Re: [gentoo-dev] About XFCE, renames, eclass, etc

2009-09-03 Thread Josh Saddler
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
 [. . .]

Thanks for the message, Jeremy; it's informative and appreciated!

 - xfce-config.xml: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml Josh
 (nightmorph) updated this, basically an after thought by us so thanks Josh!
 
 - xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality.
 This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is
 required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo
 Linux. This is desired because most XFCE users are looking for a
 lightweight WM, not a heavy DE. So, users will have to add a terminal,
 orage, thunar, etc to the world file instead of relying on a meta package.

I made sure to mention this in the Xfce guide after finding all this out
on my own . . . the hard way. :) Take a look at emerge -p --depclean
output and go over the world file to see what's up on your system, using
emerge --noreplace foo to add stuff back in. And be sure to re-read the
Xfce guide if you're wondering which packages should prolly be kept.
(http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

2009-08-28 Thread Josh Saddler
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
 Samuli Suominen wrote:
 You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are
 in place already? :-p
 
 So what do we do?
 
 
 
 Sebastian
 

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 LiveDVD release enhancements

2009-08-22 Thread Josh Saddler
Samuli Suominen wrote:
 2. Enable HybridISO for the images

What's this? Explain!




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Multimedia overlay

2009-08-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
 Josh Saddler wrote:
 
 Why isn't this on git.overlays.gentoo.org?

 If it's not on Gentoo infrastructure, it's not official.

 Q: Are All Official Overlays Hosted On overlays.gentoo.org?
 
 A: No. Gentoo developers are free to put their overlay wherever suits
 them best; they don't have to use overlays.gentoo.org if they don't want
 to.
 
 http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/userguide.xml

I'm well aware of that. It's A Dumb Policy(tm). :)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Multimedia overlay

2009-08-10 Thread Josh Saddler
Ben de Groot wrote:
 Hi,
 
 The qting-edge overlay (the official overlay for the Gentoo Qt team) is
 a great success as a place to develop new ebuilds, packages, eclasses,
 to prepare new releases, to maintain bleeding edge stuff like live
 ebuilds and especially as a training ground for new recruits. I thought
 it would be a good idea to do something similar for our multimedia
 related projects, and Steve beandog Dibb agreed.
 
 So hereby we announce the Gentoo Multimedia overlay. It is located at
 http://gitorious.org/gentoo-multimedia and any developers who want to
 join can let us know their gitorious account name, so they can be added.
 Administration of the overlay will be shared among the participating
 Gentoo devs, so new committers can quickly be added. Any users that want
 commit status can get access after their work is found to be of
 sufficient quality. We encourage this, as the overlay is also a training
 ground for new contributors to Gentoo.
 
 We would like to invite anyone interested in developing and maintaining
 ebuilds related to multimedia in the wider sense: video, sound, tv,
 graphics and fonts. If you have any live ebuilds or otherwise bleeding
 edge packages, you can move them to the overlay for testing and shared
 maintenance.

Why isn't this on git.overlays.gentoo.org?

If it's not on Gentoo infrastructure, it's not official.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

2009-08-06 Thread Josh Saddler
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
 I wanted to work at some point on splitting out gnome and kde profiles
 to separate ones. Perhaps desktop profile could be a generic universal
 one with USE flags enabled that rox/lxde/fluxbox and so on would like as
 well, and then gnome adds its stuff, and kde adds its own stuff.
 Or desktop could be one that enabled both GNOME and KDE stuff as now, by
 multi-inheriting both gnome and kde profiles.
 Or perhaps both a lowest common denominator desktop-base profile and a
 big desktop one enabling everything...

What could be nice is if users could select multiple profiles. They
first choose the desktop profile, which has lots of basic stuff that's
DE/WM-agnostic. They could then select another profile that adds e.g.
Gnome stuff, like you suggested.

I suppose the potential problem here (besides coding support for more
than one profile) is making sure that the selected profile's USE flags
(etc.) don't conflict with other selected profiles. Profile authors
would have to be pretty aware of what other profiles contain, and/or the
package manager would have to have some heavy duty resolver.

One could just avoid the whole multiple-profiles-selected thing by
cloning bits of one profile (like a minimal agnostic desktop), then
adding your own USE flags, and calling it the Gnome profile, but this
introduces lots of code duplication.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Qt3 deprecation

2009-07-27 Thread Josh Saddler
Ben de Groot wrote:
 Dear fellow devs,
 
 We would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Gentoo Qt team
 now officially discourages further usage of Qt3. Version 3 is no longer
 being developed or supported upstream. All users are strongly encouraged
 to use Qt version 4 where applicable.

Wait a minute. Qt3 is deprecated, but people are still adding new
Qt3-based packages to the tree:

On the 26th, scarabeus added gerix, as seen on our front page p.g.o feed:

net-wireless/gerix-0.20 Qt3 Based aircrack GUI

. . . wtf?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About time to unify 'cdda' and 'cdaudio' USE flags and make the remaining one global?

2009-07-22 Thread Josh Saddler
Lars Wendler wrote:
 Let's finally move on regarding this topic. As I'm also in favour of 
 the cdda USE flag I'd like to know if there's any objection against the 
 decision to unify/convert the cdaudio USE flag into cdda.
 If there's no good reason against this conversion I will proceed with filing 
 bugs against packages using the cdaudio USE flag next weekend.
 
 Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
 Gentoo Staffer and bug-wrangler
 Am Wednesday 08 July 2009 02:52:07 schrieb Duncan:

I object. As discussed earlier in the list, I think cdaudio is much
more appropriate than cdda.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] About time to unify cdda and cdaudio USE flags and make the remaining one global?

2009-07-06 Thread Josh Saddler
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
 Rémi Cardona wrote:
 And now for some bikeshedding fun, which flag are we going to keep? ;)
 
 My vote would be for cdaudio as that
 
  - is more general (including analog playback)
  - is more user friendly
 
 but let those decide who implement it.

I'm also in favor of cdaudio: it's a bit more self-explanatory. I also
think it's better to have such a generic description for apps that use
libcdio/cdparanoia/cddb combinations, such as the package I maintain,
media-sound/decibel-audio-player.

I'm all for cdaudio over cdda.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-07 Thread Josh Saddler
Samuli Suominen wrote:
 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 GDP team:
 (I didn't hear from you in the bug)
 Could you please update:
 - handbook section Writing Init scripts
 - OpenRC migration guide
 
 ACK on this one, we are already overwhelmed by openrc changes wrt init
 scripts at media teams. Or at least, I am.

Then, my fellow developers, ya'll need to tell us exactly what needs to
change. That has not yet happened on the bugs, just a lot of offtopic
discussion relevant to the package maintainers, but not to the GDP for
documentation purposes. Just because there's lots of chatter on e.g.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=270646 doesn't mean that the GDP
has any idea of how to proceed.

GuideXML patches are nice, but not necessary. What we *do* need, at a
minimum, is a concise description of what the current text says, and
what it needs to say. Thanks.

* * *

Also, if OpenRC/baselayout is dropping support for things like PPP or
ADSL[1], and will not guarantee a stable configuration (i.e. as
final as baselayout-1 has been, not needing constant user-side
updates)[2] . . . then we need to find some other solution for our users.

If upstream doesn't ever want to slow down, wants to constantly stick in
new features, try out new things, that's all well and good. More power
to 'em. But I think that is ultimately not such a good thing for our
users. Especially if it means constantly dropping support for features,
sacrificing compatibility, etc. We're already having enough trouble
trying to ensure future Portage compatibility via EAPIs, we should not
add in a potential baselayout/OpenRC mess atop that.

Oh, yes . . . and there's the workload it would put on the GDP folks. We
already have a helluva time running around chasing devs down and prying
out straight answers about what to update in the existing documentation.
We'd probably all quit if we had to do the same thing for every new
openrc/baselayout release.

[1]
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c200905252003.42176.rbu%40gentoo.org%3e
[2]
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c200905252003.42176.rbu%40gentoo.org%3e



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-07 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 [stuff]

Thanks, will take a look.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New app-eselect category?

2009-05-26 Thread Josh Saddler
AllenJB wrote:
 I'd favor tags over increasing the category
 levels, tho I'm not convinced either is necessary at the current time
 (tho tags might make searching easier, in some ways).

Heck yes! Tags are a good idea. The idea's been raised on -dev a few
times. I suppose they're not (yet) essential, but from a user point of
view, if the tools supported searching for tags buried in metadata.xml,
it would make life much, much nicer.

And if wishes were horses . . . maybe one day we'd all ride. Or at least
argue about what shade of pink to paint the ponies. :p



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support

2009-05-25 Thread Josh Saddler
lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
 Adding @overlay atoms/deps postfix support could really make life
 easier, especially because forcing specific atoms in *DEPEND hoping
 that these will be always pulled in from the same overlay is not
 something reliable, as you already know.

No. This is a terrible idea. The solution is to *fix the overlays*, not
force the user to intervene and fix things himself.

Conflicting overlay issues turn up on the Gentoo forums (check
Unsupported Software), and in pretty much all cases, once the
maintainer(s) of the overlay(s) are contacted about the issue, the
overlays are quickly fixed so that the next update sorts out the user's
tree.

Users should *not *have to take steps to fix overlay blocks and breaks
ahead of time; that should be the overlay maintainer's job, not the poor
end user.

 Comments are welcome, flames are not.

On that note, I'd like to offer a friendly word of caution, in the
interests of us all talking together and working through the ideas
presented in your threads.

In your last visit to our mailing list
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/55180), you stated
that you'd like to make some sweeping changes to Gentoo, then you
started telling the developers why they all sucked ahead of time for not
implementing said ideas. And then you kept telling developers that they
sucked throughout the rest of the replies.

You expressed unwillingness to work with Gentoo developers through our
admittedly long recruitment process, instead wanting to push your
changes to our tree directly.

There wasn't very much accomplished on either side at the end of that
debacle, except some hurt feelings.

It seems that the discussions you're having in the binary packages and
overlay threads are already heading the same direction, and I for one
don't want that to happen. Telling people they're not allowed to express
disagreement is counterproductive.[1][2]

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61555/focus=61568
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61530/focus=61560

So, folks, just take it easy. We don't have to accept every suggestion
offered to the list, nor do we have to reject it out of hand.

Thanks.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation

2009-05-20 Thread Josh Saddler
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
 I hope it goes without saying that bug 213988
 (http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988) should be resolved before either
 stabilization or news posting. The doc is somewhat out of date now.

I assume you mean the baselayout-2/openrc migration guide?

Not as far as we know. And what we, the GDP, *know* is entirely
dependent on the bug reports and *guide updates* that you, the rest of
the community, submit. :)

(Yes, we know that our other documents do not have anything about
baselayout-2/openrc in them. That's why we have the tracker bug. If
you've got something to report, send it in!)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere

2009-05-20 Thread Josh Saddler
Jesús Guerrero wrote:
 Hello,
 
 This is a request for comments on a new project,
 namely Gentoo Support Everywhere.
 
 http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/
 
 The web page doesn't really explain all the background
 needed to understand why would anyone want to start such
 a project. However this forum thread might be more
 clarifying:
 
 http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html
 
 The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls
 that wander around the LQ forums, and to create a Gentoo
 subforum at LQ like many other distros do. However, eventually
 the support might be extended to other places if there's a
 need and enough human power to do so.

You are of course free to put in work wherever you want to. This is
Gentoo. We're all about picking an itch and scratching it. I won't tell
you where to put your time or where not to put your time.

However, for the purposes of an actual project, I believe it's
considered essential that we own the infrastructure that project is
hosted on. All of our other projects (to my knowledge) are hosted on our
own infrastructure.

If we cannot properly administer a Gentoo resource, i.e. if we have to
go through unaffiliated intermediaries, then it should not be an
official Gentoo project. I don't believe having a spot in /proj/
designates a project as official; I think the actual working area
needs to be Gentoo-owned.

That being said, you and others are free to do the whole LQ and other
forums help; more power to you. But as I said, I don't think it should
be an official TLP (or subproject) as we do not have proper supervision
of external resources.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming Willikins downtime

2009-04-14 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 Hi folks, just a quick note, since the Willikins bot is widely used now.
 
 Due to the datacentre where the bot is hosted moving physical premises, there
 will be a downtime of 4-16 hours, starting Apr 15 04:00:00.
 
 4 hours is the timeframe I've been told, but I think it's unrealistic myself.
 16 hours is my worst case number, of them screwing up something in the move,
 and me having to visit the box personally.
 

!botsnack


Thanks for the notice (and the bot).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-soc] Gsoc Idea: EeePC Script/Build

2009-03-25 Thread Josh Saddler
Aaron Lebahn wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Andrey Falko afa...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 Would it be possible to integrate these scripts into Gentoo current
 graphical installer, as well as included on one of the minimal install
 CDs?


 Yes, That would be a good idea. I could add to the graphical install instead
 of trying to make a completely separate cd. I supose that would even be
 preferred.

The installer was declared deprecated and unsupported in future
releases. It will no longer be used. Here's the original announcement
from back in January:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.installer/607



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3

2009-03-08 Thread Josh Saddler
Tiziano Müller wrote:
 Hi everyone
 
 With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
 problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
 depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example).
 
 So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct
 improvements:
 
 http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ

Is there a reason why we should ram through a new EAPI for something
that *looks* like another Paludis supports this so let's make it a
Portage standard proposal? Is there some kind of time deadline here
that you all want?

Also, why the bannination of || ( foo? (.).) -- how is it error prone,
exactly.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: LC_ALL=C Set by default for portage

2009-03-08 Thread Josh Saddler
Dawid Węgliński wrote:
 On Sunday 08 of March 2009 23:50:08 Ryan Hill wrote:
 
 You do realize that many people don't speak any English, and therefore
 wouldn't be filing bugs anyways?  They just want to use their
 computer.  I'm not sure they will appreciate you forcing a language they
 don't speak on them any more than I would like to suddenly see all my
 build errors in Myanmar.
 
 Plz fix the bug [1]
 
 [1] - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166730
 

Possible solution:

Don't set LC_ALL in general unless you're merging to get specific error
messages. It's a known issue. Try searching for LC_ALL among CLOSED
documentation bugs. Pops up a lot:

[1] http://tinyurl.com/d3df5y (bug search list)
[2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260477
[3] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml
[4] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/guide-localization.xml#doc_chap3 *

* Note the big ol' WARNING before code listing 3.1.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] How to speed up maintenance and other Gentoo work?

2009-03-03 Thread Josh Saddler
Olivier Crête wrote:
 Maybe we could use the dev wiki for that kind of stuff?
 
 Having a wiki.gentoo.org would be even better...

There is, but it's uber-sekrit.

Or so I was told some years ago. It may or may not (still) exist.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-25 Thread Josh Saddler
Petteri Räty wrote:
 Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
 people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
 to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
 only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it
 easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual
 discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful
 experiment to see if we can control ourselves :)
 
 My notes so far:
 
 1) Status quo
   - does not allow changing inherit
   - bash version in global scope
   - global scope in general is quite locked down

 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild
   - Allows changing global scope
   - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust
 the value in the cache
   - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a
 normal metadata variable
 * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older
   versions if the latest is not masked
   a) new extension
   b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/
   - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about
 it any more
   - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository
   c) .ebuild in current directory
   - needs one year wait

Leave EAPI inside the ebuild. That's where I want to find it.

Oh, and as others have mentioned, CVS sucks for file renaming and
versions. Yet another reason to leave it inside the ebuild.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC + Bridge + Tap not working as expected?

2009-02-19 Thread Josh Saddler
This list is not a user support list. Please see the gentoo-user ML. You
may also want to check http://forums.gentoo.org to see if anyone else
has had the issue.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Can't format floppy or write to it...

2009-02-09 Thread Josh Saddler
This is not the right place to ask.

Ask on either:

1. Gentoo forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
2. Gentoo user mailing list: gentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] new categories:

2009-02-02 Thread Josh Saddler
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
 I was thinking, maybe it would be possible to drop categories completely in 
 the future (maybe keeping symlinks for compatibility and to ease migration) 
 and to put *all* packages in one directory - that would require making all 
 names unique of course.

Tags for packages are not a new idea; it's been brought up on this list
before. But I really, really, don't like the idea of renaming packages.

So, what, we're turning into Debian? Arbitrary package (re)naming? Yuck!
Our current policy is to call the package what upstream calls it. We can
do this largely *because* of categories. There are a few noncompliant
packages, but the system generally works pretty well.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: PR Project Activity Issues

2009-01-26 Thread Josh Saddler
Ryan Hill wrote:
 On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:47:04 -0800
 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
 
 Is GuideXML in fact a barrier for submission (do we get complaints
 about it?)
 
 I seem to remember doc/newsletter people stating on multiple occasions
 that they're happy to accept plain text submissions (feel free to beat
 me if i hallucinated it).


docs team != GMN*, but yes, we're happy to take submissions in plain
text form. However, it does take longer to GuideXMLify an article when
readying the newsletter than if we get one already in XML; then it's
just drop-in.


* (puts on GDP hat) Actually, we don't mind getting plain text docs,
either, since we too can GuideXMLify those submissions.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Handling Launchpad SRC_URI

2009-01-24 Thread Josh Saddler
Right now, there's no canonical (heh) way of handling SRC_URI for
projects that have their files at launchpad.net. We need a standard way
of handling Launchpad SRC_URIs, similar to what we do with
mirror://sourceforge/ SRC_URIs.

1. Some packages use the launchpadlibrarian.net download redirect, which
results in a non-helpful server-generated number:

(gnome-catalog)
SRC_URI=http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11326737/${PN}_${PV}.orig.tar.gz

2. Some hack up interesting MY_P stuff:

(gnome-do-plugins)
MY_PN=do-plugins
PVC=$(get_version_component_range 1-2)
PVC2=$(get_version_component_range 1-3)
SRC_URI=https://launchpad.net/${MY_PN}/${PVC}/${PVC2}/+download/${P}.tar.gz;

(avant-window-navigator-extras)
MY_P=awn-extras-applets-${PV}
SRC_URI=https://launchpad.net/awn-extras/${PV%.*}/${PV}/+download/${MY_P}.tar.gz;

The AWN-extras ebuild is the closest to the right way of doing it, I
think.

So can we agree on a standard way of treating Launchpad SRC_URIs and get
the handler support into Portage?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] QEMU Sick!

2009-01-21 Thread Josh Saddler
Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) wrote:
 [Rant rant rant]

1. Stop bitching.
2. Go away.

(Not necessarily in that order.)


Oh, and by the way:

 - No serious Gentoo-Wiki - rewritten after great boom!

Guess what? We don't own that. We don't control it. It has no
affiliation with Gentoo; it's run by some of the users from the
community. It's their project, not ours. Take up your issues with them.
If the wiki needs fixing, then FIX IT. That's what it's for.

Actually, that applies to the Gentoo distribution itself: if something
bothers you, there are a million ways to FIX IT.

Help out, or find something more suited to your . . . temperament.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] glep-42-news: sparc multilib profile

2008-12-30 Thread Josh Saddler
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Friedrich Oslage blueb...@gentoo.org wrote:
 
 [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~bluebird/sparc-multilib/
 
 I would put it in the gentoo.org/doc/en/ domain and link to it in the
 gentoo-sparc index
 (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/sparc/index.xml)
 
 2 cents,
 Jeremy
 

Mmm, not so much. Documentation like this, that's so specific to one
particular architecture, would be better off in project documentation --
that's (partly) why ya'll have project directories in the first place.
Otherwise it becomes a maintenance burden for the GDP. It'll be easier
on the Sparc team to maintain it if it's in their own /proj/ space.

What we can do, however, is list it in metadoc.xml, so that it will show
up in /doc/en/list.xml.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: disable python and perl USE flags in profile

2008-12-08 Thread Josh Saddler
Nathan Zachary wrote:
 If one has built a system with the default python and perl USE flags,
 what steps would be necessary to remove all packages and dependencies
 after removing them from the USE declarations?

After kicking 'em out of make.conf, run emerge -pvtuDN world (the N is
important; it tells emerge to look for USE flag changes). Once you've
rebuilt your packages, then you can run emerge -p --depclean.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] A tool helps to diff and override config files

2008-12-04 Thread Josh Saddler
Song Ma wrote:
 I tried dispatch-conf and etc-update. Here are two major differences
 from my tool:
 
 1. For desktop user, my tool will invoke GUI based kdiff3 to do diff
 and merge files if the user installed the kdiff3. And for remote login
 user or the user without kdiff3,  the tool will just get the normal
 text-base diff.
 
 2. My tool can override multiple config files in batch mode. Although
 this is dangerous, sometime it's useful and not so nagging.

You need to look at cfg-update, which has gtk+ and qt+ interfaces. And
is arguably less dangerous.

Better yet, just look around in the app-portage category; there are lots
of config file update tools, in addition to the excellent ones already
present in Portage.

You also need to read the Portage handbook. It explains the built-in
update tools:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=4




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Josh Saddler
Gokdeniz Karadag wrote:
 The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, which can
 become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by developers.

. . . no, I'd think not.

It takes time and effort to produce one of our polished, professional
documents. That's duplicating the time and effort that it takes to write
a decent wiki article -- pointless duplication.

One of the things I'm hearing from just about every other user and
developer is that users would be providing the peer review necessary to
keep documents at a general level of quality. This means let the wiki
live its wiki life, which means there's no need to reformat the article
as something else. If it's a decent wiki article, then it should stand
on its own meritsas a wiki article, nothing else. It's a community
contributed article on the community-contributed resource. That's where
it belongs.

Most folks have said they're okay with official Gentoo documentation and
a second community-contributed resource (that may not be as accurate,
tested, readable, etc.) So keep that system around. If you want to jot
up a quick howto, or an article filled with individual speculation and
anecdotes, keep it on the wiki. If you want a doc to be considered *the*
authority on its subject (such as
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml ;)), maintained by Gentoo
developers, then submit it to the GDP via bugzilla, or provide updates
to one of the docs we already have.

There really is no reason why we can't have this split. There's no need
to XMLify every halfway decent wiki article just because it's so much
better than everything else on the wiki. Trying to do so involves an
inordinate number of work hours and staff that we just don't have, not
to mention greatly raising the existing maintainer burden.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Mark Loeser wrote:
 So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
 our users something that is useful.  Its back now, but I think we should
 consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
 We already have something very similar to this on the forums, and this
 would just give the correct tool to put their documentation on.
 
 I already know some people are going to hate this idea and say that the
 documentation could be wrong, etc, so lets look at how others have
 handled this situation.  It seems that Ubuntu has their own official
 documentation section and a community section where users can contribute
 to.  We can put a nice big warning saying that the user documentation
 may have some errors, and that any such errors should not be directed at
 the maintainers of the package or the GDP.
 
 What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having a
 wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?
 

I've asked my fellow GDP members to weigh in on this issue on our ML;
the discussion is already in-progress here:

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-doc/msg_dd4f573fc6384108fdf14dfa27030906.xml

Or, if you like it gmane-style:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.documentation/2903



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] To ELISA, PIGMENT, PIGMENT-PYTHON dev's

2008-11-10 Thread Josh Saddler
Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) wrote:
 (stuff)

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159086



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Adding lxde-base category

2008-11-07 Thread Josh Saddler
Ben de Groot wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used
 for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the categories
 for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde, xfce).
 Comments are welcome!

First, thanks for getting this stuff into the tree; I just synced, and
it's all very nice. 'Cept for one thing:

$ eix -c lxappearance
[N] lxde-base/lxappearance (~0.2): LXDE GTK+ theme switcher
[N] x11-themes/lxappearance (~0.2): a desktop-independent theme switcher
for GTK+
Found 2 matches.

So...any reason why BOTH these packages are still in the tree? Couldn't
one of them have been removed entirely or just moved categories? Because
right now emerge lxappearance returns the ambiguous error, and it
really doesn't need to be that tricky. :)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Adding lxde-base category

2008-11-01 Thread Josh Saddler
Ben de Groot wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used
 for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the categories
 for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde, xfce). With the
 help of a few users I have been developing ebuilds for these packages in
 the lxde overlay [3], and I would like to move the ebuilds for the
 release versions into the official tree now. (The overlay also contains
 live svn ebuilds.)
 
 LXDE currently has 14 packages that would go into this new category,
 which is comparable to what xfce-base has. It also uses x11-wm/openbox
 as default WM, and x11-misc/pcmanfm as default filemanager, although
 these can be easily swapped for others.
 
 Comments are welcome!
 
 1: http://lxde.org/
 2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/157989
 3: http://www.bitbucket.org/yngwin/lxde-overlay/src/
 

I dunno . . . given the Xfce (the OTHER lightweight DE) team's decision
to start getting rid of the xfce-* categories, near as I can tell, is
this really consistent with what the rest of the desktop teams are
doin'? Or is it just Xfce that seems to be less consistent with other
categories.

Aside from these recent actions, lxde categories seem like a good idea,
same as for all our other desktops.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Flags to punt (including: kerberos USE flag)

2008-10-31 Thread Josh Saddler
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
 I'm believe the primary reason is for release LiveCD's.
 They ship with evolution-exchange, and that requires
 evolution/evolution-data-server to be built with USE=kerberos
 They don't do /etc/portage business, so it's a global USE flag to get
 things like GRP packages to work right.

Yes, but not just for the LiveCDs. I spoke with wolf31o2 about this some
time ago, asking why it was turned on in the desktop profile. He said it
was for Evolution stuff, not just on the LiveCDs though. Also supposed
to be useful for folks who want lots of Exchange and other stuff for
their rich email client.

I'm also in favor of punting it from the desktop profiles; doing so puts
me that much closer to actually using it.

Long as we're discussing things to punt, here's some stuff to kick out
of the desktop profile:

mikmod - Seriously, how many folks make it a habit to listen to .MOD
music all the time? Even netlabels like Monotonik, which started *out*
as .mod, make it harder to find their old .mod stuff.

ldap - Punt for the same reasons kerberos is being punted.

eds - Down with more Evolution things! Though possibly not ideal for
Gnome user?

esd - no one should be using Enlightenment Sound Daemon, period. Ain't
it deprecated, anyway? No worky?

emboss - Seriously. Who needs the European Biology Open Software Suite
on a *desktop* oriented system?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Jeeves IRC replacement now alive - Willikins

2008-10-26 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 Willikins was not in the following channels, as nobody requested it here yet. 
 
 #gentoo-apache
 #gentoo-br
 #gentoo-db
 #gentoo-doc-nl
 #gentoo-embedded
 #gentoo-eselect
 #gentoo-hardened
 #gentoo-installer
 #gentoo-media
 #gentoo-netmon
 #gentoo-osx
 #gentoo-pms
 #gentoo-scire
 #gentoo-test
 #gentoo-voip
 #gentoo-web
 #gentoo-xfce
 
 Solar has requested that the bot joins the channels now, so if you have
 complaints instead, please note them here.


Dunno about the others, but #gentoo-xfce just forwards to
#gentoo-desktop now, so no point in having it try to do -xfce.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 / OpenRC Stabilization

2008-10-07 Thread Josh Saddler
Doug Goldstein wrote:
 As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC
 0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in
 approximately 30 days.
 
 I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one.
 
 Current Bugs: *http://tinyurl.com/4housz*
 

I need everyone to take a peek at bug 213988
(http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988) -- it concerns the
documentation.

Please add any blocker bugs for stuff that needs to be fixed in /doc/en/
and /doc/en/handbook/ -- if you know of initscript updates and the like,
be sure to add your bug to this tracker bug.

We do have a migration guide at
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml, so please review it
to make sure it's accurate and complete.

I seem to be the only guy working on English docs these days, so I need
any changes ASAP, the better to cram 'em into the time available before
stabilization.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Projects without a homepage, and valid contents of HOMEPAGE (per bug 239268)

2008-10-06 Thread Josh Saddler
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
 On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Robin H Johnson wrote:
 
 HOMEPAGE=http://this-package-has-no-homepage.gentoo.org/;
 That would impose needless lookups on subdomains of gentoo.org for
 clients trying to load the homepage.
 http://gentoo.org/package-has-no-homepage/ then.
 
 Couldn't a page be created at this URL, with a notice that the package
 has no real homepage?
 
 Ulrich
 

I think that'd take too much time to create and maintain that sort of
thing, especially once old packages are finally removed from the tree.

Why not just stick in a message that says This package has no
homepage? Or none? Is there any reason why that couldn't go into the
HOMEPAGE= variable? Will it break QA tools and other utilities?

Sure, it'd be nice if there was a homepage, but putting one on
gentoo.org implies that we do code fixes and other work, not just
hosting the tarballs. Do we really want to *be* upstream for all our
orphaned packages?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] developer profile

2008-10-05 Thread Josh Saddler
Thomas Sachau wrote:
 I just had a user in bugzilla who thought, the developer profile would be for 
 software developers,
 not just for gentoo developers. Probably he is not the only one.
 
 What about either adding some big warning on portage output or renaming this 
 profile to e.g.
 gentoodeveloper?


I think this discussion has popped up before on both this list and on
gentoo-doc. I added some substantial warnings to the documentation that
discusses profiles per Donnie's request if I remember right. The bottom
line is that you can try to make things as tricky as you want; users
will still try to do it because they don't bother to read any
documentation. That's something you can't force 'em to do.

Still, perhaps adding some output would be good, though I'm not sure
how. eselect doesn't seem to be setup to display anything; eselect
profile set 9 to switch to amd64/2008.0 doesn't even return a message
that it was set.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask

2008-10-02 Thread Josh Saddler
Alec Warner wrote:
 If pmask is not for testing...what is it for?

UT GOTY and nvidia-drivers, of course!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summaries for August September

2008-09-28 Thread Josh Saddler

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
- All our docs should be updated to refer to irc.gentoo.org instead of 
  irc.freenode.net.


Fixed in irc.xml and most of our other documentation in /doc/en/; will 
fix the rest later.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug wrangling

2008-09-08 Thread Josh Saddler

Joe Peterson wrote:

Sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, but if one has a proxy maintainer
(i.e. not a Gentoo dev) for a package, can/should this person be added to
metadata.xml?  Is there a special tag for this?  I can certainly see this
being helpful (so that person automatically gets on the cc list at least).


Not that I've noticed. For example, I'm the maintainer of 
decibel-audio-player, but aballier is the one who actually commits stuff 
for me (my access does not include gentoo-x86). We're both listed as 
maintainer in metadata.xml. No special tag.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliant KDE install and multi-version support

2008-09-07 Thread Josh Saddler

Philip Webb wrote:

I really do appreciate the hard volunteer work the KDE team donates
 have nothing but thanks to them all, but shouldn't your priority be
to get KDE 4.1 into 'testing', so that users can actually try it out ?
There's also 3.5.10 , which has been released, but isn't in Gentoo yet.


In fairness, their priority is whatever they *want* to do. No one has 
the right to dictate what they should and should not be doing -- except 
themselves. Maybe figuring out the install path is a precursor to all that?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] LXDE project

2008-08-31 Thread Josh Saddler

Ben de Groot wrote:

Hi everyone,

I recently got interested in LXDE[1], the Lightweight X11 Desktop
Environment, and I would like to see this available in portage. At the
moment there are, to my knowledge, 3 overlays maintained by users that
include ebuilds for lxde. I think it is time to combine efforts and get
these packages into the official tree.

I have therefor created an LXDE project page[2] under the Desktop
top-level project. My idea is to initially start an official overlay and
develop the needed packages in there. I am actively encouraging users to
participate in development and maintenance, and of course I am extending
the invitation to any Gentoo developers who would like to join. I don't
want to spread myself too thin, and having more experienced developers
involved with the project would be a good thing.

Any constructive feedback is welcome!

[1] http://lxde.org/about.html
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/lxde/


I started using LXDE when I was trying out a bunch of lightweight 
alternative distros -- it really is nice to run; lighter than even Xfce. 
Once you get the packages into Portage and stabilized, I'll be happy to 
write up the installation guide; it deserves a spot right up there with 
our Gnome/KDE/Xfce/Fluxbox guides.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] The Plethora of Patches

2008-08-15 Thread Josh Saddler

Andrew D Kirch wrote:

Denis Dupeyron wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Andrew D Kirch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

[...]

Looks like you counted the number of files in the files/
subdirectories. Not all of these are patches. Also, you probably
forgot to count seds, as some of us use sed more than patches.

Oh, and like Jeremy was hinting, please contact QA. They need somebody 
like you.


Denis.

  

How would one get ahold of this QA?



[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP 56] metadata.xml USE flag descriptions [Clarifications]

2008-08-13 Thread Josh Saddler

Doug Goldstein wrote:

Howdy all,

Further questions regarding use.desc have come up with regard to this 
GLEP. My proposed solution would be a potential amendment to the GLEP to 
state that


flag name='png' /



Comments, Suggestions, Input are all welcome.


If you're going for proper XML, then it should look like this:

flag name=png/

XML doesn't put a space between the attribute and the closing slash -- 
XHTML does. Common mistake. Also, use  for attributes, rather than '.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select

2008-07-19 Thread Josh Saddler

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Reading around on the net, it amazes me how many people are using 
developer profiles for their Gentoo because they think it's for software 
developers and don't see that it's for Gentoo developers and not 
intended for end users.  They know the Developer installation profiles 
of other distros and think Gentoo's profiles are just the same (on those 
distros, selecting a dev profile just means it installs GCC + dev libs + 
IDEs by default.)


Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile 
without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea.




*shrug* If people would _read_ the documentation, such as 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml or 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_chap2, 
then they would know what the profiles are for.


I don't think we should start making certain profiles harder to use. 
Maybe if profiles.desc had a more explanatory entry on the developer 
profile so that users know what's up with it. Or better yet, include an 
entry in the eselect profile module that prints a brief description of a 
given profile, or at least references the various documentation on profiles.


Oh, and FYI, gcc (and complete toolchain) and various development 
libraries are already installed by default -- that's the nature of using 
a source-based distro; all that stuff needs to be there to do anything, 
so it's already included.


At no point will merely selecting a new profile actually install 
anything. As always, you have to go through the package manager if you 
want something installed.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] IBM article of interest ?

2008-07-17 Thread Josh Saddler

Philip Webb wrote:

080716 Josh Saddler wrote:

Philip Webb wrote:

I'm not sure whether anyone among Gentoo officials cares about this,
but IBM has an article
  http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-awk1.html
whose byline is very misleading  may infringe on Gentoo's IP.
I have submitted a comment to IBM via their form.

Uh, this article really *was* written by drobbins some time ago.
It's okay.  It's all perfectly legal; in fact, check out 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/


Yes, it looks as if someone at IBM simply copied it from there,
where it is indeed marked updated.


Perhaps you misunderstand -- the articles originally were written *for 
developerWorks*, not for Gentoo. That's where they first appeared 7 or 8 
years ago.



There remains an error in the IBM page above  the Gentoo doc version,
ie the URL given for 'Gentoo Technologies Inc' is 'www.gentoo.org'.
Whether the author still maintains GTI in New Mexico isn't clear
(there's another 'GTI' in Blacksburg VA , which makes databases etc),
but even if so, its Internet site is not the same as Gentoo Foundation's:
this needs to be corrected by the maintainer of Gentoo docs  by IBM.

One would also assume that the author has a more direct e-address
than the forwarding address at Gentoo still given in the article
 the personal details seem to be 8 years old (eg new baby):
those also would better be updated or deleted.

In contrast with traditional printed media -- press or advertising --
the Internet is often less precise  therefore can be seriously misleading:
there is a lot of out-of-date information lying around
 no-one to take responsibility for it.


Nothing about the article really needs to be updated, either on the 
Gentoo side or the IBM side.


If you look through the CVS log, about the only changes we made were a 
few typo fixes or adding GuideXML code to stuff that wasn't so well 
highlighted in the original. That's it. Nothing more needs to be done -- 
these articles are snapshots of how things used to be. We don't need to 
wipe out everything that's old, do we? Why not leave the information 
there so people can get some history? What if people don't want more 
recent information shared, and don't want a new email for all to see?


Seriously, nothing needs to be done on the IBM side, nor on ours. It's 
not an issue. There's no infringement anywhere, so please just let it go.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] IBM article of interest ?

2008-07-16 Thread Josh Saddler

Philip Webb wrote:

I'm not sure whether anyone among Gentoo officials cares about this,
but IBM has an article

  http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-awk1.html

whose byline is very misleading  may infringe on Gentoo's IP.
I have submitted a comment to IBM via their form at the bottom of the page.


Uh, this article really *was* written by drobbins some time ago. It's 
okay. It's all perfectly legal; in fact, check out 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/


I and some other folks GuideXMLified the original developerWorks 
articles and republished them on gentoo.org with permission.


Example for the URL you posted: 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/l-awk1.xml


However, everything else drobbins wrote can be found in 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/, as can several other articles 
written by Gentoo folks over the years.


No need for the alarm, folks. Simmahdownah.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu

2008-07-15 Thread Josh Saddler

Fabian Groffen wrote:

I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I installed
Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on purpose conservative
with CFLAGS?  make.conf.example also does not much more than
-march -O2 -pipe.  -O1 to the linker feels conservative to me.  Still,
do we really need to go any further?  Why not make additional pointers
to possible values for LDFLAGS like we do for C(XX)FLAGS in the
installation manual?


CFLAGS != LDFLAGS, so the installation handbook has never covered them. 
And yes, we are conservative in our documentation with regards to 
optimization, because that's the smart choice.


Ya'll may want to take a look at the compilation optimization guide at 
[1], specifically the FAQ on LDFLAGS. I may need to reword this section 
a bit given how the stance on LDFLAGS has shifted.


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-optimization.xml#doc_chap3_sect4



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Tags vs. categories (was: sci-libs/scipy - dev-python/scip)

2008-07-08 Thread Josh Saddler

Alec Warner wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be
categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented
in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category
moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up.

Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because
it is not worth the trouble of doing the move?  I assume we inherited
the category idea from fbsd ports.


It is pointless because we should probably have tags; not categories.
It is akin to the Section[1] header in a debian control file.

[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections


Tags instead of categories . . . Now here's a very interesting idea, 
indeed. Has there ever been a proposal like this for Gentoo?


I think we could improve on the Debian way of doing (sub)sections And I 
 think that a good system of tags would do better than most distros 
which have a fairly limited set of arbitrary categories (like desktop, 
system, utils; who knows what the heck those last two mean, anyway?) But 
blog-style multiple tags might be very, very nice, if we could agree on 
a set of tags to use, without trapping ourselves into some of the 
weirder categorization used by other distros, like Slackware's arcane 
alphabetic system.


Tags . . . I like the idea. I like it a lot. Thoughts? Exciting? Or is 
it an old issue, and I'm 5 years late to the party. :)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Tags vs. categories

2008-07-08 Thread Josh Saddler

Tags . . . I like the idea. I like it a lot. Thoughts? Exciting? Or is it an
old issue, and I'm 5 years late to the party. :)


Probably more than 5...


Well, that's not very helpful. Got any links? My archives.g.o-fu has 
failed me.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] MP4 global use flag

2008-06-26 Thread Josh Saddler

Steve Dibb wrote:
Any objections to moving MP4 from a local to a global USE flag.  For the 
record, MP4 is a multimedia container to store multiple audio/video 
formats in.


Currently we have 4 ebuilds using it, all for the same description.


4 doesn't sound quite worthy of global, yet. However, there are 
70-someodd packages that use aac -- and they all seem to be for mp4 
audio in some form, more or less. Is it worthwhile to just s/mp4/aac, or 
vice versa?





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] A few questions to our nominees

2008-06-09 Thread Josh Saddler

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:49:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't
anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details?

- rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook,
guidexml.

What technical reason is there to use a markup that's more work for
those of us doing the writing? Writing XML is a huge pain in the ass
compared to latex.

More people can understand those markups


I've yet to see anyone have any difficulties with Tex.


they are consistent with the gentoo documentation


GuideXML can't even begin to cover our requirements. Simple example:
try to rewrite the following in GuideXML:

---START---
Global variables must only contain invariant values
(see~\ref{metadata-invariance}). If a global variable's value is
invariant, it may have the value that would be generated at any given
point in the build sequence.

This is demonstrated by code listing~\ref{lst:env-saving}.

\lstinputlisting[float,caption=Environment state between
functions,label=lst:env-saving]{env-saving.listing}
---END---


Let's change all that hideous, barely readable multiple brace/bracket 
abuse into something more human-readable, shall we?


---

p
Global variables must only contain invariant values (see uri 
link=#metadata-invariancelink/uri). If a global variable's value is

invariant, it may have the value that would be generated at any given
point in the build sequence.
/p

p
This is demonstrated by the following:
/p

pre caption=Environment state between functions id=env-saving
bunch o'neat code
/pre

---

Oh, and that id is entirely optional; GuideXML is smart enough to keep 
track of successive code blocks, so you automatically have numerical 
inter/intra document links, as I'll demonstrate at the end of this email.


GuideXML has moved on, while you seem to be stuck in the past. For 
example, look at all the neat things we can do especially for ebuild 
syntax highlighting.[1] Might want to read the rest of that document, 
while you're at it.


Thanks for playing; you lose.


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml#doc_chap2_sect7



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Idea

2008-06-06 Thread Josh Saddler

George Prowse wrote:
 [stuff]

Take it to gentoo-project, please. This list is s'posed to be for 
technical discussion. gentoo-project is more appropriate for this kind 
of query.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

2008-06-05 Thread Josh Saddler

Łukasz Damentko wrote:

Hi guys,

Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be
open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008).


Now that nominations are officially open, I nominate the current council 
members (again):


amne
betelgeuse
dberkholz
flameeyes
jokey
lu_zero
vapier



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations for council

2008-06-03 Thread Josh Saddler

Denis Dupeyron wrote:

Alright. Then I'll nominate all members of the current council. In
alphabetical order:
amne
betelgeuse
dberkholz
flameeyes
jokey
lu_zero
vapier


Seconded.

(Also...it's voting time already? Can't believe it's already been a year.)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

2008-05-30 Thread Josh Saddler

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that a number of packages in the tree explicitly filter 
-ffast-math.


That's mostly from the bad old days when users were encouraged to use
silly CFLAGS...


1. _When_ was this?
2. _Who_ was encouraging this?

. . . because it sure as hell hasn't ever been in the official 
documentation.


Last year I wrote the optimization guide[1] in part to stem the flood of 
bad advice on the unofficial gentoo-wiki, and by uninformed users on the 
forums.


There hasn't been any official documentation telling users to do foolish 
things with their CFLAGS or LDFLAGS.


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-optimization.xml



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

2008-03-24 Thread Josh Saddler

Doug Goldstein wrote:
It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the 
OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and 
committed it to the tree this weekend.


Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm 
backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since 
I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my 
attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for 
OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.


I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit 
the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.


Well, *somebody* had better get their act together and talk with me 
about the migration document. I don't care about the ebuild so much as I 
do about making sure there's a howto for the migration process.


If baselayout-2  OpenRC are the future of Gentoo, then gosh darnit, we 
need to work together. That means people in the know need to 
communicate with me on the draft (that I've already sent to cardoe), 
regardless of any who's-ebuild-are-we-using-epenis-fights. :)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

2008-03-20 Thread Josh Saddler

Doug Goldstein wrote:

All,

This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the 
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch 
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available 
via the layman module openrc.


I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and 
work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.


The installation handbooks won't be changed until openrc  baselayout-2 
are stabilized and shipped with the stage3 tarballs.


The same goes for our existing documentation. Until the new baselayout  
openrc are stabilized, made the default, *and* the old stuff is marked 
deprecated, don't expect it to show up in our other documents alongside 
baselayout-1 content. The last thing I want is to fork our documentation 
code samples, and duplicate everything with if you're on baselayout2 
and/or openrc, do this instead instructions. That type of thing is 
a maintenance and usability headache. It's all or nothing. There can be 
only one!


I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if 
we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration 
will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun.






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March

2008-03-05 Thread Josh Saddler
Anant Narayanan wrote:
 [stuff]

So basically, what you're looking for is something like Arch Linux's
Trusted User (TU) concept[1].

That works for Arch, because they have 5 repositories (including a
community repo), but I'm not sure how well that would fit Gentoo, where
there's just one.

We'd need some pretty extensive ACLs to make your proposal work, so
you'd need to talk to infra about that.



[1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 - x86_64

2008-02-21 Thread Josh Saddler
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?

In fairness, not just for Intel fanboys. Drop by the forums some time
and just try to count up all the threads asking are the amd64
stages/media appropriate for my computer? i have a core 2 and similar.

Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier,
there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which
wouldn't make the GDP happpy.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Adding two USE flags to 2008.0's profiles

2008-02-02 Thread Josh Saddler
Petteri Räty wrote:
 Actually bluetooth support is in quite a good shape. The thing was there
 was a urgent need to get bluez-utils-3* stable for which I need some doc
 updates etc before it can go stable. (Yes I am a slacker there)


Doc updates? GDP hasn't heard anything about this, as far as I know. No
open bugs, anyway.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] I want to steal your tools

2008-02-02 Thread Josh Saddler
Alec Warner wrote:
s/writtten/written

s/aggregrate/aggregate

s/genitellia/genitalia

app-doc/nightmorph, your spellchecking tool.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of digest files from the tree

2008-01-26 Thread Josh Saddler
Zac Medico wrote:
 (shtuff)

This sounds like something that might require extensive documentation
changes. If so, please review the Portage Handbooks for anything that
will need updating, as well as the Gentoo Upgrading Guide[1]. This
latter document is where we keep the instructions for upgrading from old
installations. Not sure if this removal will seriously affect such users
or not. If so, patches and/or additional instructions sent to the GDP
will be most welcome. Thanks!

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: sys-devel/distcc-config

2008-01-10 Thread Josh Saddler
Ryan Hill wrote:
 # Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] (10 Jan 2008)
 # Duplicates functionality already in sys-devel/distcc
 # Masked for removal (treecleaner)
 # Bug #192741
 sys-devel/distcc-config
 
 

Given that this is being removed, can you or someone in charge of distcc
packages please provide a patch for the distcc guide[1]? It references
distcc-config several times.

Thanks,

Josh


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/distcc.xml



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: sys-devel/distcc-config

2008-01-10 Thread Josh Saddler
Petteri Räty wrote:
 Josh Saddler kirjoitti:
 Ryan Hill wrote:
 # Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] (10 Jan 2008)
 # Duplicates functionality already in sys-devel/distcc
 # Masked for removal (treecleaner)
 # Bug #192741
 sys-devel/distcc-config



 Given that this is being removed, can you or someone in charge of distcc
 packages please provide a patch for the distcc guide[1]? It references
 distcc-config several times.

 Thanks,

 Josh

 
 The command is not going to be removed. It's provided by the distcc
 package itself.

Ah, so no need to emerge the package itself? Then I'll just remove such
emerge references from the guide. Thanks!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reducing the size of the system package set

2008-01-09 Thread Josh Saddler
Mike Frysinger wrote:
 Well, openssh has always been questionable.  Sure, *I* think it should
 be on any Gentoo system I'd want to touch, but it really isn't necessary
 for a lot of people.  Moving this to, say, the server profiles only
 would be acceptable to me, but then again, so is leaving it how it is
 now.
 
 i'd argue pretty vehemently against removing openssh from any default 
 official 
 Gentoo install.  ssh is defacto standard for loginning into any other 
 machines.  it should be on all Gentoo desktops/severs/etc...  
 specialized/embedded/whatever are certainly free to cull openssh (and doing 
 so is actually beyond trivial).  whether we express this requirement in base/ 
 or frags or something is certainly open for discussion, but i believe 
 removing it from a stage3 in any of our standard releases is a huge 
 disservice to everyone.

We all know that ssh is good for sysadmins and netadmins and Gentoo
developers, etc. However, desktop users -- i.e., those not in those
categories, which is most everyone else, likely do not find it as
useful. I'd say that most of our userbase doesn't need to remotely
connect to other machines. Our development/admin experiences are *not*
typical of our installed userbase, judging by our huge forums. Their
machines aren't used for such purposes. openssh may be a de facto
standard for the kind of application it is, but that doesn't mean we
need to force it on end-users. Our philosophy has been more of opt-in,
rather than opt-out, and quite simply, ssh isn't a critical system
package; a base installed system won't be broken if it's  not there. If
you *need* it to do work (admins, I'm looking at you), then you can
*emerge* it. Just like vim, cvs, dev_tool_foo etc.

I *am* a desktop user. And . . . aside from Gentoo development, I have
no need for ssh. It could easily be removed from the system profile --
the only place it might be kept is in the liveCD environment, for remote
installations. Other than that, we don't need to ship it in our stages;
just on the media.


(Whoa, sudden feeling of deja vu. I'm 80% positive this was previously
brought up on the MLs within the last two to three years...and I stated
the same view then!)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Projects and subproject status

2008-01-09 Thread Josh Saddler
Luca Barbato wrote:
 Here is a list of interesting questions: Are we fine? What are we
 going to do?

Documentation

(Note: I'm not the project lead, but neysx isn't on the list, nor does
he send status updates, so I hope he and the rest of the project won't mind.

 Are we fine?

Sure, why not. The pace of new bugs has slowed down, which is good, as
it allows for, uh, existing bugs to get fixed?

Over the last couple of months, some GDP devs besides me have been
making commits, which is a nice change of pace from how the year had
been previously. :) (I can take a vacation, whoo!)

Sure, we have a few bugs that are two or three (or even four) years old,
but who doesn't?

We could always use more translators though. We have several dead
languages, some of which used to be pretty big.

 What are we going to do:

The handbooks for the upcoming release are almost ready. Our release
plans have changed slightly; still coordinating with releng. We'll get
'em finished up and delivered . . . at some point. Promise.

On down the road, you can expect the usual maintenance of existing
world-class docs. I hope to get more patches submitted[1] against our
ldap guide[2] so that it can be made an official doc once again.

I'm sure we'll be seeing new documentation this year; there's always at
least a few new guides per year. You have any suggestions on new docs
you'd like to see, feel free to send 'em my way. Or open a bug if you
have actual content already written. ;)


[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176075
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ldap-howto.xml



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-20 Thread Josh Saddler
Petteri Räty wrote:
 Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti:
 Unportable to filesystems that don't support extended attributes isn't 
 very interesting to me, unless they're common. Out of curiosity, do you 
 know which ones that would be? Looking at my kernel config, ext3 and 
 reiser explicitly support xattrs, and I see jfs and xfs have acls and 
 security labels, which might be usable. Unsyncable would be a problem, 
 so it's a good thing rsync has USE=xattr -- do the difficulties come in 
 on the CVS side? Why do you say unmaintainable?

 
 Many users might have extended attributes support turned off in the kernel.

/me raises hand. yup. don't use 'em. waste of kernel space.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

2007-12-20 Thread Josh Saddler
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
 (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...

 * It's a format restriction. Some formats have to start with something
 that's not #!.

Who cares? Gentoo uses the ebuild/bash-with-shebang format. If you're
trying to shove in something outside of that, that would be a package
manager-specific format. Like XML-stuff (that can't include the shebang
or EAPI=foo at the top) specifically for, say, Paludis.

But wait,

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 robertz wrote:
 especially PM specific EAPI. We can't have PM specific EAPI,
 otherwise we are risking forking/splitting ourself.

 Package manager EAPIs don't belong in the main tree, but they have
 uses outside of it.

If it's package manager-specific, then it doesn't belong in the main
tree, as you stated. Would that include trying to push in the proposed
suffix changes? If they have uses outside of it, then consider
supporting it *only in that package manager*, rather than trying to
force it on what is largely an unreceptive Gentoo group. Near as I can
tell, it's only the Paludis folks that are interested in pushing this
GLEP through.

It doesn't seem like additional suffix flexibility is all that desirable
except to the folks who represent one package manager. And, well, one PM
does not make a specification. Mostly. Sorta. Occasionally. Sometimes.
You'd think.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for December

2007-12-01 Thread Josh Saddler
Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
 I would suggest this kind of question based on the different ideas shown
 by the developers comunity:
 
  - What is proper way to make changes to ebuild related information
(metadata.dtd)? Do we need a GLEP? It only need to be discussed in -dev
first? Gentoo-doc is who control metadata.dtd?

Eh? News to me. No, we in the GDP don't control it. In viewing the
history [1], I see that neysx did make one commit to it, but that's
because he's a go-to guy for xml/dtd stuff in general, not because this
file is under the sole control of the GDP. We're not the ebuild
developers/writers . . . you are. Granted, we do have commit access to
that part of gentoo/xml/, but we're not the be-all and end-all for
suggested changes to metadata.dtd.

Something the council might want to keep in mind.


[1]
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/dtd/metadata.dtd?rev=1.6view=log



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Add USE_EXPAND for apache

2007-11-29 Thread Josh Saddler
Josh Saddler wrote:
 Benedikt Böhm wrote:
 
 If this goes through, please look over our existing apache-related
 documentation and file a bug with any necessary changes.

I updated our documentation, thanks to the massive patch sent my way by
hollow. (Thanks, Benedikt!)

As mentioned in an email to hollow though, I notice that speling is
listed in the variables, but it is itself misspelled -- it should be
spelling. ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Add USE_EXPAND for apache

2007-11-24 Thread Josh Saddler
Benedikt Böhm wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 the current behaviour of the apache ebuild -- chosing built-in modules based 
 on /etc/apache2/apache-builtin-mods -- is very aweful, especially for binary 
 packages.
 
 Therefore, i would like to add APACHE2_MODULES and APACHE2_MPMS to 
 USE_EXPAND. 
 I have already converted the ebuild in my local overlay and it works fine.
 
 Currently, there are over 60 modules available in apache. Out of these, a 
 good 
 default would look like this IMO:
 
 APACHE2_MODULES=actions alias auth_basic auth_digest authn_alias authn_anon 
 authn_dbm authn_default authn_file authz_dbm authz_default authz_groupfile 
 authz_host authz_owner authz_user autoindex cache dav dav_fs dav_lock deflate 
 dir disk_cache env expires ext_filter file_cache filter headers include info 
 log_config logio mem_cache mime mime_magic negotiation rewrite setenvif 
 speling status unique_id userdir usertrack version vhost_alias
 
 If noone objects, I will make these changes to base/make.defaults and commit 
 the new ebuild during the next week.

If this goes through, please look over our existing apache-related
documentation and file a bug with any necessary changes.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-upgrading.xml
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/virt-mail-howto.xml, mostly chapter 9
[3] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml

Thanks!






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] packages.gentoo.org lives!

2007-11-14 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 I've been
 asking and looking, but have not yet found, a version of the logo
 without the spotlight effect on the background.

What about http://www.gentoo.org/images/gentoo-logo.svg ? It's just the
G, without any attached background or halo effect. Convert it to a png
or jpeg as you please, then stick it wherever y'want.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Place of EAPI variable in ebuild

2007-11-13 Thread Josh Saddler
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 ...which is just as good as broken when it happens to a new user
 first installing Gentoo and wondering why he can't even follow the
 directions in the Handbook.
 
 ...so you just ensure that the handbook tells the user to upgrade the
 package manager as quickly as possible.

That's already in the handbook. See
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_chap2;
 substitute with the arch of your choice. It's the same file anyway.

Nothing wrong with the handbook, and don't nobody break it, neither.
Move along, nothing to see here. Scoot scoot.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages.gentoo.org lives!

2007-11-13 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 There isn't meant to be the big black area at the top like, the main
 gentoo.org site.

But shouldn't there be some sort of area at the top with links to the
other parts of the site, as the other pages do (the navstrip across the
top)? Right now there's zero integration with the gentoo.org site, and
even the old p.g.o had at least minimal integration with the other parts
of our site.

. . . or should this be filed in a p.g.o bug.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] death to mailer-config/mailwrapper

2007-11-02 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 A bit over two years ago, some developers set out to get debian's
 concept of mailerwrapper ('alternatives' for mail). Ever since then,
 there have been a number of package.masks for various MTAs, and
 the need to carry them forward.
 
 mailer-config/mailwrapper have not been touched for 2/1 years
 respectively. If it's going to remain masked, can we just get rid of it
 entirely?
 
 It was a good idea, but it just never took off, I think mainly because
 it required too many changes to MTAs, and also did not provide for one
 of the original goals - running two disparate MTAs on the same box.
 

Aye, death to them!

Well, I don't use 'em anyway.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: modplug

2007-11-01 Thread Josh Saddler
Samuli Suominen wrote:
 I'd like to add USE modplug to use.desc. I'll do it tomorrow,
 unless someone objects.
 
 -- snip --
 
 local use flags (searching: modplug)
 
 [-] modplug (gnustep-apps/cynthiune):
 Build with modplug support
 
 [-] modplug (media-libs/xine-lib):
 Build with modplug support
 
 [-] modplug (media-plugins/audacious-plugins):
 Build with modplug support
 
 [-] modplug (media-sound/audacious):
 Build with modplug support
 
 [-] modplug (media-sound/bmpx):
 Build with modplug support
 
 [-] modplug (media-sound/cmus):
 Build with modplug support
 
 [-] modplug (media-sound/herrie):
 Build with modplug support
 
 [-] modplug (media-sound/moc):
 Add support for modplug
 
 -- snip --

spooky; i was just looking at this particular USE flag today when i
recompiled audacious to get support for the .MODs i'm starting to
compose. i like the idea of modplug as a global flag. :)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Slapd calls nss_ldap before opening its ports

2007-10-29 Thread Josh Saddler
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 I may venture to assume that repetitive error messages of
 that plenty could be seen at least as a documentation bug.
 
 Which should be filed as a bug report or sent to the gentoo-doc list.

It's not a Gentoo documentation bug, so don't bother to file one, nor
mention it on the gentoo-doc list. It's not our problem, either.

If anything, file a bug with LDAP upstream or with RHEL's documentation;
robbat2 mentioned their docs in an earlier message.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Dawid Węgliński (cla)

2007-10-16 Thread Josh Saddler
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
 He will now be a full developer and work with
 the net-irc and x86 arch teams.

Point of clarification:
He already *was* a full developer before; he's just now *also* an
ebuild developer. You make it sound like non-ebuild devs with
different kinds of commit access aren't full or real devs and might
be second-class Gentoo members! Which we aren't. :)


Anyway, another welcome to Dawid, and his feti--er, enthusiasm--for tall
trees! (What do you use to tame trees, anyway? Somehow, whips--mmm,
whips!--wouldn't seem to do the job.) :)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming masking of dev-lang/php-4* and packages depending on it

2007-10-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Christian Hoffmann wrote:
 On 2007-10-10 at 22:44 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
 
 Since you're doing the masking, can you please help out the GDP by
 reviewing a few of our documents for any potential changes that must
 be made? Grepping for php4 shows that there are references in the
 following docs:
 
 The occurences of -D PHP4 in all 4 documents can safely be replaced by
 -D PHP5, syntactically (assuming the software in question works with
 php-5 as well, but the ebuilds do not depend on =php-4* explictily, so
 I guess it's the case here).
 
 Additionally:
 
 1. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/jffnms.xml
 sed s:apache2-php4:apache2-php5:g
 sed s:/usr/share/php4:/usr/share/php5:
 I'm not sure about the last sentence on the page:
 You may also run into problems when configuring Apache to work with
 PHP (specially if you run both PHP4 and PHP5 on the same system). In
 that case, our Configuring Apache to Work with PHP4 and PHP5 guide
 may give you some help.
 Maybe removing it completely would be best?
 
 2. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml
 This is outdated regarding php anyway:
 $ equery depends www-servers/apache
 [ Searching for packages depending on www-servers/apache... ]
 dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.3-r2
 dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.1-r2
 dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2
 ^^ should be dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2
 net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1a-r1
 www-servers/gorg-0.5

 (then rebuild any modules you have installed)
 # emerge -av '=dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2'
 ^^ same here, must be '=dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2' (is it really
 useful to specify full versions here?)
 '=net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1.a-r1'
 
 
 I know that the PHP documentation itself needs a lot of updates, too,
 (not only regarding masking of php-4) and I'll try to work on it in the
 next weeks.

Thanks for the fixes; I'll get busy committing them.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming masking of dev-lang/php-4* and packages depending on it

2007-10-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Josh Saddler wrote:
 Christian Hoffmann wrote:
 On 2007-10-10 at 22:44 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:

 Since you're doing the masking, can you please help out the GDP by
 reviewing a few of our documents for any potential changes that must
 be made? Grepping for php4 shows that there are references in the
 following docs:
 The occurences of -D PHP4 in all 4 documents can safely be replaced by
 -D PHP5, syntactically (assuming the software in question works with
 php-5 as well, but the ebuilds do not depend on =php-4* explictily, so
 I guess it's the case here).

 Additionally:

 1. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/jffnms.xml
 sed s:apache2-php4:apache2-php5:g
 sed s:/usr/share/php4:/usr/share/php5:
 I'm not sure about the last sentence on the page:
 You may also run into problems when configuring Apache to work with
 PHP (specially if you run both PHP4 and PHP5 on the same system). In
 that case, our Configuring Apache to Work with PHP4 and PHP5 guide
 may give you some help.
 Maybe removing it completely would be best?

 2. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml
 This is outdated regarding php anyway:
 $ equery depends www-servers/apache
 [ Searching for packages depending on www-servers/apache... ]
 dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.3-r2
 dev-php/phpsysinfo-2.1-r2
 dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2
 ^^ should be dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2
 net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1a-r1
 www-servers/gorg-0.5

 (then rebuild any modules you have installed)
 # emerge -av '=dev-php/mod_php-4.3.11-r2'
 ^^ same here, must be '=dev-lang/php-5.2.4_p20070914-r2' (is it really
 useful to specify full versions here?)
 '=net-www/mod_layout-4.0.1.a-r1'

 I know that the PHP documentation itself needs a lot of updates, too,
 (not only regarding masking of php-4) and I'll try to work on it in the
 next weeks.
 
 Thanks for the fixes; I'll get busy committing them.

. . . fixed in CVS!




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming masking of dev-lang/php-4* and packages depending on it

2007-10-10 Thread Josh Saddler
Christian Hoffmann wrote:
 Heya,
 
 I'm going to p.mask =dev-lang/php-4* and all packages explicitly
 depending on this version of php (i.e. the whole dev-php4/ category
 (36 packages) and one webapp, www-apps/knowledgetree, bug 194894 [1])
 next weekend (around Oct 14th). This step is necessary as there is
 hardly any upstream activity anymore.
 
 The last official version of php-4, 4.4.7, dates back to May 3rd and is
 in the same state as php-5.2.2 security-wise (and we all know how many
 issues php-5 had in the past, just have a look at the recently published
 GLSA 200710-02 [2]).
 
 All those security problems, which were fixed in the 5.2 branch,
 possibly apply to the 4.4 branch as well, yet there are no (backported)
 fixes in upstream CVS and there is no sign of an upcoming release
 either.
 This means, if we were to continue php-4 support we would have to do
 the upstream work and compile a list of issues + patches. Upstream
 developers seem to see it the same way -- if you really want to get it
 done - do it was one reply when I asked what's up with php-4. Noone
 from our PHP team has the time and motiviation to do that work, and as
 such we are going to mask it (unless someone volunteers to do the work
 and/or upstream becomes active again).
 
 We will still keep php-4 (and all related packages) in the tree until at
 least the end of the year (this is the date where official upstream
 support ends) and bump it if (and not when...) there are any
 releases.
 
 We advise all users of of php-4 to upgrade to php-5 as soon as possible.
 
 [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194894
 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200710-02.xml

Since you're doing the masking, can you please help out the GDP by
reviewing a few of our documents for any potential changes that must be
made? Grepping for php4 shows that there are references in the
following docs:

1. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/jffnms.xml
2. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-troubleshooting.xml
3. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/qmail-howto.xml
4. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/hb-working-rcscripts.xml


Thanks,

Josh



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Mike Pagano (mpagano)

2007-10-04 Thread Josh Saddler
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
 Denis Dupeyron wrote:
 Yes people, Mike is older than Uncle Seemant, and even older than me.
 
 But is he older than nerdboy? Do we have competition for the Crotchety
 Old Man title? Are we going to hear lots of stories that start with
 when I was your age?
 
 Welcome Mike!
 

Well, neddyseagoon is more senior than nerdboy (or any other dev), but
he's not crotchety in the slightest. ;)

Anyway, welcome, Mike!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-wm/ion2

2007-09-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Mike Doty wrote:
 Matti Bickel wrote:
 Hi,
 as previously mentioned, ion2 is currently broken (bug #167468) and
 going away in favour of the soon to be stable x11-wm/ion3.

 It will be p.masked and removed in 30 days unless someone speaks up and
 solves the issues surrounding slotted lua among others (see the bug for
 details).
 didn't we yank ion from the tree because of upstream license problems?

That's what I'd thought, too:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-559010.html

Did something change? Has upstream stopped being stupid? Is he an actual
human being now? Or is someone forking the code (but retaining the ion3
name)?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-wm/ion2

2007-09-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Dawid Węgliński wrote:
 Dnia 11-09-2007, wto o godzinie 18:36 -0700, Chris Gianelloni
 napisał(a):
 On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 17:54 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
 Mike Doty wrote:
 Matti Bickel wrote:
 Hi,
 as previously mentioned, ion2 is currently broken (bug #167468) and
 going away in favour of the soon to be stable x11-wm/ion3.

 It will be p.masked and removed in 30 days unless someone speaks up and
 solves the issues surrounding slotted lua among others (see the bug for
 details).
 didn't we yank ion from the tree because of upstream license problems?
 That's what I'd thought, too:

 http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-559010.html

 Did something change? Has upstream stopped being stupid? Is he an actual
 human being now? Or is someone forking the code (but retaining the ion3
 name)?
 Ehh... the Last Rites was for ion2, not ion3...

 as previously mentioned, ion2 is currently broken (bug #167468) and
 going away in favour of the soon to be stable x11-wm/ion3.
 
 So in favour of ion3 right?

Yeah, that's what I noticed. The weird thing is that it *was* pulled
from the tree entirely some time ago, so it can't be stabilized.

Is this just an old email suddenly sent out by the server? I got a
couple of ancient (months to 1 year+) messages the other daymaybe
the mail server needs kicking. It certainly keeps prompting me for my
password every time I check; bah.

mabi: 'sup? :)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] On my way out....

2007-08-28 Thread Josh Saddler
Gustavo Zacarias wrote:
 
 I resign as gentoo developer.
 Infra: please remove my accounts.
 

But! But! But you're the only sparc team member that ever bothered to
help me with the sparc handbook updates and other documents.

Sorry to see you go; I've enjoyed working with you. Fortune to your
future endeavors.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.4 profiles are on their way out!

2007-08-27 Thread Josh Saddler
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 16:18 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 Let this be a lesson to everyone.  Just because you discussed it a
 couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean:

 a) it is still wanted
 -or-
 b) it is still valid
 so what is the 2.4 status then ?
 
 Well, we still don't support it on sparc/x86.  It is unsupported on
 Alpha, too, unless you have one of the machines that 2.6 won't yet run
 on, which have been discovered since my last speaking with the team and
 is the reason why I screwed up.  The idea is to leave it deprecated on
 alpha without listing a removal date.  About the only thing that I have
 done here is removed the November 1st removal date.  Now, maybe we'll
 get lucky and can fix the kernel on those machines between now and then,
 but if not, it isn't a big deal.  It can stay for Alpha and not really
 affect too many people.  The Alpha machines aren't ones people would
 typically use for a desktop, and this was hurried along because of some
 requests from the GNOME team, who are hating the 2.4 profiles since
 every GNOME since 2.16 has required 2.6/hal/udev to work properly.  The
 2.4 profiles are currently causing them headaches, and from my own
 experiences, will continue to do so, as more and more things are going
 to quit working on 2.4 as time goes on...

Huh. So. Though I've been constantly working on cleaning up 2.4
kernel-related stuff and old profiles in the handbooks and other
documents, do any more changes need to be made, and if so, can I make
them now? (I'd really like to, lest I/everyone else forget about it
around November.) See especially
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml for potential cleanups.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/ppp/(ip-up.d,ip-down.d} directories

2007-08-26 Thread Josh Saddler
Alin Năstac wrote:
 A gentoo user requested in bug 190143 [1] to change the way pppd deals
 with interface up/down events. He requested to break current
 ip-up/ip-down functionality into different scripts contained in
 /etc/ppp/(ip-up.d,ip-down.d}.
 
 What do you think about? Is it worth it?
 
 Personally I think it is a good idea, but I have reserves when it comes
 to user defined {ip-up,ip-down}.local scripts. IMO the best way to solve
 this is to add this code to pkg_postinst():
 if [ -f ${ROOT}etc/ppp/ip-up.local ]; then
   mv ${ROOT}etc/ppp/ip-up.local ${ROOT}etc/ppp/ip-up.d/99-local
 fi
 
 [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=190143

If anything does actually change, be sure to open a docs-team bug with
a patch or list of changes against what the networking handbook(s)
currently have for PPP. It'll need to be documented all over again.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] LinuxWorld pictures and Dev House

2007-08-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Mike Lundy wrote:
 Quite the crew: http://www.flickr.com/photos/novas0x2a/1079324702/.
 Also, http://www.flickr.com/photos/novas0x2a/1079315370/
 
 (If anyone in the pictures wants to be tagged, let me know, or just
 send me a friend request and then do it yourself)
 
 Solar must be a vampire- he didn't end up in any of my pictures.
 
 Also, I'd like to extend an invitation to anyone who lives in the
 northern california (USA) area. We do this geek party called Super
 Happy Dev House every few weeks, and the next one is tomorrow,
 Saturday, August 11th. It's free, and there will be food and geeks. If
 you want more information, check out [1]. I know it's sort of last
 minute, but we're going from 2pm until 1am, and you can show up or
 leave at any time. Come by if you get a chance :)
 
 1) http://www.superhappydevhouse.org/letter19

Nice pictures, Mike! Much thanks.

hey dostrow, man your hair's grown out since SCALE. Who's that you're
molesting?

and i think this one's vapier
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/novas0x2a/1079315370/) -- that how you
always look? ;)

RUNS AWAY.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for August

2007-08-08 Thread Josh Saddler
Grant Goodyear wrote:
 Vapier wrote: [Tue Aug 07 2007, 10:16:55PM CDT]
 This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
 meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
 channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
 
 Um, I'm pretty sure that the meeting was moved to the 16th, to
 avoid conflicting with LWE.  No?
 
 -g2boojum-

Auto-generated email is my guess.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending death of mail-filter/spamassassin-ruledujour

2007-08-02 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 Heya,
 
 The upstream rules_du_jour folk have had issues over the last few months
 with DDoS and other attacks. Additionally, the nature of their original
 update mechanism causes a lot of traffic. 
 
 Everybody that is using rules_du_jour is strongly encouraged to move to
 using the sa-update mechanism that is included with recent versions of
 SpamAssassin.
 
 Here is a guide to using SARE rulesets with sa-update:
 http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
 
 mail-filter/spamassassin-ruledujour will be p.masked on August 4th, and
 removed one month thereafter.
 

I updated the one reference to this package in our docs, in
mailfilter-guide.xml. Yanked out dujour in favor of the link you gave.
Should be good to go.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-31 Thread Josh Saddler
Blackace wrote:
 I'd like to nominate:
 
 vapier
 tsunam
 nightmorph
 seemant
 avenj
 christel
 
 Although most of them will probably decline, I think they would do an
 excellent job straightening out Gentoo's heading and have the barnacles
 to perform the requisite keelhauling.


I appreciate the nomination by you and others, but after a whole month
of thinking on this, I must decline, mostly for reasons of time commitment.

Council actually isn't a job I'd want to do; I'm not out to be in
charge. I'm sure I'd take the same approach that I would to everything
else I do; do the job that's before me, but I don't think I'd be able to
devote enough time to do a *good* job. I've no problem doing any
necessary keelhauling etc., but I'm not sure that I have the time. And
no matter how fast I'd try to learn, I'm not starting off with the same
detailed knowledge of ebuilds and Portage that the other candidates have.

Meanwhile, I'll continue making a difference within Gentoo by doing
documentation for any and all interested parties, and anything else I
can contribute to, like the GWN. It's not council work, but I'll
continue to try to make Gentoo better for everyone, at least in my
little corner. :)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

2007-07-22 Thread Josh Saddler
Ryan Hill wrote:
 Marius Mauch wrote:
 While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics
 that concern me a bit:
 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the
 Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems?
 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail:
 a) who would (legally) own the copyright?
 b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change
 the license?
 c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to
 change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)?
 
 It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first
 distribution to join.  I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers
 distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia
 drivers, vmware) to be producing non-free software (as per the
 Conservancy's charitable purpose) as mentioned in section 2(b) of their
 notes.  Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it.
 
 a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree 
 that 
any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as 
 Free Software.
 
 If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.

We don't distribute those, do we? A look at their ebuilds shows that
those are just downloaded from upstream, not from Gentoo mirrors. Well,
except for Nero.

At least we aren't the creators of it!

Does that document you mention define what Free Software is? nvidia
drivers are free to download, install, use, in the sense that they don't
cost anything. Bah, legal hassle!




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] please drop support for 2.4

2007-07-22 Thread Josh Saddler
Rajiv Aaron Manglani wrote:
 
 hello all. i would like to propose that we officially drop support for
 2.4 kernel profiles (especially default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4). over the
 last few months it has been increasingly difficult to keep 2.4 systems
 up to date.

vanilla-sources is the only place to find a 2.4 kernel on some arches,
though at least using those sources is no longer supported (as DSD and
the kernel team told me some months back.)

From the docs perspective, I'd like it if all 2.4 profiles for any
remaining arches were marked unsupported as well. I spoke with the arch
teams around the 2007.0 release time when I was updating the handbooks
to remove almost all 2.4 references, but there are still a few in there
for things like sparc-sources. AFAIK that's the only arch that still has
a 2.4 kernel available.

Any chance of seeing it all go away so I can finally clean up *all* 2.4
references?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans

2007-07-21 Thread Josh Saddler
Roy Marples wrote:
 On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 11:48 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
 (GDP): you give us the info, we'll document it for you. Or I will at least.
 
 Well, the changes are as outlined in my first email.
 The user changes are mainly a few variables in the /etc/conf.d/* files
 that baselayout ships. For example a few have been removed and a few
 have been added, and a few have changed.

Yeah, I planned on doing some heavy reading of the new stuff, but I hope
I can get you all alone (heh heh heh) for awhile to go over questions
that will surely pop up. In case things like new networking configs
aren't intuitive, or whatever.

 3) How long will 1.x be kept stable? (This affects how long the old
 instructions are in the handbooks etc.)
 
 Good question. We normally keep at least one major revision prior to the
 current stable in the tree. They can stay in the tree indefinitely I
 suppose, but the GDP should only follow the current stable. Maybe
 archive the handbook?

Archiving the handbook isn't possible. The only thing we archive for
historical purposes are the networkless handbooks, in
/doc/en/handbook/2006.0/, 2006.1/, etc. I'm thinking that if
baselayout-2 is the way of the future, then as soon as it's stabled for
all arches (see below for a bit more) then we should pretty much just
document that exclusively in all handbooks  docs. That's where a
migration guide will be so crucial. Since the thing can't be slotted,
and it's a forced upgrade (short of masking, but BAH to those users that
do it), I don't think we need to document two completely different
systems if they're both stable.

 5) Do you have a rough estimate (month, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, what?) on when
 the first arches might be stabilizing 2.x?
 
 No.
 If the RC's prove stable and no serious regressions are reported for a
 month then we'll probably release a final 2.0.0 and get arch teams to
 mark stable a week later, or right away if no last minute changes have
 been made.

What'd really be nice is if it goes stable for all arches (or at least
all of the ones that matter, subjectively) either in time or after the
next release. Otherwise, there's going to be some more complications
from users who install from media containing old baselayout-1.x and have
to deal with the new 2.x right away. I guess we'll see. /me pokes
wolf31o2. ;)

 Most of the documentation should still apply. I've tried to be as
 compatible as possible - the one possible exception being networking as
 baselayout-1 used bash arrays extensively. But we still support that
 if /bin/sh is bash, which it is by default for Gentoo/Linux

Yeah. Though I still don't know the whole story, I anticipate that
updating the networking configs will be the biggest headache.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans

2007-07-21 Thread Josh Saddler
Roy Marples wrote:
 On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 17:25 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
 Archiving the handbook isn't possible.
 
 Why? Unless I'm missing something, it should be fairly trivial.

It ain't. It's an old issue.

Current networked (requires a net connection to install) handbooks go to
/doc/en/handbook/. Networkless (needs no net connection, only a liveCD
of some sort) goes to /doc/en/handbook/release_number/, like /2007.0/.
Whenever there's a new release, we can archive the networkless versions
because we just add a new dir for the latest version number. But
everything in /doc/en/handbook/ (networked) gets overwritten with the
stuff for the new release.

No way we can archive anything but the networkless handbooks. Besides,
that's mostly what you'd want anyway -- if you do the much more
up-to-date networked install, you're going to pull in all the new stuff
like baselayout-2 anyway, so you wouldn't want the old directions.

That's the theory, at least.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Zombie: Sven Vermeulen (swift)

2007-07-18 Thread Josh Saddler
Petteri Räty wrote:
 Your doc zombie Sven Vermeulen has risen from his grave and is back to
 beat www.gentoo.org/doc/en with his fingers. Give him the usual welcome
 with nice head shots.

Hi SwifTy. See you 'round our channel!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


  1   2   >