Retiring (Was Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning^2)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote: So far we have temporarily suspended both ciaran's and geoman's account from posting and encourage everyone to do as Roy initially suggested. Regardless of whether their postings are viewed as useful or not, this action has gone too far in my opinion. As Gentoo now appears to condone this type of behavior when "dealing" with what are perceived to be problems, I no longer wish to be a part of Gentoo. While at this point there is very little chance of anyone convincing me to return, I hope that the people who can still derive enjoyment from Gentoo continue to do so. Infra, please remove my accounts at your earliest convenience. Thanks, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGZdkWdKvgdVioq28RAllxAJwMeDIDLgt9sOJ3KYds1OpioVWxHACeMM4l mh2EB41ne19EugLwZjBsBKw= =i6O5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages not yet converted to Manifest2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Marius Mauch wrote: Updated versions of the list will be available at dev.gentoo.org/~genone/reports/mf2 Please provide complete URLs. It's not so hard to type an extra 7 characters :) Also your mail client does not appear to line-wrap. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF3JDxdKvgdVioq28RAoFiAJ9zwbp02+R2NXui2mRcvggQPxeU7QCbBBWq QoJHc/OPnat3SJfYZqDeQ4A= =OgS1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Another council topic for Feb
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:31:02 +0100 Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for the proposal itself, I'd add a suggestion to let the arch team > know by e-mail about it, so they can maintain general knowledge > (better wording here, probably) about their (~)keyword in the tree. Please do not change the policy to allow people who are not in arch teams to keyword anything for a given arch BEFORE getting approval from that arch team. This goes for any type of keyword. People did this before and it resulted in "bad things, man". Yeah we may be sometimes slow to respond and a bit under staffed, but that burning hole in your committing pocket can wait. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Dropping keywords is bad, m'kay
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Apparently people are starting to drop arch keywords again without notifying arch teams in any way, shape or form. As the developer handbook indicates, it is greatly appreciated and makes for much smoother workings with the arch teams if you'd at least give us a bug indicating why you felt the need to drop our keywords from a revision or version bump of a package. Not to be a hard ass, but repeat offenders will be reported to both the QA and DevRel teams. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFwLlrdKvgdVioq28RAqgYAJ0VOVtZPE1LB2GGuknZDmypoZ71wQCffU+N 6/rZ/KbL6XuVA1yMQUtWGT4= =RlIA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add ALSA_CARDS to USE_EXPAND
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:22:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For SPARC, I'd say at lesat the following by their name, but also > here I'd leave to the arch team to provide suggestions Please add ali5451 as this is used on Blade 100 and Blade 150 Sun workstations. Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority. Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between package maintainers asking questions, and a Gentoo user filling the void left by the responses from the arch team folks. Well, lets use an example. If SPARC had a breakage in the system profile and a security bug in say, phpmyadmin, the system profile breakage is going to take priority as it impacts every SPARC user's ability to use and/or install Gentoo on Linux/SPARC. However, phpmyadmin impacts a much smaller segment of the Gentoo Linux/SPARC user base, so its not as much of a problem. Obviously some of this is going to be relative. If the security issue was a remote unauthorized DoS, buffer overflow resulting in a root shell particularly in the system profile packages, then it would probably take priority over the latest request to stabilize or add testing keywords to random package maintainer's package. That being said, Gentoo Linux/SPARC normally does try to handle Security issues before others if the others aren't critical. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFR3IBdKvgdVioq28RArMdAJ49AsBl3DjtA5n22atL7FpY0jYwVACeLeV7 PPBLoaGVvBRWQRh3Qnn1VLs= =BAvM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] oracle use flag masking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 To whomever added the oracle use flag, Please mask it on all architectures Oracle doesn't support on Linux. Or better yet, mask it everywhere and only unmask it on the architectures that support Oracle. Thanks, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFRnz9dKvgdVioq28RAqmwAJ4n6oLGOjHGJXdzROkU+Bx39MnteQCfT0Da NLiEFWp0PwItWOVL6PMRK8A= =bz8I -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, Apparently its been too long since I've sent one of these out, as people are starting to slip up and break the tree again. Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't do any of the following (which are punishable by death): 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especially when resulting in broken dependencies. 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no stable ebuild available after the removal Consider yourself warned. Violation of any of these will cause the jforman death goat squad to be dispatched to your location for a discreet hit. For repeat offenders, public executions will be had, with Spanky hosting. Thanks :) - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFRWg1dKvgdVioq28RAj+tAJ4o4sDm3gMHXFJD93p7A3sQfDIjQwCfRGoo 83p8MPbKPzjgbkM0B684l8M= =hGcH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:46:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > too bad sparc is tied to old kernels and ppc64 toolchain is useless Depends on your sparc64 box. Most of them are fairly stable now. Its just the SBUS boxes and some of the pricier hardware that may be problematic. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New libcaca license
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:16:19 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If nobody has a problem with this next evening (UTC+2), I'll commit > libcaca-0.99 under p.mask and this license to the licenses directory. You appear to be violating the license by considering anyone else's opinion but your own :-P -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:56:01 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > huh ? i think you're thinking of per-package use.mask, not > per-package use defaults Oh yeah good call. -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:57:44 +0100 "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a package maintainer, I'm happy :) Is this going to cause problems > for arch teams at all? I hope not. I've been looking forward to this for arch specific reasons (like if package foo fails to build with the perl use flag enabled but only on arch bar, arch bar can mask it but no other arches are affected). Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Peter Gordon wrote: Zac Medico wrote: The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user. If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional, and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something? This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature that folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to be on by default. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE2Nc2dKvgdVioq28RAuwsAJ4vK8SgA1ghZmon2zRWIltyA/8OCQCcD6Dn XYD/+4B+vVEDYpz9ahGpcxM= =cP0R -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten?? wrote: But as when I asked it was considered "low priority", then you can start barking at portage devs, instead of me. I know some of us arch team ninjas asked for this in bug #96368 some time ago. For us it would be very very handy to be able to do this rather than lots of stuff like "foo? (!arch bar baz)" and the like as well as printing out additional ewarns to note that this use flag doesn't work on this arch for this package that no one ever sees. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEt8cSdKvgdVioq28RAiHIAKCOvHET5vWYJ1tL1boX16VKY/WrzgCgklpS SOmbeqoQVdyDuIoClI1FHYA= =T0Pq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] SpanKY's Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2007
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:04:38 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i guess i'll start off some mass nominations of random people off the > top of my head who i think would do a good job ... there's a bunch > more people i think would do a good job, but i'm going to cut my list > short as it's already ridiculously long ... Thanks for the nomination! :) However I don't feel that I currently have the time to put towards this that it needs. Here is hoping towards next year :) Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] mozilla{-bin}/gecko-sdk masking
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:39:39 -0500
"Jory A. Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As many are aware by now mozilla{-bin} are full of security issues. I
> will be p.masking them tonight along with gecko-sdk. This is gonna
> cause some issues with stable tree I am aware of this. As packages
> break please reference bug
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137665 If you are able to
> provide a patch or diff against problem please provide and I or the
> dev/herd that maintaines will test and apply it as soon as possible.
>
> I was left with no option as packages are still being updated in the
> tree without being ported to seamonkey/firefox. Sorry for any
> inconvience this may cause you the user, but devs should be held
> responsible as they have had plenty of time to work out the problems.
Seamonkey doesn't even work on at least one architecture. Please do
not mask mozilla until this is fixed. If the security issues are a
problem and you do not want to do the backporting work, then please
make them available so that other architectures that cannot use
Seamonkey at this time can attempt to do something with them.
Also as you knew Seamonkey was broken on at least one architecture
before you did this, why didn't you attempt to let us know when
exactly you were doing this so we could have some working alternative in
place?
--
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Default useflag cleanups: -apm -foomaticdb -fortran -imlib -motif -oss -xmms
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Stefan Schweizer wrote: -xmms - xmms depends on gtk-1 and has been superseeded by audacious/bmpx At least on SPARC (and possibly other arches, but I'll let them speak for themselves), there has yet to be an XMMS compatible replacement that is anywhere near as stable as XMMS is. Until audacious or bmpx or the latest fork of a GTK2 based XMMS derivative is on par with XMMS, I'd like to ask that it stay in the tree (assuming no security issues pop up that we decide not to patch). Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEhaw0dKvgdVioq28RArT1AKCokQ0IKHDrgEQ7ugH+6+NlncpvHgCgofV0 K49fS9iBPdiqw0pwGXmzC14= =PCMT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] evolution of x86 stabling procedures
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:00:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are other arch's also requiring peer review? On SPARC, we normally keyword everything ourselves and get all up in your hizzouze if you keyword something that you haven't asked us about. We normally will let devs keyword their packages once we have an assurance that they have access to appropriate hardware to test things, and keep track of this via a list on the devwiki SPARC page. We have a couple of scripts that email us keyword info on ebuilds so we can watch and see who may be doing bad things. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] I'm retiring
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:56:13 -0700 "Rob Holland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I've done very little Gentoo work in last few months and have > generally lost interest in Gentoo, I'll be retiring. Sorry, but as your last mentor, I cannot permit this to happen :) Good luck with future endeavours and if you ever happen to come across a soft ice cream machine for the dev lounge... Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Version bumps, keywords and you
Hello fellow developers, It's that time of the where I send off an email reminding people on what not to do when bumping versions of packages when it comes to keywords. 1) Please do not drop arch keywords without notifying the arch teams of why (bugs are often the preferred notification method). 2) If possible, attempt to work with us before dropping our keywords. We normally don't bite unless people miss the above steps or the developer's nickname is geoman. In the really off chance that you've just had a run-in with a Vorgon poetry session and are thinking that this email is really for the birds, please consult your friendly neighborhood developer handbook as this is all in there too. Remember, only you can save the goats from jforman. Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:39:15 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Latest list: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_maintainers.txt.20060202 Returns a 404 -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:35:07 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if there are archs that would rather not move to modular X, that's > their prerogative. The way I look at it is, sometimes change comes at > a price. I really hope they aren't any archs I use though, because I > take a certain amount of pride in making the best and newest X > available. When people remask it, it's like they're directly battling > against the whole reason I'm involved in Gentoo. As an arch team, SPARC would like to move to modular X. However if packages are broken by this unmasking, it *will* be masked on SPARC until such a time that this is fixed. Also a complaint will be filed with developer relations and QA as this blatantly and knowingly defies the policies regarding keywording that were put in place to intentionally prohibit this kind of behavior. I'm not trying to be a party pooper here, but breaking the portage tree should never be an acceptable answer. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for www-apps/phpmp
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:44:22 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > www-apps/phpmp has been package masked and will be removed from the > tree in about a week. It is being superseded by www-apps/phpmp2. > Please post comments to http://bugs.gentoo.org/74951 In the future, if you are going to mask a package that will be superseded by another, please make sure not to mask the original until the replacement has matching keywords. This is especially important when the package has stable keywords. Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Textrels in packages policy
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:25:57 + Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask > upstream to fix the issues. for example, we just reported executable > stacks with the ut2004 game and Ryan of epicgames was so kind as to > fix it up for us. some upstream peeps dont even know about these sort > of things until you point them out. Not to redirect the thread, but can someone point me to stuff on executable stacks (what they are and the background info on the warnings in portage)? If these are anywhere near critical, then I think a lot of us non-x86 arch monkeys have a lot of work on our hands. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:17:31 -0600 R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable > already. They did so without problem and without extra docs. Why > does x86, the last to switch, need to be special-cased? Actually, SPARC isn't even onto gcc-3.4 in testing keywords yet in the non-testing profiles. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] MySQL 4.0 => 4.1 upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Francesco R wrote: Please notice that MySQL-5.0 has been erroneously unmasked for few hours but it will return under the package.mask cover at next rsync. The MySQL herd is pleased to announce that Mysql 4.1 has been unmasked today and is now marked unstable. Is there any particular reason that the utf8 use flag was re-introduced rather than using the unicode use flag like everything else does (and was standardized on)? Regards, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJGAcdKvgdVioq28RAqNpAJ9nxomCJzrxwR7KaCJcqo7RxJgf/wCgq0rs xLmF7FpAQxpzjxDTmgDbIos= =HXX3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:18:41 +0200 Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's the definition of a "non-arch dev"? Is it a dev not in an arch > team? That would be my understanding. > And the final paragraph: > "Ciaranm and weeve have noted that it is occasionally necessary for > arch teams to override a package maintainer when it comes to stabling > a package. Stuart has asserted that in those cases the arch team > should be willing to take on the support burden for that package." > > Overriding here means stabling before the maintainer does it, not > keeping it in unstable while the maintainer wants to mark it stable, > right? Mostly us needing to stabilize sooner, but in some cases the opposite is true as well (for instance cases where it works for some but not others). Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgprD5XNtoZFc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:54:02 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe the answer is to have separate trees for arches and general > packages then? That would be one solution. > > (Although not one that I'd personally prefer. I'd rather the package > maintainers learned to work within the rules instead.) I agree, I'd rather keep things as they are (and supposed to be) rather than do weird things like have arch specific trees. However, package maintainers (particularly in the scripting herds) need to be disabused of the notion of making assumptions about "my language is portable so I can mark this stable". While the script itself may be "portable", there may be core elements of said scripting language that don't work quite right and aren't noticed until some particular script package triggers it. This includes shells as well as regular programming languages. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpNWIIeP2Vm3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:39:44 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but if package maintainers aren't allowed to mark packages as > stable on anything but the "maintainer arch" (unless they are also a > member of an arch team), this problem shouldn't happen. This is the current policy, though it gets violated quite often. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpSfTkJaP7MF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:43:11 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that the arch teams shouldn't be marking packages stable in > advance of when the the maintainer thinks it's ready. At the same > time, it's the respective arch teams, as "owners" of their entire > stable tree, who (in my opinion) should have the final "okay" on a > package going stable, since they're the ones with experience of the > entire stable tree. Does that make a bit more sense? For the most part, this makes sense, However we do have times where a particular arch team may need to stabilize a package sooner in the case where earlier versions are broken. This is not entirely uncommon to see packages that used to compile with stable keywords no longer compile after a period of time. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgp7aZ5u0rxVe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages for mixed PHP4/PHP5 environment added to Portage
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:47:30 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We hope to move these packages to ~arch (on architectures that the PHP > Herd supports) on Thursday 8th September, as part of our migration > plans [2]. If you find any problems with the packages, please file > bugs in Bugzilla as normal. I've filed notes in the tracker bug you put in the Gentoo Bugzilla but other than your initial response, I haven't gotten any feedback on them. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpjcekTCVegI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Status report: Gentoo PHP packages
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:27:28 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've just posted a short progress report on our continuing work on the > new PHP packages for Gentoo. Planet Gentoo should pick it up soon, > but for now, you can find it on my personal blog: Is there a reason you folks are using a non-gentoo bug system to work on this? It seems a bit redundant and un-needed in my layman's perspective. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgp5hCWdFPPqk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] MySQL ebuild removal selection
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:59:42 +0200 Francesco R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have some particular reason for keeping any of them drop me > a note on/off list. I'm sure you've done your due diligence, but please double check that you are not removing the latest stable or testing keywords for any architectures when you do this cleanup. Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpj72TsQGbdV.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Adding arch specific use flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, Just a friendly (unless you don't fix them soon) reminder to folks who've added arch specific use flags to the tree recently (i.e. ibm) to make doubly sure that the use flag has been masked on all other architectures than the one you've added it for. Thanks! :) - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC/+WcdKvgdVioq28RAh9JAJ9MEkIARHmkFq6nZ/hUa+46ergbcgCgsab4 i157VQ04ba6/iPcyaIorblc= =lZN5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X plans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Ferris McCormick wrote: | With mach64, the problem on sparc has been the hardware itself, if I | remember correctly. That is, kernel, xorg are fine, but the mach64 | card | used on U5/U10 is memory-deficient. Someone who has looked at it more | recently than I have will correct this. (There is a mach64-based sparc | frame buffer which should be OK for DRI, but I've never seen one. I'll | chase it down in the framebuffer handbook a little later.) My u5 works just fine with DRI at 800x600 resolution, 16-bit color. Any higher than this and you're right, not enough memory. That is new information for me; I had been led to believe otherwise, and I have not been in a position to verify for myself. Thanks. The few times I have tried this, I hadn't been using that screen res/combo so that could be a problem. mach64 shows up a few ways on SPARC which can make life tricky. In the Ultra 5/10 boxes, it comes as an onboard framebuffer in either 2MB or 4MB RAM sizes depending on the age of the box. Similarly, the Blade 100/150 has a mach64 with 8MB of RAM onboard (which is what I tested DRI on many moons ago). Also there is the PGX24 framebuffer IIRC which is a PCI card version of the mach64 that can be used in machines like an Ultra 30 or 60 where there is no onboard framebuffer. Another note is that the radeon driver should probably be considered for the DRI list as the XVR-100 Sun framebuffer is a rebranded ATI Radeon 7000 VE. I have one I can test with/on once I get back from LWE. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC+uyAdKvgdVioq28RAvefAKC2MrZSO5O89ui/DYf6WLg+F2Ui5wCgohXd AJIIytvNXCV7nU8/IOzFjTA= =lnRz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Updating the list of non-SPARC herd devs keywording for SPARC
Hi All, In the past, a few folks that aren't part of the SPARC herd had communicated that they had the ability to actually test packages on SPARC hardware and been giving the blessing of the SPARC team to keyword select packages. I'm trying to go through and update that list now to make sure it is accurate. Currently I have the following people and/or teams listed as having the ability and permission to test and keyword on SPARC; NamePackage(s) -- Duncan Coutts dev-lang/ghc dev-lang/ghc-bin dev-lang/nhc98 dev-lang/hugs98 dev-haskell/* dev-util/darcs Java Herd dev-java/* Jeff Forman random stuff Tom Martin net-mail/* Please contact me privately if you are missing from this list but have notified the SPARC team in the past about an ability to keyword or if you need to update what information is on the list. Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpPYIrbu4zLK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:52:55 -0400 Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im not expecting it to be added to the tree that quickly it hasnt even > been officially announced, i just wanted to get an idea of what it has > to offer once the articles start poping up :-P The ChangeLog[1] is your friend. Live it, love it, use it! [1] - http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.12 Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpDFfKrLxm0p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force support
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200 Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of > an use.force file for profiles came up. One feature that would be more useful (in my honest on Tuesdays opinion) for us arch folks is the ability to mask use flags on a per-package basis. Often times use flags will work for 99% of the packages they are used in, but the other 1% will not. Currently the workaround is to just make the ebuild ignore that use flag on that arch, but there's no real indication to the user that the workaround is thwarting their use flag preferences (unless the arch monkey is nice enough to put in some einfo love). Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead pgpd1g1t86sYO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Joseph Jezak wrote: Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does. This is not usually our policy. However, because we moved GCC-3.4 to stable before many arches, there were a number of packages that needed to be marked stable for PPC in order for the stable version to even compile. What should we have done in this case then? Assuming there wasn't a very compelling, "stuff is horribly broken in gcc-3.3.x" type reason, wait for the maintainer arch. - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCpxtqdKvgdVioq28RAjm7AJ9psRHMb8LYB6KqAhdi/jAzKj2j8ACglq3s s8L6J7Ims/ZPt6upqMrgtlU= =M1Z0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Aron Griffis wrote: Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT] I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the maintainer arch. Whoa, careful there. It's not a policy and it's not even a recommendation. I believe there are arch teams that will automatically stable a package after it has been ~arch for a period of time. They will break your assumption. Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCpwQ6dKvgdVioq28RAkWIAKC2EgL3Kw4VxUmjPrSDh6TwHIMqrgCfcL9e 4nXZ+A/KSwTcRnWVONy4K8I= =bxSK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] dhcpcd-1.3.22_p4-r10 testing request
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Roy Marples wrote: I've just put net-misc/dhcpcd-1.3.22_p4-r10 into portage, package.masked If some kind people would like to test it for me so I don't break our happy go lucky ~ARCH users I would be grateful :) Best way to ensure you get the testing and verification you want on this is to file a bug, assign it to yourself or your herd, and CC the relevant arches. Thanks, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCoGy8dKvgdVioq28RAvpRAJ98piVKckktENdu2SQ10c3yos7/ZACfQDrd CiiRI2iDMA3ngrEFbLFZiic= =Qc7u -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE 3.4 visibility support disabled
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 25 May 2005, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: P.S. PPC, PPC64 and Sparc developers may also want to post this to architecture specific lists too. Regular SPARC users are fine as we're still using GCC 3.3.x in the main profiles. Thanks for the update! :) Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFClL2+dKvgdVioq28RAp+lAKC3y4nauFnN5Myamn8SCrv2db30kACgo5cN MkTIG1i6IsxoMXzMbvUKbIk= =VdEv -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 20 May 2005, Duncan Coutts wrote: Sorry folks this was my fault. I've sent my grovelling apology to the sparc team. Hopefully they'll accept my apologies and put my digressions down to me being a new dev. :-) You can only take some of the credit Duncan, but not all of it :) Every once and a while it seems a reminder such as this is needed as people tend to start playing with package keywords when they shouldn't be. It's kind of like guarding the cookie jar, you can't ever let your guard down, even if you cut off everyone else's hands. I try not to point fingers or name names since it's not something I like done to myself. I'd also like to think that this gives such guilty parties a better understanding of why the arch teams (and especially SPARC) can be so maniacal about this sometimes, in hopes that it will lessen and/or prevent this problem in the future. From my perspective, if a package maintainer asks for testing and the ability to keyword (i.e. Spanky asking me if it was OK to bump binutils to 2.16, to which I said yes) then that is fine. However adding or changing keywords in an ebuild for which you cannot test (regardless of how trivial the changes are or how "portable" the programming language of said package is supposed to be) is really where I'm looking at here. For some odd reason, trying to ensure QA (even in the nicest of fashions) seems to result in a majority of less than positive responses. Even recently I've had a developer get quite confrontational with me over email when I nicely asked him not to stabilize packages for which he could not test (even if the changes were supposedly trivial). History has shown that we cannot depend on assuming that trivial changes for me == works for you if we want to have some level of Q in QA. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCjkP3dKvgdVioq28RAqw+AJ9yuqHTVZSsdnfyFt9PgJSm3jt+2QCdEjwE TS+flVWEr60GwuMEdWIqV/g= =xrIF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OK, let's review this again. If you cannot test a given ebuild on a given arch, then don't touch that arch's keyword (unless you need to remove it for broken dependencies). If you can test for a given arch and are not part of that arch team, please please please let the arch teams know that before you go around keywording things arbitrarily. It makes the baby Jesus cry when you don't and really isn't the greatest from a QA perspective either. Maintaining almost all of the packages in the portage tree is a demanding job, but it is what we as architecture teams do. Please respect architecture keywording like you were trying to make changes to a package someone else maintains. Thanks, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCjhNpdKvgdVioq28RAhhtAJ0cJQ2XH5I25ZNShYZrpf0MXXxIwwCgoyqE m9Ax44lGL3GlqhIalNDcTMA= =Ey/o -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenLDAP 2.2 series
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Robin H. Johnson wrote: It shouldn't cause any problems for anybody that has OpenLDAP installed as a client only, but it's a bit bumpy for those that are running OpenLDAP servers. Before this package goes stable, I'd like to suggest that backwardly compatible libraries be provided so that applications aren't horribly broken by this upgrade (similar to how we've done for openssl in the past). On two different test systems, this upgrade caused broken dynamic library dependencies in over 35 packages on each system. I'm going to hazard a guess that a majority of systems that have openldap installed have more than one or two packages depending on openldap (and probably aren't dedicated LDAP servers). For those folks who use LDAP for various thing, I could see this as being a very big gotcha. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCjLOCdKvgdVioq28RAkbiAJ0RWLtV2T8TFuvXUriJVoPu4eAYIQCguPmW k/vPBXhefN2Gf7fop50laoE= =VtpG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Another call for BugVoting on bugs.gentoo.org
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:19:36 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My idea was that the foundation would foot the bounties. It sounds as if > you think the users would. Personally, I would hope that (at least initially) the foundation would have better applications for spending whatever financial resources it can get. Plus I'd hate to see the decision-making process over what was deemed worth the bounties would be. Even if just bugzilla voiting was used, that could be heavily influenced in negative ways (i.e. "If you vote for my bug, I'll vote for yours"). Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpBpeNkloFof.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] List of packages which 'inherit gcc'
On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:54:20 +0200 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > net-im/bitlbee Fixed. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpcThbNhS88K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage ebuild cruft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Jason Stubbs wrote: The initialization time of portage is directly related to the number of packages installed. Cutting out excess ebuilds from the tree won't speed this up at all. Cutting out excess ebuilds won't have much effect on the general running of emerge at all, actually, except for updating the cache after syncing. Does that include the about >=10 second delay when emerge is first run on a box after a reboot before you get any visible output on the screen, or is that an entirely different problem? - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCckCCdKvgdVioq28RAlJ6AJ0bf2NHAFr6Otc7v0HvbyqOlb7DDgCfYrTR 6tFh38nSUwVw6XDXvYnWmxk= =ODsL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage ebuild cruft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Athul Acharya wrote: Purging old versions for a few seconds speed increase in portage [snip] Few seconds? Try few miliseconds, if anything, at all, ever. The original email in this thread gave me the best laugh I've had in a while, until I realized it came from a dev; then I was very sad. Please don't assume everyone is running your latest and greatest PC hardware, or processors that measure in the GHz, regardless of architecture. We have officially supported architectures where a few seconds may be a generous statement of the delay (low end SPARC64 systems for instance). The initialization delay of portage is very much felt here, either via emerge or other tools like equery. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCcjardKvgdVioq28RApS3AJ9CsdeTu90RaRiZzK/4xPq8Y4B9KgCfVX0H KkUrEoT37V7brPnZSW8oX0A= =wbrO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that I sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. Off-list emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to send to the list and only to the original email's author. And just how many mail clients support reply-to-list (which in and of itself doesn't have well defined standards and is not adhered to in any specific way by the myriads of mailing list software packages out there)? Not very many last I checked. Best for now to deal with whether you want Reply-To to be altered or use Reply-To all. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCXs48dKvgdVioq28RAgnmAJwOTrTSJcDEZqKGaaNUNh6c+gxDoACguwu+ 6d/wnRmEoHinnUwQ3jbEmeI= =vhFH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Paul de Vrieze wrote: Actually not as for example an index.html could override my index.php. Even worse, the index html file does not need to be called index.html either but the name might be configured in either the apache config file in /etc, or in a directory specific configuration file which is most often (and by default) called .htaccess. There's a difference between overwriting the file on the filesystem and configuration issues in Apache. AFAIK, neither are things we protect the user against at the moment. - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCXC29dKvgdVioq28RArnCAJ9d1vj+TJ4OJ1D28lR2N/4pUKmp3QCfdHyh KBhsMwzKCVaBYLoE7IgsEE0= =7RZU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Stuart Herbert wrote: Jason Wever wrote: | And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our | users? Installing anything as a default page into /var/www/localhost/htdocs/ is dangerous. If the Apache install is an upgrade, the default page could quite easily break someone's working website. That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone has a more suitable method in mind) I haven't looked at the new page myself (yet), but I hope that a) it's only installed if a local USE flag is enabled, and b) that it's tasteful and contains useful "Getting Started" material The new page is part of a whole new package itself, is a hard dependency and contains no getting started type information. As for tasteful, some of that is a matter of personal opinion (mine being that it isn't). Thanks, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCWrzLdKvgdVioq28RAkgGAKCg4nnhTdXop6rwqQLsIjKLw/byogCgiCCW 8iw2TOwCW2K1pXos9oFG9cQ= =58yA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:38:51 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > current upstream page just sais "It works!". That's indeed not > what we want to present the Gentoo Apache Users. So the page that was there previous to this change was not the default? And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our users? Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpEhKZvracrI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:43:13 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly > executed `emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so > including me. sorry for that, though, we got almost every complain > fixed already. That's why we're requesting for testing, for being sure, > going stable won't shoot anyone into his foot again. Are there any plans for a non-branded version of this new Apache configuration? It seems a bit opposite of the goal to try to make Apache more compliant with how it is provided upsteam to be putting in a branded default front page. Also if we're stuck with the branding, can we come up with a page that is at least a little more professional looking or a little less like someone trying to be witty? Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpjDZgb1xTiY.pgp Description: PGP signature
