Re: [gentoo-dev] profiles 17.0 hardened/no-multilib missing?
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> 1) there's barely any use for it, > > Well, I think that whoever use hardened barely use multilib. For the value of one anecdote, I'm a long-time hardened user and all of my hardened systems are no-multilib.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-forensics/* and other forensics@g.o packages
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:41 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > The last update visible on pentoo.ch is from two years ago. Is the > project still active? Yes. Check their github [0] - they may have stopped caring as much about their separate bootable project, but the overlay is alive and well. [0] https://github.com/pentoo/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-forensics/* and other forensics@g.o packages
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > app-admin/integrit > app-forensics/afflib [o] > app-forensics/air > app-forensics/autopsy > app-forensics/chkrootkit [o] > app-forensics/cmospwd > app-forensics/examiner > app-forensics/galleta > app-forensics/libewf [o] > app-forensics/lynis > app-forensics/mac-robber > app-forensics/magicrescue > app-forensics/memdump > app-forensics/pasco > app-forensics/rifiuti [o] > app-forensics/rkhunter > app-forensics/scalpel [o] > app-forensics/sleuthkit [o] > net-mail/libpst [o] > sys-apps/dcfldd > sys-block/disktype The pentoo.ch overlay has superseded and expanded on a lot of these. I gave up on trying to provide patches and updates for this category long ago, but they have picked up the flag and are doing a good job.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 07:41, Mark Loeser wrote: > "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said: >> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02 >> >> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild >> Log: >> old > > Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs. It would also seem manifests weren't regenerated. Don't have the time to go look if they were all touched by the same individual, but since Friday afternoon bzip2, cabextract, rsyslog, rubygems, and ca-certificates all come up with files missing from the manifest.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until you > answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a troll. Hell, I'll explain. Read paragraph 8 again. Slowly. Read it a second time, since you obviously didn't read the first time. The paragraph makes the point that the pro-GLEP55 stance says that encoding EAPI inside the file is slower. It is not saying GLEP55 is slower, it is attempting to debunk the theory that it is faster. You may be a lightning-fast typer and emailer, but until your comprehension catches up, you might want to consider reading things that make you angry twice.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regardless of the points being made or their validity, this is the long-standing problem with Gentoo: excessive pride and ego and too little inability to cooperate internally, much less externally. Too many people are treating every discussion (turned argument) as life-or-death and are unwilling to concede anything. Sometimes you have to say, "I disagree, but not enough to make waves about it." This is why we've been bleeding old-guard developers (the quiet ones that got stuff done and didn't flame) for months and not gaining the people that carefully examine an environment before they commit. Some people just want to quietly go about their business and Do Things Right, not trudge through hundred-fatwa threads detailing the latest technical-turned-personal 'discussion'. For those of you doing the dev thing for CV points: which will your future employer appreciate more, fifty pseudo-technical flames or a few highly-informative documentation posts? A dozen new packages or a 20MB IRC log detailing what you hate about infra member $foo? Get over yourselves. Please. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27
> My specific interest in it is for having a sane UID/GIDs that are > identical between a set of machines, regardless of the order packages > are emerged in. I was initially surprised to see Gentoo didn't have written standards for UID/GID management, but don't see many other distros having one either. Would it be untoward to extend this GLEP to define both default ranges and an internal body to hand them out? I, for one, am aesthetically uncomfortable with processes like mysql and rpm using IDs < 100, but don't have a clean technical argument as to why they shouldn't. It would also probably be fruitful to have enewgroup/enewuser check UID_MIN/GID_MIN instead of hard-coding the 101-999 search it does now. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage
> non-system packages, the only thing stopping people from using EAPI 1 where > useful is ludditism. While most of us appreciate your desire to move forward, ad-hominem attacks (however subtle) really only serve to damage your point. That said, this is the typical developer-wants-shiny-object, engineering-wants-stability drama played out day after day in corporations worldwide, and nothing ever gets solved until someone puts up. Please - for the rest of the community's sake, get over yourselves and your high ideals and spend some of this energy doing something positive. Like pushing for ratification/completion of EAPI=0 so none of you have room to complain. Until EAPI=2. RB -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list