Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling
On 06/26/11 15:44, Benedikt Böhm wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Stuart Longland redhat...@gentoo.org wrote: - revdep-rebuild (handles packages broken by soname changes, etc) solved by preserved-libs in portage-2.2 Hmmm, except that portage-2.2 isn't stable yet... indeed it isn't even out of alpha yet. Not going to unleash that on my production systems. The reason why some of these things get out of date to this extent is because I'm in the it ain't broke, don't fix it camp much of the time, and so outside the kernel and a few other applications, I just keep things plodding along as they are. I then get bitten a little when I go to update. Unstable portage is kinda an iffy area when dealing with production machines... experimental boxes, no worries... but not on machines I depend on for work. - python-updater (handles Python module rebuilds after upgrading Python) - perl-cleaner (handles Perl module rebuilds after upgrading Perl) these just exist because python and perl ebuilds are horribly broken. take a look at RUBY_TARGETS or PHP_TARGETS for an example of how to do it right. this would also fix all the failures that python and perl introduce to binary packages. Perhaps there is room for improving things there... that's a more long-term solution however. This will require some careful forethought. Modifying the above tools though, to spit out a list of packages, shouldn't be much of a change... and then making a tool that can collate this information and merge it (revdep-rebuild has this code already) shouldn't be that much of a burden to maintain in the short term. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling
On 06/26/11 21:48, Thomas Sachau wrote: I am thinking about a solution for those similar to current ruby idea and already implemented for cross-compilation in my multilib-portage branch of portage. The very short version: Set the needed details in the ebuilds, where needed, in case of revdep-rebuild, either adjust the SLOT var for each change requiring a rebuild of depending packages or using some new var, e.g. API_SLOT for this. Ebuilds depending on packages like python or perl should define the range of versions they support. Now portage generates a (use_expanded) list of USE flags for depending packages, e.g. for a package depending on python-2.6 and 2.7 it adds something like PYTHON_DEPEND=pyhon26 python27 to the list of USE flags. If there is only one dependency installed (like perl or changing libs), this could be a hidden USE flag. When the dependency is now updated, the USE flags will change, so in case of portage, a --newuse will catch those changes and shows those packages in the list of packages, that need to be emerged again. In case of slotted dependencies (like python, ruby or php), this would also allow the user to define per package, if he wants support for one or more slots of e.g. python. This sounds pretty good on the surface... the devil as always is in the details, and I'll have to have a look. I take it though, this would be exclusively tackling the domains of Python and Perl modules? Or does it also tackle ABI breakage of other packages? Sounds like the SLOT variable could get quite unwieldy where several SLOT-ed packages contribute to a package. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
[gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling
Hi all, I've been busy for the past month or two, busy updating some of my systems. In particular, the Yeeloong I have, hasn't seen attention in a very long time. Soon as I update one part however, I find some swath of packages break because of a soname change, anything Python-related stops working because of a move from Python 2.6 to 2.7, or Perl gets updated. Currently we have three packages that handle this separately: - revdep-rebuild (handles packages broken by soname changes, etc) - python-updater (handles Python module rebuilds after upgrading Python) - perl-cleaner (handles Perl module rebuilds after upgrading Perl) My bugbear at the moment, is often a package is broken for more than one reason in my situation, and I find myself having to manhandle the package lists generated by the above three, building each package one-by-one, until I manage to rebuild them all. Or sometimes a package being rebuilt by revdep-rebuild fails because of a Python module, I'll manually merge that module, then play another round of Russian Roulette to see which package gets shot down next. Issues are complicated further when revdep-rebuild or whatever tool, passes the list to Portage, and it fails to calculate dependencies... I just had one before where revdep-rebuild failed because there were no ebuilds to satisfy: sys-devel/gcc:i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5 I've worked around this by picking up the list generated by revdep-rebuild (in /var/cache/... ), and using a bash while read loop to pass each package individually to emerge for building. How well is this cleanup trio working? It works, but I think it could improve. The thing I see is that all three are fixing essentially the same problem: package breakage due to a change in the dependencies. I think there is scope for a single package, or better yet, Portage extension, that handles all three cases. Concept: Tool will be written in separate modules to handle: - ELF soname change breakage - Python module updates - Perl module updates - other checks that can cause broken packages... Each check is run in order, generating a list of packages that should be rebuilt. Having generated this list, it is then evaluated to sort the candidate packages into a suitable order for rebuilding. This is then passed to the package manager... three modes for rebuilds: - All-in-one-hit rebuild: What the tools presently do now. - One-by-one rebuild: For each package in the list, build each one individually... useful if Portage coughs up an error otherwise - Dump the list: allows people to handle it with their own tools I might see if I can rough something up, but that's what I'm thinking of. It has been an irritation for me for quite some time. Thoughts, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Restabilizing MIPS
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:04:40PM -0500, Matt Turner wrote: Out of interest... did you get around to those n32 stages at all? I'd like to get some of my old SGI kit up and going, some of them will need a complete reinstall... so I may as well do that using n32 from the outset. My O2 can remain o32 for now since it was the one still standing after all this time. The others, the userland is broken/stale to the point of uselessness. I tried again last week to make n32 stages, but have had a terrible time with catalyst. The main problem I run into is that I can't get catalyst to acknowledge any package.keywords files (which as I understand might be by design), so I'm unable to put together a stage from the versions I'd like to stabilize. Are your recent o32 stages straight-up ~mips? Can you post your spec files somewhere? I'll go one better and post the script I use to generate the spec files. You place this in your catalyst directory and call it. It'll perform the stage1 - stage 2 - stage 3 builds automatically from there. It should work for n32 as well... in fact I'm pretty sure I have used it once for n32. If you have a look at the top of the file, you'll see the syntax easily enough. And to those seasoned sh programmers, yes... it can be greatly improved -- there are things I've learned about sh that I didn't know at the time. My o32 stages are straight ~mips... however I did adjust the snapshot's package.mask to disable building of perl-5.12 for this release as I had some quirky issues with it in the seed stage... the biggest issue at the time was gcc-4.4.4 not being built correctly by gcc-4.1.1... I could address Perl later. (In fact, I will in the next release.) Regards, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. dostages.sh Description: Bourne shell script
Re: [gentoo-dev] Restabilizing MIPS
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 06:00:00PM -0500, Matt Turner wrote: Hi, I'd like to begin stabilizing packages on MIPS. I've gotten acks from Redhatter, leio, and r0bertz, and Kumba doesn't really care. What's the best method to go about doing this? Stabilize the system packages, then remove ~mips from ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in the profiles? I'd be waiting until you can do an `emerge system` and come up with a contemporary build without, before dropping ~mips from the profile. At the moment, I think if you were to try it now, you'd be told it can't be done because of packages being masked by unstable keywords. Should we target package versions that aren't stabilized on other architectures yet, so that we'll have an extended testing period before they'll come up for stabilization? That is, can I plan to make gcc-4.5.1 or something the first restabilized version of gcc, go ahead and begin testing it, and be ready for stabilization when toolchain requests it? I'd certainly aim for the highest available version... as by the time we get ready to keyword it, it'll be the highest stable version, perhaps one version behind. I've been experimenting with KDE 4.5.3 ... or rather, it was 4.5.0 and in package.mask when I started... then I hit issues with qt-webkit that seem to be binutils related. Now that I've got that sorted, I've only now just got KDE built and installed... and it looks as if I'll be doing rebuilds of it to try and chase out some bugs. That said, don't focus all your attention on the bleeding edge, be prepared to take a step back. At my old workplace, I recall porting kernel git HEAD (2.6.35-rc? at the time) to an ARM platform and experiencing various issues... I moved back to 2.6.34 and the problems disappeared. I'd sooner be one version back and stable, than bleeding edge and constantly falling over. Regards, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreOffice project: request for contributors and mentoring
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:40:03PM +0800, David Nelson wrote: A number of Linux distributions have announced their intention to ship LibreOffice with their future releases. We know that they frequently do re-branding work to integrate their chosen office suite in lines with their project's thinking. So we are keen to involve you in our project branding and development, so that we ship releases that better fit your needs. Do we even brand OpenOffice? I can't spot the difference between the self-built OpenOffice.org binary I have, and the official Sun binary I had previously. My concern with LibreOffice would be more to do with compiling it... it'd be a nice package to have on the Yeeloong, but AFAIK it needs Java..? Something I've been trying to bootstrap unsuccessfully for the best part of two years now. (gcj-jdk is a long way from usable, and there's a chicken-egg issue with icedtea6.) It also needs _lots_ of RAM and disk space ... not a plentiful resource on MIPS. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Restabilizing MIPS
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:37:51PM -0500, Matt Turner wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:00:00 -0500 Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: Should we target package versions that aren't stabilized on other architectures yet, so that we'll have an extended testing period before they'll come up for stabilization? That is, can I plan to make gcc-4.5.1 or something the first restabilized version of gcc, go ahead and begin testing it, and be ready for stabilization when toolchain requests it? I'd work on getting it ~mips before you think about stabilizing. ;) Last report I got it doesn't build. I've been using gcc-4.5.1 for the last two weeks or so. :) Should I add a ~mips keyword? I'll probably be looking at it for the next release then. I fully intend to do a rebuild of the o32 stages when binutils-2.21 hits Gentoo's tree as it fixes a few MIPS issues. What's your target hardware for stabilization? Are we still focusing on SGI stuff or moving on to newer platforms? SGI stuff is going to become less and less interesting, but it's still the most common MIPS hardware Gentoo users have [1]. One thing to factor in is the availability of parts for these systems. As the systems break down, we can expect that market to reduce in size. That said, there's more than just SGI systems on the big-endian side. STMicroelectronics MIPS systems (Lemote, Gdium, etc) are becoming more common, and we should definitely do a better job supporting them. (I should mention that I've been loaned a Yeelong by Daniel Clark, of freedomincluded.com, to fix up the siliconmotion driver.) Interesting... I've found Zhang Le's overlay includes a quite workable siliconmotion driver which runs fine on my Yeeloong. The only catch is that one must compile it with -march=loongson2f in CFLAGS... -mips3 (my preference) won't do. Out of interest... did you get around to those n32 stages at all? I'd like to get some of my old SGI kit up and going, some of them will need a complete reinstall... so I may as well do that using n32 from the outset. My O2 can remain o32 for now since it was the one still standing after all this time. The others, the userland is broken/stale to the point of uselessness. Regards, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On 2010-04-06 04:12, Ben de Groot wrote: After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive feedback on this new project is welcome. This is a good move indeed. There's a lot of stuff I'd like to be able to throw online for users' benefit that really doesn't belong in places like the handbook, but could be useful on the wiki. How are you off for moderators? I don't have a lot of time to sit around waiting for stuff to compile these days (which is why I've been very inactive on the MIPS and Mozilla fronts) but I could look help out with the moderation. Regards, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: [gentoo-dev] X11 on Lemote Fulong (Loongson 2E) -- 'lm2e' local USE flag RFC
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 13:23 Thu 31 Jul , Stuart Longland wrote: An alternative however, I'd like to propose is the addition of a 'lm2e' local USE flag to the affected ebuilds Stuart, I'm glad to hear you've made progress on this and gotten things working! As soon as you get this code upstream, I will be happy to add these patches. I'm not interested in adding patches that aren't upstream yet to any X packages. No worries, is there any specific channel ideal for doing this? The patches have been kicking around in overlays for a while, it's just recently that I've decided to do anything about them. Ultimately going upstream with them was an option I was considering once I knew they wouldn't break other MIPS systems. At this stage, I haven't tried. I looked at the xf86-video-ati patch in the loongson overlay and it's huge. It's clearly GPL-licensed, presumably from the GATOS project, and that makes it unacceptable for upstream. I'm presuming it is straight from the GATOS folks and thus is just adding TV-out. IIRC it works without that patch, but I may have included it to try and get hardware OpenGL going. (it *almost* works... Quake II runs for 5 seconds before the video card dies. During this time, frame rates are good.) The libdrm and xorg-server patches look more reasonable and shouldn't be terribly problematic to get upstream. The critical one is xorg-server for general usage. I'll have to see if there's a newer patch available. Regards, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] X11 on Lemote Fulong (Loongson 2E) -- 'lm2e' local USE flag RFC
Hi All, I've been rather quiet lately, largely due to university activities absorbing about 98% of my time, and other projects absorbing much of the remaining 2%. But nonetheless, I'm still plodding along with testing, and still intending to stick around despite the departures around me. As people would know, Lemote were kind enough to donate two of their Fulong desktop computers to enable support of Gentoo on their platform. I'm pleased to announce that Gentoo works out-of-the-box for a console-only system, and only needs a few small patches for X to work (provided in overlays [1] and [2]). My intention was to test these patches on SGI systems to check they didn't break compatibility there before merging them into the main tree, however time has beaten me and I haven't had the opportunity. With this being my final semester at university, and work experience two days a week, I don't expect this situation to improve. An alternative however, I'd like to propose is the addition of a 'lm2e' local USE flag to the affected ebuilds, which are: x11-base/xorg-server x11-drivers/xf86-video-ati x11-libs/libdrm It'll be unmasked in the Cobalt profiles (which the Loongson platform shares), and can simply be added to the USE variable on these systems. It won't affect Cobalt as I believe running an X server on those systems would be a pointless exercise. If there aren't any complaints, I'll look into getting this done possibly next weekend. At the moment, zhenghe (one of the boxes here) has been reformatted, I'm setting up Gentoo 2008.0 on it, so I'll be testing everything as I go. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. Footnotes: 1. My personal overlay at git://git.longlandclan.yi.org/overlay.git -- browseable at http://git.longlandclan.yi.org/?p=overlay.git;a=summary 2. Gentoo CN overlay at http://www.gentoo-cn.org/gitweb/?p=loongson signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Of Mips and Devs [Was: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January]
Kumba wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: that certainly sounds reasonable to me. if the stable cant be maintained, let the common workflow of developers transition it back to ~arch until someone has the time to keep arch usable. changing profiles.desc accordingly should be done ahead of time. perhaps a new category for profiles.desc ? exp for such ports ? i could see all *-fbsd ports being moved there. tweak repoman to be less verbose about dep issues for such profiles and we're set. Sounds like a plan. 'exp' would be the 'status' field? I need to remove 2006.1, as that profile has been a big holdup due to it not being glibc-2.4 friendly (or one of the newer glibcs back in that era; I forget). Even pondering just outright booting 2007.0, as I've been using 2007.1-dev since I commited it long ago, and haven't had an issue with it really. I can then put 2008.0-dev together and use it as a launch platform for ~arch migration. This is fine by me too. At the moment, my 2007.1 stages are built with stable keywords in mind, but that's something the user can easily fix. ;-) i see dropping keywords as a very last resort. getting a port *back* into the tree is a *tremendous* amount of work (i went through it and it was hell), while keeping ~arch alive is a sliver of effort and generally not a blocker for package maintainers. Aye, I believe that was sh's removal and subsequent re-add? Part of the hangup lately has been our kernel support. O2 systems are dead in the water in 2.6.24, and only work in 2.6.23 if you apply a hack to serial_core (a hack that only masks a problem rather than fixes it). Octane's I can still forward port, but with the upstream author having moved onto other interests, if something breaks badly enough from one version to the next, then I run the risk of getting stuck on a particular version permanently. Lately, I've been slacking for the last few weeks... no excuses... I've been concentrating on other projects and interests. Part of this is that I've been trying to get µClibc stages going so we can build some newer netboot images (at this point, I'm considering doing a few bloated ones based on glibc) but thus far, I haven't been successful. I haven't bothered since my trip down to Gibraltar Ranges National Park. I've got one of the Lemote boxes building a userland that'll hopefully become a LiveUSB image that'll allow a user to try out Gentoo on one of these systems, and install it (by hand... although ultimately having the Gentoo Installer would be good too). At last check, it was building KDE 3.5.8. Presently, the only way to install Gentoo, is to use my precompiled kernel and stage3 tarball to boot the box using Root-over-NFS, so I'd like to get this going properly soon. My TODO list at present (no specific order): o Build a new netboot image for Cobalt o Rebuild my Qube2 using the 2007.1 stage3 o Build boot media for Lemote Fulong o Test X11-related patches for Fulong on other MIPS systems to make sure they don't break anything (at some point, I'd like to see these systems supported out-of-the-box by Gentoo) o Check the documentation is still accurate o Clean up the bugzilla list Kumba, Since you're otherwise busy with other things, did you want me to build some new big-endian stages based on the 2007.1-dev profile? If so, could I get access to the SWARM? (I could do it on my O2, but I think the SWARM will easily outperform it.) -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking packages (was Gentoo's problems)
George Prowse wrote: Caleb Cushing wrote: how about providing me a list of packages that are masked instead of making me read and unmask them one at a time. That pretty much defeats the object of them being masked in the first place So all you can really come up with is speed? If a power user yourself can only come up with speed what is an ordinary user going to think of... *sigh* Evidently, you've never had to unmask a large package and test it. This is a major complaint I have with Portage. The reason I haven't brought it up however, is that I've been waiting until I had the time to have a look at the code behind `emerge` and see if I can embed the necessary logic to make this happen. Try `emerge php` on mips... Yeah, at some point it might be worth re-keywording it, but right now, one must go though and re-run emerge about 20 times as each unkeyworded dependency is identified. On a modern x86/AMD64 machine, that doesn't take too long, it's just an annoyance. On a slow Cobalt server however, it's agonising. KDE is another which I'd like to point out. I've got much of KDE 3.5.6 working on Loongson (at the moment, gpgme failing its tests holds me up) however, this didn't come without much arguing with portage over missing keywords. This is for monolithic KDE... I don't even want to think about the meta-ebuilds for KDE. Portage itself, does take a long time to load its libraries. I'm yet to try Paludis (I'm one of the few MIPS devs that doesn't use it yet), but do hear good things about it. Perhaps some of the concepts used in Paludis could be applied in portage, in order to speed up performance when searching or querying? These are again, minor changes, but improvements nonetheless. To say we haven't done anything in the last few years, would be a mistake in my opinion -- a lot has changed behind the scenes that users may not necessarily be aware of. I do not see this as being a significant problem. Certainly, the focus should be on the quality of the distribution; not quantity of features. Regards, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please
Jakub Moc wrote: Bryan Østergaard napsal(a): On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:46:47AM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: And you come here to tell us that people shouldn't get confused by these 'very few' retirements, that the sun in still shining nicely and we are recruiting people as always? And that you will continue silently watching the trolls team associated around mips and ciaranm call people fuckheads, idiots and making a gutter of something that's supposed to be a development mailing list? Never said anything like that. So, what are you planning to do about this? Sorry, but all I've seen here so far is evading the real problem and saying people they should ignore ciaranm and alikes. This apparently doesn't work, any other plan? Like, any plan to make the mips team totally poisoned by ciaranm's stupid elitism and infallibleness behave in a civilized way again? I should point out here... that not all of the MIPS team are like Ciaran. I'll admit, I'm not exactly bursting with technical knowledge -- there are some big gaps there. I'd like to change this, however it isn't going to happen overnight. Conversely, I'd like to think that many of us do use significantly more tact than you make out. On a somewhat related note... I've sat back and watched this argument for some time now. Banning people seems like an extremely drastic measure. Sure, it's easy. It's also easily circumvented, and is only a short-term solution. I don't think it's the answer. Nor, I should point out, is treating devrel like the football. They're in a very difficult position here -- one I would not like to be placed in myself. And in this circumstance, they can't afford to be hasty -- the wrong decision could cost Gentoo dearly in many ways that may not be apparent to people now. How's this for an idea though... Rather than banning *people*... why not temporarily ban a thread? I know this is easily possible on forum threads -- mailing lists are more difficult, but if one could lock a thread for a day or so -- that might allow people to cool off before picking up the thread again. I think in such flamewars, it's *everyone* that needs to cool off, not just those who start them. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter) .'''. Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer '.'` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.' http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.' I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member
| |responsible.
|
| Why?
|
| Because if only the x86 arch team can mark stuff stable, anything
| without representation on the x86 arch team will stay unstable
| forever. Maybe rather than one specific arch team member, several
| would undertake to manage otherwise unassigned packages.
There are currently ~700 packages which are not visible to x86 or ~x86
users. Do these need an x86 arch team member? Is it the aim of the x86
arch team to cover the entire tree, or only things which are useful to
x86 users?
This is a good point...
If nobody on x86 is using a given package, is there a need to worry
about marking it ~x86/x86?
This is how we handle things on the mips team -- that is, unless a user
comes to us saying Package foobar works on mips, can you please add
~mips for me, we normally don't worry about it.
Maintaining keywords on _every_ package in the tree, IMHO would be a
waste of effort unless there are a significant number of users actually
using _every_ package in the tree.
--
_ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter)
/ _ \ ______ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs
- (_) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \Developer
\// O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ |
(___/ \/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA feedback
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 01:43 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This sounds like a request for the QA team. I tend to stay away
from most ~arch packages simply because most of our systems are
live production servers, but I'd be happy to test-drive new ebuilds
of vpopmail if it would help get new versions into the stable tree
faster.
maybe ... but i think more than just the QA team needs to brainstorm some
sort
of feedback system ...
We *had* stable.gentoo.org, but I don't think anybody really used it and
I'm not sure the output actually went to anyone. Perhaps now that we
have metadata.xml and a defined place for these to go to, we could
revive something similar?
Something like a little check box that means WORKSFORME on a
particular ebuild/arch.
Actually, with the Gentoo/MIPS project... we've got a (semi-unofficial)
hardware compatability database, where people can specify what
configurations work for them, etc.
http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org/gentoo/mips/
Basically, the above site, allows people to record what configurations
work for them, as well as the kernel configs used. They can make their
own notes as to how this configuration runs. It also works in reverse,
if I were to get an O2, I could go to that site, and have my pick of 3
(at time of writing) kernel configurations that I could try, two 2.6.9,
one 2.6.12-rc2.
Perhaps something for packages could be rigged up? I would certainly
make use of such a system if one existed. If anyone's interested (in
particular, arch teams) in the code for the above site, I'm happy to
distribute it -- just needs PHP and MySQL.
--
_ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter)
/ _ \ ______ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs
- (_) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \Developer
\// O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ |
(___/ \/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Software patents
Anthony Gorecki wrote:
On Monday, July 04, 2005 10:14 pm, Stuart Longland wrote:
Why stop there? Why not extend it to hardware manufacturers that make
heavy use of patents?
Good luck finding a decent video card for that lovely desktop of yours. :-)
I'm still holding out hope that the open sourced video card project (of which
I can't recall the name) will have some degree of success. It'll likely be
some time before they'll even be able to release a (conservative) moderately
powerful graphics card.
The likelyhood of them competing with nVidia is fairly low, but I suppose
that
the same was once said of AMD versus Intel.
I think I recall that one... Tech Source if I'm not mistaken...
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernelm=109831011607347w=2
I too would love to see a decent open-source friendly graphic card. ATI
have been pretty good with their r200-based cards... although the
driver's still got quite a bit to be desired. I think a completely open
player in the field might just be what the industry needs.
But that's offtopic for this thread :-)
--
_ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter)
/ _ \ ______ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs
- (_) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \Developer
\// O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ |
(___/ \/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Software patents
twofourtysix wrote:
On 05/07/05, Robert Paskowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have encouraged gentoo to remove patent-encoumbered software from
portage. I'd like to see you personally work with only software that
does not contain any patented work.
No, I have encouraged Gentoo to remove software written by companies
who are strongly behind software patents. Big difference. It's so easy
to get software patents in the USA currently that it's likely that
every single thing in the tree is covered by some bogus software
patent. However, in most cases, these patents are not held by the same
people who are making the software.
Actually, you'd be suprised. _Quite a few_ companies, quite actively
involved in promoting Linux, also, have quite a few software patents,
that directly affect things like the Linux kernel. Some of these
companies own quite big chunks of the Linux kernel source.
So your suggestion is neither practical, nor does it help the patent
case in any way shape or form.
--
_ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter)
/ _ \ ______ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs
- (_) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \Developer
\// O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ |
(___/ \/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Looking for a dev-web mentor
Omer Cohen *top-posted*:
what's wrong with that? :/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
While, sure, OpenOffice _can_ read Word format, it's far from perfect at
doing so... and besides, we're in the business of promoting Open Source,
not pushing it to one side. ;-)
Also, can you please disable HTML email composition (might be termed
rich-text), not all of us here use HTML-capable email clients. And try
not to top-post[1], it makes big threads very difficult to read when
posts appear in reverse cronological order.
Regards,
--
_ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter)
/ _ \ ______ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs
- (_) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \Developer
\// O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ |
(___/ \/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter
Footnotes:
1. This is mentioned in RFC1855, which I have mirrored at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter/misc/rfc1855.txt
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New developer: Stuart Longland (Redhatter)
Duncan wrote:
_ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter)
/\ ______ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs
- ( ) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \Developer
\// O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ |
(___/ \/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter
That's one cool sig! First time I've seen it.
Thanks...
Probably because it's the first time I've used it. :-P
Yes... I spent about 15 mins in gVim comming up with one for Gentoo --
I didn't see it approrpiate advertising Atomic Linux whilst using my
Gentoo address. :-D
--
_ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter)
/\ ______ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs
- ( ) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \Developer
\// O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ |
(___/ \/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] root:root and fbsd
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Hi,
ok another problem for Gentoo/FreeBSD project :P
Currently there are a few places where, to fix permissions of files, the
ebuilds does a chown -R root:root ${D} or something similar.
Unfortunately such a command is invalid on G/FBSD because there's no root
group, instead wheel group has GID=0.
Why not just use `chmod -R 0:0 ${D}`? That should have the desired effect?
--
+-+
| Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org |
| Atomic Linux Project -oOo-http://atomicl.berlios.de |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere |
+-+
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Cutting down on non-cascaded profiles
Jan Kundrt wrote: Stephen P. Becker wrote: Removing old profiles will do nothing other than forcing them to set a new profile. Changing the profile won't stop people from doing security only updates. Okay, as long as changing the profile won't affect people *much* (I mean if it doesn't break their boxes), it is perfectly correct. I asked just to make sure that broken /etc/make.profile won't completely screw up Portage or so :-). Actually... things are more likely to break if you leave the system as-is. The toolchain and libs will be getting quite old, and while the updated packages should be backward compatable, they may not be. Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than just things like Apache? -- +-+ | Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org | | Atomic Linux Project -oOo-http://atomicl.berlios.de | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere | +-+ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] OT - Finding Linux dev resources
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:20:57 -0600 Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Oh yea, and expect to get LOTS of wise cracks such as this below. | Just ignore those. You might also find people who top post. Ignore them, they don't have anything useful to say. Not to mention those who send HTML emails. *Ohh... I'm too elite for text/plain* -- +-+ | Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org | | Atomic Linux Project -oOo-http://atomicl.berlios.de | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere | +-+ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
