Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing SHA512 hash from Manifests

2021-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:23 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > We can reiterate when there are indications that SHA512 would be broken. > (Then again, the same applies to BLAKE2B.) Unless both are broken at the same time you'd also have the advantage of not having to try to scramble to figure out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Declare the type of source

2021-06-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:58 AM Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > On lunedì 28 giugno 2021 17:07:57 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > If the package declares a dependency on e.g. virtual/c-compiler, ago > > would want to re-test it whenever a new version of any compiler is > > released that satisfies

Re: [gentoo-dev] Declare the type of source

2021-06-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:46 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-06-28 at 15:00 +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > > > Instead, imagine that each ebuild declares a variable called SOURCETYPE ( or > > similar, or in metadata.xml if you prefer ) and with a tool like equery/eix > > we > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should we switch IRC client defaults off Freenode?

2021-06-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:42 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > What is the point you're making? If GF decides to kick you from Gentoo, > will you also claim that it was their legal right? > IMO the lesson to be learned here is that we ought to design Gentoo in such a way that if the GF kicks us all

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should we switch IRC client defaults off Freenode?

2021-06-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:28 AM Michal Prívozník wrote: > > On 6/16/21 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, Michał Górny wrote: > > > >> We've moved our official support channels from Freenode to Libera.chat. > >> All that's happened afterwards pretty much proves that

Re: [gentoo-dev] timezone configuration - why copying, not symlinking /etc/localtime ?

2021-03-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 5:43 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > I kinda wish the Linux kernel had an ability to partially boot, init the > networking subsystem, then fetch an initramfs image over TFTP like it can do > with NFS Root. That would solve the problem on my MIPS system(s) (and make > install

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: usrmerge script

2021-03-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:09 AM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:48:41AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > What really can help is reflinking on filesystems supporting that. > > What really can help is more info instead of being terse like this. > Which filesystems support

Re: [gentoo-dev] timezone configuration - why copying, not symlinking /etc/localtime ?

2021-03-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:54 PM Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > > Council decided years ago that we don't support separate /usr without > > > an initramfs, but we haven't completed that transition yet. > > > > Which doesn't imply that we deliberately break things. > > That's right. Though we

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: binhost

2021-02-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 8:51 PM Zac Medico wrote: > > > 2. Generate a hash of the file contents - this can go in the filename > > so that the file can co-exist with other files, and be located > > assuming you have a full matching set of metadata. > > For FEATURES=binpkg-multi-instance we

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: binhost

2021-02-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:57 PM Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > * what portage features are still needed or need improvements (e.g. binpkg > signing and verification) > * how should hosting look like Some ideas for portage enhancements: 1. Ability to fetch binary packages from some kind of repo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Python preference to follow PYTHON_TARGETS

2021-01-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 2:09 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 13:53 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:21 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > For this reason, we have decided to change the default python-exec > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Python preference to follow PYTHON_TARGETS

2021-01-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:21 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > For this reason, we have decided to change the default python-exec > configuration to match PYTHON_TARGETS by default, in the eclass > preference order, that is from the newest CPython version to oldest, > with alternative Python

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] We are finally shutting down CVS

2020-12-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 1:31 PM Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 6:39 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 27 Dec 2020, Max Magorsch wrote: > > > > > To access the old repositories you can use gitweb.gentoo.org instead. > > > We have migrated all old cvs repositories to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pushing to distfiles?

2020-11-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 7:23 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > Forgive me for being a dunce, but what is the current procedure to push > files to distfiles for distribution to the mirrors? The devmanual is blank > on this topic, and GLEP75 just talks about the motivations behind the change > away from

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA policy suggestion: Disallow "live-only" packages

2020-11-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:57 PM Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 11/4/20 10:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Do you really think that users who just blindly run "emerge > > --autounmask-write" are going to be both masking and unmasking > > packages by hand (pe

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA policy suggestion: Disallow "live-only" packages

2020-11-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:46 PM Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 11/4/20 8:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > 4. If somebody finds one they probably have to add some random > > overlay to their config, which causes this package to become > > available, probably along w

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA policy suggestion: Disallow "live-only" packages

2020-11-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM Marty E. Plummer wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 06:24:39PM +, Alexey Sokolov wrote: > > > > What you're describing is live ebuilds, and I agree they are useful. > > Joonas was talking about packages which have *only* live ebuilds, and no > > other versions,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Refactor display manager openrc init scripts to independent package

2020-10-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > I'm sure there is a way for the display-manager ebuild to migrate from old xdm > configs on users' systems. How much do config and init scripts differ at all? > Couldn't you just use a symlink so that either script name works? Then

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to stabilize packages with frequent release cycles?

2020-09-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jonas Stein wrote: > > Hi, > > > When the latest release remains 'latest ~arch' for less than 3 days, > > stabilizing it after 30 days makes little sense. After all, people with > > frequent upgrade cycle will test it for no more than that, and people > > with

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Services and software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in Gentoo namespace

2020-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM Alec Warner wrote: > > - repomirror-ci and all the CI stuff is on infra because mgorny is also on > infra! It's not like we set his stuff up for him; instead we gave him access > to all the infra repos and he had to write his own puppet configs and > whatnot.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Services and software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in Gentoo namespace

2020-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:17 AM Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:15:31 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > It might be easier to take smaller steps, such as having a policy that > > "any call for devs to use/test a new tool/service, or any service th

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Services and software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in Gentoo namespace

2020-09-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:52 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > But when you file a bug, you rely on bugzilla being maintained by > Gentoo Infra, not some 3rd party. > I think the Council will need to consider where it wants to draw the lines on something like this. Here is my sense of how these sorts

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please port your packages to Python 3.8

2020-09-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:06 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > It's easy to say "well this is not an issue because it can be solved by > ..." > > If it's easy, get it added to the PMS and I'll agree with you. > Current Gentoo policy: "Maintainers must not assume that dynamic dependencies will be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please port your packages to Python 3.8

2020-09-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:02 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > QA reports provide a list [2] and a graph [3] of packages needing > porting. These lists would be far more useful if they actually listed the maintainer(s) of each package. Then devs could just grep to discover if any of their packages need

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 9:55 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > >> > >> If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? > > > > bitrot and bus factor. > > Examples? The sole maintainer of

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:16 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2020-08-10 14:07, Michał Górny wrote: > > ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake. > > That's a bold statement for an unambiguous 7-0 decision as seen in > https://bugs.gentoo.org/575718. As one who voted yes, my

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:48 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford > > wrote: > > > > > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: Multiple root kernel command-line arguments

2020-08-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:19 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 23:03 +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 8/6/20 10:58 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > > Well, the purpose of this is to educate and avoid problems for > > > headless/server users. But if so many devs seem to care

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: Multiple root kernel command-line arguments

2020-08-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 1:41 PM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:59 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > > > On 2020-08-06 17:44, Michał Górny wrote: > > > I'm not sure if you've noticed but there are people actively working > > > towards removing stale news items and trying not to

Re: [gentoo-dev] IPython 7.17 drops Python 3.6 support AKA upgrade reminder

2020-08-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:36 AM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On August 1, 2020 6:25:09 AM EDT, Lars Wendler > wrote: > > > >Honestly... seeing such replies from you or knowing that you do not > >hesitate to hit other devs with your full QA deputy power once they > >dare to touch python packages is

Re: [gentoo-dev] IPython 7.17 drops Python 3.6 support AKA upgrade reminder

2020-08-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:09 AM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > On Samstag, 1. August 2020 12:15:18 CEST Rich Freeman wrote: > > Just based on what is already happening, it seems like most devs don't > > really care what versions of python are supported by their packa

Re: [gentoo-dev] IPython 7.17 drops Python 3.6 support AKA upgrade reminder

2020-08-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:29 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > I would like to take this as an opportunity to remind you to port your > packages to Python 3.7 and 3.8. According to our timeline [1], packages > that are not ported by the end of the year are going to be last rited. > We would also like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:09 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > # Aaron Bauman (2020-07-28) > > # More Py2 only stuff. Plz see -dev ML for discussions > > # Remove bindings, port to Py3, etc > > # Removal in 30 days > > [...] > > app-office/lyx > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug #733802, USE 'scp' now defaults to off in net-misc/openssh

2020-07-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 7:40 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > This seems like something that needs a news entry, or > at least a "heads up" on the mailing list? Definitely not a "heads up" on the mailing list - that is not an appropriate way to communicate anything to users - not even devs are

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Standard build environment variables

2020-07-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:36 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 2020-06-30 12:22, Matthew Thode wrote: > > > > I'd like to suggest allowing only approved variables in the build > > environment, having portage unset all variables and setting only what is > > needed (or configured). > > I think this

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On June 26, 2020 7:13:07 AM EDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Of all the methods listed in the previous posts, the QA reports, etc. > >> there is no excuse individuals can't find out if their package is py2 > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:07 PM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:21:14PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > We're removing python2 around . You can help us out by updating > > any packages you have that use python2. If you want to easily > > i

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:45 PM John Helmert III wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 07:32:04AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 2020-06-24 16:08, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > $ git grep -l mgo...@gentoo.org '**/metadata.xml' | cut -d/ -f1-2 | > > > xargs gpy-py2 2>/dev/null > > find -L

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:08 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > $ git grep -l mgo...@gentoo.org '**/metadata.xml' | cut -d/ -f1-2 | > xargs gpy-py2 2>/dev/null > I have no idea what gpy-py2 is, but I'll take your word for it. In any case, the solution in this case is to send a nice email to

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:04 PM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:29 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > > > Sure, you can use the portage API to find this info. However, that is > > > as easy to do for a list of all impacted packages in the tree w

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Alec Warner wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:29 AM Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Sure, you can use the portage API to find this info. However, that is >> as easy to do for a list of all impacted packages in the tree with >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:18 PM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > The lack of curiosity for one's own packages' python compatibility is not just > a py27 isolated issue, it was a big problem with py36 -> py37 with so many > devs simply not filing that necessary stabilisation. That suggests that if

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:36 PM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:32:28AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > > >> # Aaron Bauman (2020-06-20) > > >> # Py2 only > > >> # Removal in 14 days > > > > I see these short deadlines

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

2020-06-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:36 AM Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 00:43:03 -0400 > Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > # Aaron Bauman (2020-06-20) > > # Py2 only > > # Removal in 14 days > ... > > app-misc/golly > > If you decided to delete a maintained package you should file a bug

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

2020-06-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:33 AM Alexis Ballier wrote: > > What about /j #gentoo-media, discuss, join the current projects, get a > few things done (there is a lot of choice there ;) ), maybe orphan > unmaintained players/viewers, or check if they are maintained and hand > them to a specific

Re: [gentoo-dev] Graphics Project disbanded [pkgs up for grabs]

2020-06-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Philip Webb wrote: > > 200607 Pacho Ramos wrote: > > I think this is the list of completely unmaintained packages now, > > indeed most of them, around 100. > > -- extract from list -- > > > media-gfx/imagemagick : 200516 > > media-libs/giflib : 200312 > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Concept of Projects - How to proceed?

2020-06-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:14 PM Jonas Stein wrote: > > On 07/06/2020 03.43, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 01:49:28AM +0200, Jonas Stein wrote: > > > I will happily revert my change on the graphics project Wiki [..] > > Glad to read your offer. Yes, please do so. > > I think it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Concept of Projects - How to proceed?

2020-06-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 7:49 PM Jonas Stein wrote: > > our concept of "Projects" (Herds in the past) maintaining packages has > several problems. You might want to search the list archives as many of the issues you've raised have been discussed extensively. There was never a complete push to fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Election 2020 - Call For Election Officials

2020-05-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 6:09 AM Roy Bamford wrote: > > We sill need more volunteers. > Not going to be running, so I'm happy to pitch in. -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-base/xorg-server: No longer enabling suid by default.

2020-05-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:12 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > > [2020-05-25 23:41:23+0200] Piotr Karbowski: > > There are 3 common ways the xorg-server is started: > > > > - via XDM of some sort, usually forked as root, does not require suid, > > systemd or elogind. > > Launching X as root

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PR] ivy, mvn, sbt, gradle builders improvement for ebuild development

2020-04-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:07 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 4/20/20 1:31 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > >> Simply having things in ::gentoo does not affect anyone who does not > use them. > > > > You keep saying that, but the fact that dev-go/* is filled with trash > that has your name on it

Re: [gentoo-dev] keywording workflow

2020-04-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:12 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > An example workflow is to: > Just picking this to reply to though this is more of a general comment on the two recent keywords threads. I get that this is Gentoo and we don't want to dictate how people do things. However, I feel like this

Re: [gentoo-dev] zoom concerns

2020-04-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:18 PM Alessandro Barbieri wrote: > > I have concerns about the inclusion of zoom in ::gentoo. For me it's more > like a malware. > From the hacker news feed you'll find out that: I guess we could stick an einfo in the post-install messages, but if you're joining a zoom

Re: [gentoo-dev] network sandbox challenge

2020-03-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 7:33 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 11:29 +, Samuel Bernardo wrote: > > > Same question for unpack context when using directly the source > > repository with vcs functions. > > VCS ebuilds generally suck, for multiple reasons. We allow users to use >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: app-office/calcurse/

2020-03-13 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:29 AM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > Alec Warner schrieb: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Andreas K. Huettel > > wrote: > > > > Someone needs to grow up here. > > > > > > Meh, to me (someone who can't commit to ::gentoo) I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

2020-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:05 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > > Maybe it could for now be a simple agreement on putting your code to > the Gentoo Foundation under the GPL-2+ but it would be published under > the GPL-{2,3,…}? > Well, if we were going to get people to start signing things I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

2020-01-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:39 AM Hanno Böck wrote: > > *If* Gentoo decides to go this relicensing way I'd recommend to only do > that if it's coordinated with organizations that have deep legal > knowledge of these issues (e.g. like software freedom conservancy) and > if some lawyers that know

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

2020-01-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:20 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > > [2020-01-27 12:41:26+0100] Ulrich Mueller: > > So, the question is, should we allow ebuilds > > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or later > > in the repository, or should we even encourage it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

2020-01-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 6:41 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Historically, all ebuilds in the Gentoo repository were licensed under > GPL-2+. At a later point they were relicensed [1] to GPL-2. See [2] for > a rationale (or absence of it, YMMV). I think the historical policy made sense in its

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:16 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > This is retarded, stop wasting my time. > There is nothing retarded about shared /home directories. They're pretty common in the real world. > >> I've already got responses from two QA members. This thread is pretty > >> hard to

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:51 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/19/20 8:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > It would be far simpler for the sysadmin to simply ensure that no > > unsynced user owns a file or appears in an ACL. That would be pretty > > trivial to achieve. W

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 4:00 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/19/20 2:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Obviously the UIDs associated with the shared /home need to be > > identical. Simplest solution is to sync anything > 1000 in > > /etc/passwd, and then n

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 2:27 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/19/20 2:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> If you're sharing /home, you also have to be sharing user accounts, > >> unless you want everyone to be assigned a random set of files. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA Policy Guide

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 2:32 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > Having a discussion at a bar, and you making a commit as a result is > one thing, but if I discovered a bug, and then only told you about it > at the bar, that would be possibly bad, because there's no guarantee > that the bug is

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 1:37 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/19/20 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Typically you wouldn't share service accounts across multiple hosts. > > I'd think that something like amavisd is going to go on a mail server. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA Policy Guide

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 1:45 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 07:08:30 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > The official sources aren't in github. A bugzilla component is > > available, so if github goes away there is no problem and we aren't > > rel

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:49 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/19/20 6:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Daemons are local users. There is no guarantee that /home is a local > > filesystem. Heck, there is no guarantee that /home is even mounted > > whe

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA Policy Guide

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 6:46 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020, Michał Górny wrote: > > > The sources are stored in proj/policy-guide.git [3]. If you wish to > > submit your own changes, you can either use the 'Policy Guide' bugzilla > > component [4] and/or GitHub mirror

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-19 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:50 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/18/20 7:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:38 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> > >> But now users have to follow one more step (create /home/amavis) when > >> setting

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

2020-01-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:38 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > But now users have to follow one more step (create /home/amavis) when > setting up amavisd-new. Is the QA check really assuring a quality user > experience here? > Lots of daemons need a home directory for their users, and usually they

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Christopher Head wrote: > > > Of course this would be a bad argument if V-S were lagging behind upstream > significantly, and it’s a much better argument for packages that come with > expectations of security team support than those that don’t, but it is >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 6:42 AM Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2020.01.04 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Is there some reason that we should keep vanilla sources despite not > > getting security handling? > > > > Gentoo had this discussion before. The outcom

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:28 AM Aaron Bauman wrote: > On January 3, 2020 9:55:31 AM EST, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >On 1/3/20 9:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> > >> But here we are. Do we make OpenRC Linux-only and steal the fix from > >> systemd? Or pretend to support other operating

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:41 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/3/20 9:40 AM, Toralf Förster wrote: > > On 1/3/20 3:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> The gentoo-sources aren't 100% safe either, but the exploitable scenario > >> is less common thanks to fs.protected_{hardlinks,symlinks}=1. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Needs ideas: Upcoming circular dependency: expat <> CMake

2019-12-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:41 AM Gerion Entrup wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2019, 19:43:37 CET schrieb Sebastian Pipping: > > On 19.12.19 18:37, Michał Górny wrote: > > > We have a better alternative that lets us limit the impact on the users. > > > Why not use it? > > > > Which one?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [EAPI 8 RFC] Selective fetch/mirror (un-)restriction

2019-12-16 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:33 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Francesco Riosa wrote: > > > what about getting rid of RESTRICT="fetch" and manage everything > > inside SRC_URI? Would that be technically feasible? Ideally marking > > only the not re-distributable download and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Revisiting GLEP 81 (acct-*) policies (reviews, cross-distro syncing)

2019-12-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 9:50 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > For esoteric packages with a dedicated user, though, you're probably > right. The main benefit of the mailing list posts so far is that they > let me track down pull requests and suggest that people ignore the > example in the devmanual.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Revisiting GLEP 81 (acct-*) policies (reviews, cross-distro syncing)

2019-12-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:25 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2019-12-10 13:44, Rich Freeman wrote: > > I'm not talking about container-host mapping. I'm talking about > > building the same container 100 times and having the container end up > > with the sa

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Revisiting GLEP 81 (acct-*) policies (reviews, cross-distro syncing)

2019-12-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 7:26 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2019-12-10 12:47, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Having UIDs chosen completely at random seems fairly non-optimal. > > Suppose you're building containers/etc and then bind-mounting in > > persistent storag

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Revisiting GLEP 81 (acct-*) policies (reviews, cross-distro syncing)

2019-12-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:44 AM Joonas Niilola wrote: > > Honestly I'd say just put -1 on all acct- packages then let sys admins > modify them locally to whatever they need. I feel like this whole GLEP > just serves the minority while making many other contributors uneasy. > I think we're

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > Sure, if packages don't work anymore or are blocking something, we will > start last-rite process. But for the sabnzbd example (I haven't looked > closely on any other package from that list) there isn't anything > blocking and it's a

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:23 PM David Seifert wrote: > > And that's exactly the straw-man argument I've been making. You can > always come up with an excuse to delay action on python 2, because > "someone, somewhere, will maintain it". Hey, if somebody actually does want to maintain it I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to > optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If you're going to > last rites these, talk with the maintainer first, and only then, send > emails one at a time. Doing

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:42 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Hi, > > Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages for removal: > > Can we not do this prematurely? I've revered this commit until such a > thing an be appropriately agreed upon. Might make sense to wait to mask

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why adding python3_8 to Gentoo sucks?

2019-11-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 3:05 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 22:16 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > I'd like to share my frustration at the state of Python in general, > > and Python packages in Gentoo. So I'd like to 'bootstrap' python3_8 -- > > that is, add it to the most common

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Require full $P not just $PN on stable/keyword commit messages

2019-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:34 PM Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: > > > git log --format=oneline glibc-2.29-r2.ebuild | grep stable > > > How well does git handle that when the ebuild is deleted from the tree? > git log --format=oneline -- glibc-2.29-r4.ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Require full $P not just $PN on stable/keyword commit messages

2019-11-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:36 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 12:59 PM Michael 'veremitz' Everitt > wrote: > > > > > > Therefore, it would be much /more/ useful to have the package-version > > tagged in the commit message, so that you could easily grep logs for when a > > given

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] News Item: Desktop profile switching USE default to elogind

2019-10-28 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:19 PM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > Enter the elogind project [2], which is a standalone logind implementation > based on systemd code, currently maintained by a fellow Gentoo user. A few minor comments: 1. While it is somewhat implicit in the headers, you might

Re: [gentoo-dev] New distfile mirror layout

2019-10-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 12:42 PM Richard Yao wrote: > > Also, another idea is to use a cheap hash function (e.g. fletcher) and just > have the mirrors do the hashing behind the scenes. Then we would have the > best of both worlds. I think something that is getting missed in this discussion is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable-bot is down. Temporary? Forever? Can we have a contacts page for it?

2019-10-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:57 AM Michael Palimaka wrote: > > On 10/8/19 7:21 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > In any case, since many people *do* rely on it, maybe we should declare it > > official? [+] > > > > And, if that's OK with both of you, move it onto infra hardware? > > > > Happy to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New QA policy: Packages must not disable installing manpages via USE flags

2019-07-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:35 AM Kent Fredric wrote: > > Though I suspect *literally* using USE flags for this as-is might be > the wrong approach, as that just causes user-side pollution :/ > Maybe in some other situations this might be true, but as I mentioned in my previous email, users who DO

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New QA policy: Packages must not disable installing manpages via USE flags

2019-07-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 4:22 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > > Yes, I get it. User experience is not important if it would mean > developers would actually do anything but the bare minimum to get > from one paycheck to another. The usual Gentoo attitude. > Not sure where I go to sign up for those

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New QA policy: Packages must not disable installing manpages via USE flags

2019-07-20 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 2:28 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > Could you please read the proposed policy? It explicitly says you are > *not* supposed to force extra deps on users but build manpages for them. > This seems like a significant increase in maintainer effort compared to just leaving things

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: making sysvinit optional

2019-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:22 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:46:02PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:56 AM William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:42:02AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: making sysvinit optional

2019-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:56 AM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:42:02AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:02 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > > > RDEPEND="sysv-utils? ( !sys-apps/sysvinit ) > > &

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: making sysvinit optional

2019-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:02 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > RDEPEND="sysv-utils? ( !sys-apps/sysvinit ) > > !sysv-utils? ( sys-apps/sysvinit )" > > I like this, but the second branch (!sysv-utils) is not really needed, > because if we put sysvinit as the first RDEPEND of virtual/init,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: making sysvinit optional

2019-07-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:03 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:30:57PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 7/10/19 7:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > 3. add a sysvinit use flag to openrc, which will be off by default. When > > > it is on, openrc will block sysvinit since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on Discord

2019-04-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:22 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > It matters if things are perceived as official Gentoo and causing a > negative reputation as in the article in this thread. One some level > that actually goes to trademark infringement that should be of interest > to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Best way to create a GLEP 63 compliant GPG key on Nitrocard?

2019-04-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:29 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 4/26/19 12:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > I mean, I'd expect any Gentoo dev to be able to figure out how to use > > git as well, but git also has a terrible command line interface, > > Not really, it is

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >