Re: [gentoo-dev] PSA: switching default tmpfiles virtual provider

2020-11-29 Thread William Hubbs
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 07:55:33AM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/11/2020 22.57, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > > systemd-tmpfiles does not depend on any systemd-isms, does not need dbus, > > and is just a drop-in replacement, the only step needed is to emerge the > > package. > > it's a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages & projects up for grabs due to jer's retirement

2020-11-07 Thread William Hubbs
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:32:11PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > net-libs/nodejs I'll take this one for now. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] sys-cluster/kubernetes last rites

2020-10-25 Thread William Hubbs
# Wiliam Hubbs (2020-10-26) # Combining kubernetes into one package breaks upgrades, so it is split # into separate packages. You need to upgrade and install the following # packages based on the needs of your cluster: # # sys-cluster/kubeadm, sys-cluster/kube-apiserver #

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] verify-sig.eclass: New eclass to verify OpenPGP sigs

2020-10-06 Thread William Hubbs
Hey all, I'm just picking an eclass to respond to because I see this pretty often, so I'm definitely not picking on mgorny with this question. On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:10:45PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: *snip* > +case "${EAPI:-0}" in > + 0|1|2|3|4|5|6) > + die "Unsupported

[gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s split packages round 3

2020-10-05 Thread William Hubbs
Returning Author: William Hubbs Posted: 2020-10-06 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 2.0 Display-If-Installed: sys-cluster/kubernetes In order to fix the ability to upgrade kubernetes components separately, the kubernetes split packages are returning [1]. Starting with kubernetes 1.17.12, 1.18.9

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s split packages returning round 2

2020-10-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 10:23:10PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 2020-10-04 at 14:48 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > Title: K8s Split Packages Returning > > I think you should really use the full name here, especially that it is > also the package name. This is fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s split packages returning round 2

2020-10-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 02:48:35PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > Due to bug #741572,, the k8s split packages are returning to fix issues The typo on this line is fixed. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s split packages returning round 2

2020-10-04 Thread William Hubbs
Title: K8s Split Packages Returning Author: William Hubbs Posted: 2020-10-06 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 2.0 Display-If-Installed: sys-cluster/kubernetes Due to bug #741572,, the k8s split packages are returning to fix issues with upgrading clusters [1]. Starting with k8s 1.17.12, 1.18.9

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s split packages returning

2020-10-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:19:27AM +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote: > Could you please plaintext the news item in your mail so it'd be easier > to quote? I'm curious why it is hard for you to quote from an attachment? I see later in the thread that ulm has no problem doing so. No big deal, I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s split packages returning

2020-10-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 08:52:13AM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote: > On 10/4/20 12:11 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > And either the enw Thunderbirds GPG sucks or your key does not match the > sender name :-( It shows up as a good signature here when I get the email back on the list, so

[gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s split packages returning

2020-10-03 Thread William Hubbs
Title: K8s Split Packages Returning Author: William Hubbs Posted: 2020-10-06 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 2.0 display-if-installed: sys-cluster/kubernetes It was called to my attention in bug #741572 that having k8s in a single package can block upgrades. Because of this, I need to bring back

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: kubernetes packaging

2020-09-15 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:30:48PM +0200, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > * William Hubbs schrieb am 14.09.20 um 00:39 Uhr: > > All, > > > > I would like to get some thoughts on kubernetes packaging. > > > > When I started maintaining it in Gentoo, it was packaged as

[gentoo-dev] rfc: kubernetes packaging

2020-09-13 Thread William Hubbs
All, I would like to get some thoughts on kubernetes packaging. When I started maintaining it in Gentoo, it was packaged as 7 ebuilds (one per executable), and only one of them was marked stable. Since we normally do not split up monorepos into separate packages, I started moving everything

[gentoo-dev] slotted lua

2020-09-09 Thread William Hubbs
All, I'm trying again because I didn't see my last msg come back. Someone mentioned issues with slotted lua on a thread earlier but didn't give any details. What are the issues that you have found? are there open bugs for them? I would like to take a look. Thanks, William signature.asc

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] meson.eclass: fix machine files

2020-08-30 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 05:36:32PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 4:06 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > > Several options we were setting in the [properties] section of the > > machine files have been moved to the [built-in options] section. >

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] meson.eclass: fix machine files

2020-08-30 Thread William Hubbs
Several options we were setting in the [properties] section of the machine files have been moved to the [built-in options] section. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/738710 Signed-off-by: William Hubbs --- eclass/meson.eclass | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

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

2020-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 05:47:52PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:51:41 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > All, > > > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev pr

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

2020-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new > > systems from eudev to udev. > > > > This is not a la

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

2020-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 08:49:20AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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

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

2020-08-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 01:22:44PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > > What do people think? > > > > Like others already asked: What's the reason for

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

2020-08-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > What do people think? > > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this? Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away from u

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

2020-08-08 Thread William Hubbs
Hi Rich, On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 06:22:17PM -0400, 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 > > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > > That's the entire reason that eudev was

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

2020-08-08 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:38:36PM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi, > > On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > >> On 2020.08.08 1

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

2020-08-08 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on > > new > > systems from eudev to udev. > > > > This is no

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

2020-08-08 Thread William Hubbs
All, I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new systems from eudev to udev. This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the

[gentoo-dev] last rites: kubernetes split packages

2020-07-13 Thread William Hubbs
# William Hubbs (2020-07-14) # The kubernetes split packages are old versions with known security # issues. # #If you haven't already, please upgrade and migrate to sys-cluster/kubernetes: # # https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2020-04-03-kubernetes-moving-to-single-package.html

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs (aerc, vagrant, rust utils and others)

2020-07-11 Thread William Hubbs
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:04:20PM -0700, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > Hello People, > > The following packages are up for grabs: > > mail-client/aerc | go package, great upstream I'm interested in this one, so I'll add myself. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] rfc: script to migrate to usr merged layout

2020-07-03 Thread William Hubbs
Hey all, I am hearing that there is interest from users in the usr merge layout (turning off the split-usr use flag) on their systems. You can't really do this on a live system without migrating your system to the new layout. I wrote a script a while back that attempts this, but I haven't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: xorg-server dropping default suid

2020-06-27 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 10:02:25PM +0200, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > On Sunday, 21 June 2020 21:27:02 CEST Joonas Niilola wrote: > > What's the current trend of attaching news items? It > > makes hard to point out enhancements. > > Indeed, I didn't even look at the previous mail that was sent

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

2020-06-12 Thread William Hubbs
All, this patch is being committed today. Thanks, William signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: adding GOPATH to ENV_UNSET in base profile

2020-06-06 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 04:31:16PM +0200, Rafael Goncalves Martins wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:06 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > All, > > > > The GOPATH variable has similar issues to GOBIN [1], so I would like to > > add it along side GOBIN to

[gentoo-dev] rfc: adding GOPATH to ENV_UNSET in base profile

2020-05-31 Thread William Hubbs
All, The GOPATH variable has similar issues to GOBIN [1], so I would like to add it along side GOBIN to ENV_UNSET in the base profile. The message link below is only there for reference, but I see ebuilds unsetting GOPATH in the tree and this would take care of it across all of the tree.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Value of Continuous integration vs Code Review / Pull Requests

2020-05-31 Thread William Hubbs
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:34:24PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > Another major issue is operating the software. I haven't found anyone to > *run* gitlab; I'm not eager to do it. Today Gentoo is mostly distributed, > bugs are in bugzilla, wiki is on mediawiki, code is on gitolite with N > mirrors,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: checking properties in ebuilds and eclasses

2020-05-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 09:42:46PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Why would an ebuild have to check whether the ebuild is live? Isn't it > supposed to know that by definition? See below where I talk about the ebuild version. > > The up side of this would be that we aren't reserving a specific

[gentoo-dev] rfc: checking properties in ebuilds and eclasses

2020-05-18 Thread William Hubbs
All, I would like to start a discussion on checking the PROPERTIES value in ebuilds. Specifically this could be used to check for live ebuilds instead of assuming that the version number of an ebuild indicates whether the ebuild is live. The up side of this would be that we aren't reserving a

[gentoo-dev] rfc: $PROPERTIES, $FEATURES and pms

2020-05-17 Thread William Hubbs
All, I have been acting as a backup maintainer for dev-vcs/cli. A pull request was opened today that changes the way we detect whether the ebuild is live from looking for "live" in $PROPERTIES to the version number [1]. A different dev referred me to PMS which indicates that ebuilds should not

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

2020-05-12 Thread William Hubbs
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:41:45AM +0100, Samuel Bernardo wrote: > Hi William, > > How about overlays using the eclass, will this changes only apply to EAPI 8? Hi Samuel, this change will apply to all users of the eclass. Overlays are not considered blockers for in-tree eclass work. Also,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

2020-05-12 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:47:23PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:00 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they

[gentoo-dev] last rites: dev-go/go-protobuf

2020-05-11 Thread William Hubbs
# William Hubbs (2020-05-11) # No reverse dependencies, upstream has superseeded this with the # ggoogle.golang.org/protobuf module. # Removal in 30 days. Bug #722542. dev-go/go-protobuf Thanks, William signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

2020-05-11 Thread William Hubbs
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass. > > You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree. Sure, and I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

2020-05-11 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > > All, > > > > now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR support from > > go-module.eclass. > > > > This was

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

2020-05-11 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 06:13:19PM +0200, David Seifert wrote: > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 09:51 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs > > wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eclass/go-module.eclass: remove EGO_VENDOR support

2020-05-10 Thread William Hubbs
Signed-off-by: William Hubbs --- eclass/go-module.eclass | 81 +++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass index 17d37494f15..7b66c3e2b1e 100644 --- a/eclass/go-module.eclass +++ b

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

2020-05-10 Thread William Hubbs
if they have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass. Thoughts? William Hubbs (1): eclass/go-module.eclass: remove EGO_VENDOR support eclass/go-module.eclass | 81 +++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) -- 2.26.2

[gentoo-dev] rfc: "emerge --sync" vs "emaint sync"

2020-05-06 Thread William Hubbs
All, I know that most of our documentation tells people to use "emerge --sync"; however, today I heard about "emaint sync" for the first time. ;-) Which one should we use? Will there be a phase-out for "emerge --sync" or "emaint sync"? Are the plans to keep both available? Thanks, William

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

2020-04-21 Thread William Hubbs
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:50:13AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2020-04-20 at 16:04 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > Your proposal seems to completely go against how the go ecosystem operates, > > but if you can come up with a proof-of-concept for how it would work > >

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

2020-04-20 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 03:23:15PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Are you volunteering to do the work to package go packages? The people > > doing the work generally get to decide how that work gets done, and which > > approach they would like to take. The upstream situation makes it very >

[gentoo-dev] newsitem: k8s moving to a single package

2020-03-31 Thread William Hubbs
Title: K8s Moving to a Single Package Author: William Hubbs Posted: 2020-04-03 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 2.0 Display-If-Installed: sys-cluster/kubeadm Display-If-Installed: sys-cluster/kube-apiserver Display-If-Installed: sys-cluster/kube-controller-manager Display-If-Installed: sys-cluster

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] allow extra implementations of python

2020-03-27 Thread William Hubbs
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 06:54:25AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 22:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, William Hubbs wrote: > > > If there's a way inside an eclass to check that the ebuild inheriting &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] allow extra implementations of python

2020-03-26 Thread William Hubbs
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:37:17PM +0100, David Seifert wrote: *snip* > How do you prevent some extra clever Gentoo developer from doing the following > in ::gentoo > > dev-python/foo/foo-1.ebuild: > > # don't have the time to port this right now, patches welcome >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] python.eclass: add PYTHON_COMPAT_ALLOW_EXTRA_IMPLS

2020-03-26 Thread William Hubbs
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:37:48PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:13 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > > This variable is meant to be set in downstream overlays when they need > > python > > implementations other than the ones we support in the tre

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] python.eclass: add PYTHON_COMPAT_ALLOW_EXTRA_IMPLS

2020-03-26 Thread William Hubbs
This variable is meant to be set in downstream overlays when they need python implementations other than the ones we support in the tree. It should be a space-separated list of extra implementations. Signed-off-by: William Hubbs --- eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] allow extra implementations of python

2020-03-26 Thread William Hubbs
for this option if we do not like the first one. I would advocate the first option however since no one has to fork anything. Thoughts? William William Hubbs (1): python.eclass: add PYTHON_COMPAT_ALLOW_EXTRA_IMPLS eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) -- 2.24.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: backward-incompatible changes in eclasses

2020-03-26 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:29:23AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > William, > > So many things are wrong with this e-mail, I'm not even sure where to > start. In my opinion, this mail shouldn't have ever happened. While > I believe you had a good intent, this does not justify sending such > mails

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: backward-incompatible changes in eclasses

2020-03-23 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 08:19:20PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > it has been brought to my attention that there have been several > > backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: backward-incompatible changes in eclasses

2020-03-23 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:14:06PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 08:03:47PM +0100, David Seifert wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 14:00 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:36:13PM +0100, David Seifert wrote: > > > > On

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: backward-incompatible changes in eclasses

2020-03-23 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 08:03:47PM +0100, David Seifert wrote: > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 14:00 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:36:13PM +0100, David Seifert wrote: > > > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > Hey all

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: backward-incompatible changes in eclasses

2020-03-23 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:36:13PM +0100, David Seifert wrote: > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > it has been brought to my attention that there have been several > > backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses

[gentoo-dev] rfc: backward-incompatible changes in eclasses

2020-03-23 Thread William Hubbs
Hey all, it has been brought to my attention that there have been several backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses lately. It is true that everything in ::gentoo has been fixed along with the changes to the eclasses; however, when a change like this goes into a widely used

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-21 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:22:40AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 1:03 AM Alexander Tsoy wrote: > > > В Сб, 21/03/2020 в 00:53 -0700, Matt Turner пишет: > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:55 PM Kent Fredric > > > wrote: > > > > If X is "noarch" and its dependency Y is "amd64",

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 07:12:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:47 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > this came

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:52:25PM +, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:47:53 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:11:17PM +0100, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > Am 2020-03-18 15:54, schrieb William Hubbs: > > All, > > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its o

[gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
All, this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own thread. How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like perl, python etc? From what I've seen they are pretty rare. Not to

[gentoo-dev] rfc: reply-to munging

2020-03-13 Thread William Hubbs
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:09:39PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 12. März 2020, 20:23:56 CET schrieb Michał Górny: > > I suppose that a part of the problem is the default Reply-To in these > > mails. Yes, I agree that this is a problem. > Which was deliberately added... Why

[gentoo-dev] cleaning up go packages

2020-03-05 Thread William Hubbs
All, within the next few days I will start migrating go packages in the tree that inherit the go-module eclass and use EGO_VENDOR to Euse EGO_SUM. Once I do that, I will go through packages that inherit golang-* and see if they can be migrated to inherit go-module instead. If someone doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/2] fix support for go modules

2020-03-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:24:35AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > *** BLURB HERE *** > This is another round of support for go modules. > The first patch adds goproxy to the gentoo mirror system so that > ebuilds can be written with "mirror://goproxy/foo/bar" in SRC_URI. Th

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] profiles/thirdpartymirrors: add goproxy mirror

2020-02-26 Thread William Hubbs
Signed-off-by: William Hubbs --- profiles/thirdpartymirrors | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/profiles/thirdpartymirrors b/profiles/thirdpartymirrors index ad4c4b97214..d60f166e07c 100644 --- a/profiles/thirdpartymirrors +++ b/profiles/thirdpartymirrors @@ -25,3 +25,4

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] go-module.eclass: add support for EGO_SUM

2020-02-26 Thread William Hubbs
The EGO_SUM variable replaces EGO_VENDOR for go modules. Signed-off-by: William Hubbs --- eclass/go-module.eclass | 362 +++- 1 file changed, 322 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass index 80ff2902b3a

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/2] fix support for go modules

2020-02-26 Thread William Hubbs
ds EGO_SUM as a variable to the go-module.eclass. This also allows us to create a local goproxy for the modules we download. William Hubbs (2): profiles/thirdpartymirrors: add goproxy mirror go-module.eclass: add support for EGO_SUM eclass/go-module.eclas

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] eclass/go-module: add support for building based on go.sum

2020-02-22 Thread William Hubbs
I did find a way to apply your patch to the eclass today, so I'm working with it locally now. I would find it much more difficult to add license info to EGO_SUM than to add it to LICENSE= directly. The lines in EGO_SUM are already pretty long and adding info to them manually is more tedious than

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] News item: OpenSSH 8.2_p1 running sshd breakage

2020-02-19 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:02:51PM -0800, Patrick McLean wrote: > Title: OpenSSH 8.2_p1 running sshd breakage > Author: Patrick McLean > Posted: 2020-02-21 > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 2.0 > Display-If-Installed: > If sshd is running, and a system is upgraded from to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] eclass/go-module: add support for building based on go.sum

2020-02-19 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 09:20:13AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:36:27AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:46:45PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > -# If it does not have a vendor directory, you shou

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] eclass/go-module: add support for building based on go.sum

2020-02-19 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:36:27AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:46:45PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > > -# If it does not have a vendor directory, you should use the EGO_VENDOR > > > +# Alternatively, older versions of this eclas

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] dev-vcs/cli: new package

2020-02-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.84, Repoman-2.3.18 > Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson > --- > dev-vcs/cli/Manifest | 137 +++ > dev-vcs/cli/cli-0.5.5.ebuild | 177 +++ >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] app-admin/kube-bench: convert to go-module go.sum

2020-02-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 01:22:31AM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson > --- > app-admin/kube-bench/Manifest | 351 > .../kube-bench/kube-bench-0.2.3-r1.ebuild | 394 ++ > 2 files changed, 745 insertions(+) >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] dev-go/go-tour: convert to go-module go.sum

2020-02-18 Thread William Hubbs
This ebuild isn't fully convirted, so it probably isn't the best example. My comments are just a couple of aspects of it. On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 01:22:30AM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson > --- > dev-go/go-tour/Manifest | 7 ++ >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] eclass/go-module: add support for building based on go.sum

2020-02-18 Thread William Hubbs
gt; # @ECLASS: go-module.eclass > # @MAINTAINER: > # William Hubbs > +# @AUTHOR: > +# William Hubbs > +# Robin H. Johnson > # @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7 > # @BLURB: basic eclass for building software written as go modules > # @DESCRIPTION: > -# This eclass provides basic

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Policy change] Package masking of live ebuilds

2020-02-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:52:59PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > The devmanual says about live ebuilds: > > | CVS ebuilds must be either with empty KEYWORDS or package.masked > | (but not both). Empty KEYWORDS are strongly preferred. This applies > | to "live" ebuilds (-) and to ebuilds that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app-admin/kube-bench: convert to go-module go.sum

2020-02-12 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:54:19PM +1100, Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote: > On Monday, 10 February 2020 7:55:01 AM AEDT Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 20:38 +, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: > > > Hrm, pardon my ignorance, but do 'we' really need to review 232 lines of > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] eclass/go-module: add support for building based on go.sum

2020-02-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 11:35:25PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 04:11:28PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 12:31:19PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > +# "go.mod" only: > > > +# - Populate EGO_VEND

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] eclass/go-module: add support for building based on go.sum

2020-02-09 Thread William Hubbs
ofiles/thirdpartymirrors | 1 + > 2 files changed, 311 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git eclass/go-module.eclass eclass/go-module.eclass > index d5de5f60ccdf..b8a635d52de7 100644 > --- eclass/go-module.eclass > +++ eclass/go-module.eclass > @@ -4,22 +4,46 @@ >

Re: [gentoo-dev] moving uid-gid.txt to metadata

2020-01-20 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:56:48PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 1/20/20 11:57 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > Imo a better fit is the metadata directory in the ebuild repository. > > That way you can add users/groups along with the acct-* packages that > > i

[gentoo-dev] moving uid-gid.txt to metadata

2020-01-20 Thread William Hubbs
All, as I recall I was one of the folks who suggested that uid-gid.txt should go in the api repository, but after thinking about it more and seeing it in practice, I see the error of my ways on this. ;-) Imo a better fit is the metadata directory in the ebuild repository. That way you can add

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA Policy Guide

2020-01-19 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > In the light of the recent misunderstandings, I have started working > on an official Policy Guide [1]. The Guide is meant to provide > a focused list of officially approved QA policies, along with their > rationale and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package up for grabs: sys-cluster/kubectl

2020-01-15 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:41:30AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Due to the maintainer retiring, the following package is orphaned now: > > sys-cluster/kubectl I'll grab this since I'm maintaining the rest of kubernetes. William > > FWICS it has a single bug filed and needs a minor version

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:17:36AM +0100, David Seifert wrote: > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:55 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 1/12/2020 17:46, David Seifert wrote: > > > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:43 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > > On 1/12/2020 17:32, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > > > > On

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] go-module.eclass: set a reasonable default for the go build cache

2020-01-06 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 08:13:36PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs > --- > eclass/go-module.eclass | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass > index 9c11959fdf8..89b32ed1201 100

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] go-module.eclass: set a reasonable default for the go build cache

2020-01-04 Thread William Hubbs
Signed-off-by: William Hubbs --- eclass/go-module.eclass | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass index 9c11959fdf8..89b32ed1201 100644 --- a/eclass/go-module.eclass +++ b/eclass/go-module.eclass @@ -59,6 +59,10 @@ BDEPEND="

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 09:55:31AM -0500, 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 systems, but leave them > > insecure? > > > > Or the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 08:38:59AM +0100, Hanno Böck wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 15:48:54 +0100 > Toralf Förster wrote: > > > # Restrict potential illegal access via links > > # > > fs.protected_hardlinks = 1 > > fs.protected_symlinks = 1 > > Given the issues with openrc: > Wouldn't it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Output of ANSI escape sequences in ebuilds

2019-12-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 08:16:03AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Some ebuilds output SGR control sequences (formerly known as ANSI escape > sequences) to the terminal, i.e., they do things like: > > echo -e "\033[1m${@}\033[0m" > einfo "Fetching \e[1m${r}\e[22m ..." > ewarn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Output of ANSI escape sequences in ebuilds

2019-12-14 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:31:06AM +0100, Toralf Förster wrote: > On 12/14/19 8:16 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > These prevent NOCOLOR in make.conf or emerge --color=n from working > > correctly, and I guess they are also problematic from an accessibility > > point of view. > +1 > > > Good idea

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

2019-12-05 Thread William Hubbs
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:36:58PM +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > + > > +# > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but > > not > > +# masked

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/* leaf packages

2019-12-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:56:05AM +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Hi, > > On 2019-12-05 01:15, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > * Removal in 30 days > > Why? I understand that Py2 will reach EOL upstream status but we all > know that Py2 will *not* disappear and stop working in 26 days... > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: unmaintained Go packages with license issues

2019-12-03 Thread William Hubbs
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:48:56PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > I think it would be more appropriate for you to update/unmask them > yourself as you correct the license information. If there are no objections, I'd rather unmask them all immediately then fix the license info. Normally I wouldn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: unmaintained Go packages with license issues

2019-12-03 Thread William Hubbs
I'm not sure what happened to my last message, so I'm trying again. On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 10:23:12PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > app-admin/docker-bench > app-emulation/cadvisor > app-emulation/reg > app-metrics/alertmanager > app-metrics/bind_exporter > app-metrics/blackbox_exporter >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: unmaintained Go packages with license issues

2019-12-03 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 10:23:12PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > app-admin/docker-bench > app-emulation/cadvisor > app-emulation/reg > app-metrics/alertmanager > app-metrics/bind_exporter > app-metrics/blackbox_exporter > app-metrics/burrow_exporter > app-metrics/elasticsearch_exporter >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?

2019-11-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 06:17:55PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/4/19 2:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > This is a whole other thread I've been talking about for years, but if > > we want to be concerned about dumping "garbage" on people'

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >