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

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 5:54 PM James Le Cuirot wrote: > > if I understood it correctly, it only removes the primary private key > from the online copy and not the entire primary key. The --list-keys > option shows an [SC] primary with an [E] subkey and an [S] subkey and I > gathered from a

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 4:55 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Quite frankly I'd expect a Gentoo Developer to be able to manage the gpg > interface. > Being able to is not the same as caring enough to be bothered with it... I don't want to custom-tailor my Gentoo key. I just want to generate

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 4:34 PM James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:30:27 -0400 > Alec Warner wrote: > > > > Seeing as separating the primary and the signing key has been part of > > > OpenPGP best practices for a long, long time, I have got highly mixed > > > feelings about this

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 7:57 AM Marek Szuba wrote: > > On 2019-04-24 20:34, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > The only reason to have a separate primary key is to have an offline > > copy, > > Not quite. First and foremost, you don not want to have an offline copy > of the

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] glep-0063: Allow a single primary/signing key for smartcards

2019-04-25 Thread Rich Freeman
The OpenPGP smartcard standard, and the Nitrokey Pro smartcards that are being distributed to Gentoo developers, do not support having a separate primary/signing key for keys that are generated on the cards. As a result they can only be used in accordance with our current requirements if the keys

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

2019-04-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 4/24/19 4:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > If it is the case that Nitrokeys can't support a separate primary key, > > I'd suggest modifying the GLEP to remove that requirement when a > > smartcard is i

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

2019-04-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:25 AM Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:19 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > > Well, in that case recommendations for how to generate a key that > > complies in software would be helpful. There used to be a wiki > > article on it, but i

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

2019-04-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:01 AM Marek Szuba wrote: > > On 2019-04-24 13:41, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > What is the recommended way to create an on-card key? > > I haven't got my NitroKey yet but between the specifications (which say > NK2 can hold up to 3 private RSA keys)

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-rpg/eternal-lands

2019-04-24 Thread Rich Freeman
Removing this one as the maintainer, but would be happy to work with a proxy maintainer if somebody wants to take over. I suspect it isn't actually in-use... # Richard Freeman (24 Apr 2019) # Masked for removal in 30 days. Likely does not work # and is essentially unmainted. Please comment in

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-rpg/eternal-lands

2019-04-24 Thread Rich Freeman
Removing this one as the maintainer, but would be happy to work with a proxy maintainer if somebody wants to take over. I suspect it isn't actually in-use... # Richard Freeman (24 Apr 2019) # Masked for removal in 30 days. Likely does not work # and is essentially unmainted. Please comment in

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

2019-04-24 Thread Rich Freeman
I just generated a gpg key on my nitrocard using the default options, as I could not find any other official recommendations for how to create a key. However, it appears that the default config uses the same signing and primary key, and thus generates a warning when pushing to the main repo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] glep-0063: Require encryption subkey, and make primary certify-only

2019-04-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 3:35 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > Following the recent mailing list discussion indicating that developers > are taking GLEP 63 as only source of truth about OpenPGP keys, and can > make assumption that if encryption key is not listed there they should > not have one. Amend

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: cron.* and modern cron implementations

2019-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 8:25 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Using run-parts in /etc/crontab also has its problems, but I don't have > a solution handy for that one. Using run-parts runs those daily, weekly, > etc. jobs as root, which may not be what you want if you're operating on >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: cron.* and modern cron implementations

2019-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 3/2/19 7:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > Is there a reason we still use run-parts and the > > /etc/cron.{hourly,daily,weekly,monthly} structure to run repeating cron > > jobs? > > > > From what I read in the chat earlier, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: cron.* and modern cron implementations

2019-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 7:05 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > someone brought this up on the chat channel today, so I'm bringing it > here to ask for information. > > Is there a reason we still use run-parts and the > /etc/cron.{hourly,daily,weekly,monthly} structure to run repeating cron jobs? > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding app-crypt/gentoo-keys to @system

2019-02-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 9:58 PM Matthew Thode wrote: > > Ok, after setting that up portage wants to update pgp keys, which fail > because keyservers suck. It doesn't look like we can change the > keyservers or disable the update entirely but we can set the retries to > 0 (which better disable

Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository

2018-11-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:49 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 16:01 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > > > > > That git manages not to die every day based on what we throw at it is > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository

2018-11-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:50 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > Or, I don't know. Come up with something better and continue > bikeshedding. I won't. > I think antarus already came up with something better - let Sony explain its thinking, rather than trying to guess at what they're trying to accomplish

Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository

2018-11-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > That git manages not to die every day based on what we throw at it is > frankly a miracle of engineering. Our repo is a linked list being constantly manipulated from the head backed by a hashed object store for the contents. For that use

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >