like exists > for other things. Or providing more information to the user as to why a > package was not removed, or should not be removed. > > -- >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Ben Kohler
> > > - The -c option should say why it will not remove. > > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. > It does, if you use the --verbose flag. This is mentioned in your emerge output a few times. -Ben

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Ben Kohler
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > ... > Calculating dependencies... done! > >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean > >>> To see reverse dependencies, use --verbose > Packages installed: 1779 > Packages in world:194 > ... > #

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

2017-07-10 Thread Ben Kohler
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:15:35 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > # emerge -pC tomcat-servlet-api > > * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, > > use > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-09 Thread Ben Kohler
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I support the idea of a profile-set variable that determines whether or > not IUSE is respected. Minimalists get their systems faster, we get > something that adds to Gentoo's versatility and an additional profile. > Of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uppercase characters in package names

2016-12-03 Thread Ben Kohler
> > > Keep in mind some will emerge libraries dependencies for their own projects > and development. They do not always have to be merged as a dependency of > another package. > > It might be confusing to know when it is acceptable to use mixed case and > not. > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub-2 configuration

2016-10-08 Thread Ben Kohler
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Tom H wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:34 PM, William Hubbs > wrote: > > > > You don't have to use grub-mkconfig. You can write /boot/grub/grub.cfg > > by hand if you want, and it appears that the syntax is documented in

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

2016-02-17 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > > I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for > virtual/udev to have subdiscussions about kdbus. Practically everyone on > the list thinks eudev is the best choice. > I think a lot of us appreciate

Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

2015-09-29 Thread Ben Kohler
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:43 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/29/2015 03:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > [...] > > I have waited 9 days. I don't see a reason to wait another few weeks, > just because you like to bikeshed a lot. > > I honestly feel like you are wasting my time,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Problems updating Qt from 4.8.6 to 4.8.7

2015-07-05 Thread Ben Kohler
4.8.7 version of some component would not meet the USE requirements of some reverse dep. Then it'd lock that one component at 4.8.6 and again it's game-over for the upgrade. Hope this helps, Ben Kohler (iamben @ Freenode)

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is a line in /usr/portage/profiles/base/package.use.mask ignored?

2015-02-25 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, gro...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello *, dev-lisp/ecls-15.2.21 does not compiled with USE=cpu_flags_x86_sse. So, I've added the line =dev-lisp/ecls-15.2.21 cpu_flags_x86_sse to .../profiles/base/package.use.mask. But I still see dns ~ # emerge -pv dev-lisp/ecls

Re: [gentoo-dev] do we need special elog messages for bindist?

2015-02-25 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: I would like to remove the elog for a couple of reasons: 1. The use flag description is there for whoever cares to read it. There is no need to alert the user every time. 2. We are not lawyers, and I have no business

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Review: news item and script for CPU_FLAGS_X86

2015-01-23 Thread Ben Kohler
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: 3. Put it in an ebuild, after all. This will add a lot of complexity but GPG comes for free, plus some people will actually test and stabilize it. I think this should be in an ebuild. You mentioned that it's only needed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

2014-06-04 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: Wrong. I'm always using the -t (--tree) flag with Portage and I would have seen upower being the culprit immediately, and second command would have been `eix upower` to see available versions, at which point I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anyone with access to genkernel repository? Or should genkernel be p.masked on amd64 profiles?

2014-05-30 Thread Ben Kohler
, exit, give it to the genkernel maintainer and we're done. -Ben Kohler

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anyone with access to genkernel repository? Or should genkernel be p.masked on amd64 profiles?

2014-05-30 Thread Ben Kohler
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: Good idea, we really could use some kind of kernel seeds in the Portage tree; if someone is willing to maintain them, knowing that Pappy has maintained them for years and spoke about it it seems like hard work. Remember

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Feature Request: making thirdpartymirrors easier to manage

2014-01-09 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alex Xu alex_y...@yahoo.ca wrote: Eww. Geographically-close files should be made available through GENTOO_MIRRORS and the regular distfiles system. I think you may be missing the point of this proposal, or are unaware of how profiles/thirdpartymirrors and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Feature Request: making thirdpartymirrors easier to manage

2014-01-09 Thread Ben Kohler
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote: This is a small feature request, but it will require a modification to PMS, so I describe it here. The present thirdpartymirrors file is unwieldy, and difficult to manage due to it's format with very long lines. It

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS

2014-01-09 Thread Ben Kohler
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote: According to distro watch: ... According to Linux Counter ... What are distro watch and linux counter and who cares what their opt-in stats gathering says? -most Gentoo users I've ever talked to I think if you drop the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Recommend cronie instead of vixie-cron in handbook?

2013-12-13 Thread Ben Kohler
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Sergey Popov wrote: Last time I checked, vixie-cron upstream was died If vixie-cron upstream is dead as you say Define dead? Bugs are not fixed for a very long time, no answers on private e-mails or in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Recommend cronie instead of vixie-cron in handbook?

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: I think that nobody who is not intimately familiar with the development in both projects can think anything that is actionable. It's insulting to see how people all over the internet run as fast as they possibly can in

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

2013-12-06 Thread Ben Kohler
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: If the stage3 could include a dhcp client and (ideally imo) netifrc, even though they aren't a part of @system, that would help prevent the stuff missing, damnit, have to reboot back to livecd cycle. Since it isn't part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

2013-08-10 Thread Ben Kohler
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: Support for it is given all over the place; like for instance in #gentoo and #gentoo-desktop on the FreeNode IRC network, on the Gentoo Forums, on the gentoo-user ML as well as for bugs on the Bugzilla bug tracker. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

2013-08-08 Thread Ben Kohler
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Any users trying this sidegrade will be left without support and risk being ridiculed by annoyed bystanders. There are many of us supporting systemd + gnome 3.8 in #gentoo right now today, and I am strongly discouraging

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: To be clear: I am not suggesting to change the meaning of stable, I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. How to make that happen is less important, the idea

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

2013-04-02 Thread Ben Kohler
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable. Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers

Re: [gentoo-dev] New install isos needed

2013-03-25 Thread Ben Kohler
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Tend to agree. To install Gentoo you really just need a shell, the ability to partition and create filesystems, some basic networking (even that is somewhat optional), and a text editor. Sure, a browser and such is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] New install isos needed

2013-03-24 Thread Ben Kohler
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.netwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Making an install ISO is as pointless as writing a CMS for Gentoo.org... Gentoo should only bother if it is really necessary. ZSH-related bugs fixed ? Link

Re: [gentoo-dev] New install isos needed

2013-03-24 Thread Ben Kohler
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.netwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 24/03/13 20:32, Ben Kohler wrote: I really feel like we should still have an official minimal iso Feelings do not matter. - -- Alexander As a very active

Re: [gentoo-dev] New install isos needed

2013-03-24 Thread Ben Kohler
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.netwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 24/03/13 20:32, Ben Kohler wrote: I really feel like we should still have an official minimal iso Feelings do not matter. - -- Alexander Just to add a bit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] RFC: Graveyard project

2013-02-15 Thread Ben Kohler
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: I expect to see the full result one would have to emerge -epv [package] , at least that will report the repos for all *DEPENDs (although it is a bit overkill to have users submit that in the general case) There are

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

2013-01-21 Thread Ben Kohler
defaults. Of course, that adds another factor to the USE=dri in profile versus package-default discussion, too. -Ben Kohler

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

2012-12-28 Thread Ben Kohler
, as has been previously discussed. Is this doable or is that another issue to be tackled another day? -Ben Kohler

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing server profile variants from profiles.desc

2012-10-17 Thread Ben Kohler
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: please stop top posting. you're making a mess of this whole thread. sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to include a description so that people know the intention of each one. the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing server profile variants from profiles.desc

2012-10-14 Thread Ben Kohler
I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed. These server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist in their current form. Your previous statement that these are the most minimal profiles, is not accurate. The base profiles are the most minimal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing server profile variants from profiles.desc

2012-10-12 Thread Ben Kohler
This is why I said that the server profile are no lighter than the base. It's actually the base PLUS snmp truetype xml. My original suggestion of hiding or removing the server profiles was based on the assumption that no one wants to maintain it. The server profiles *in their current state* are

[gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing server profile variants from profiles.desc

2012-10-11 Thread Ben Kohler
at its make.defaults. If this target is being kept around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without presenting it as a viable option for new users. Thoughts? -Ben Kohler

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing server profile variants from profiles.desc

2012-10-11 Thread Ben Kohler
There are other ways to achieve a lighter system, but that's not really what this is about. The server profiles are not any lighter than the base profiles. To those in favor of keeping some kind of server profile around, how would it differ from the base profile? What would you enable or