Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Gordon Pettey
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 26/10/16 04:49 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
Here's a revised possibility -- it diverges a little from the original message but I think its more inclusive as to the issue. Thoughts? - Title: Important fstab and localmount update Author: William Hubbs Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2016-10-28 Revision: 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] LLVM News item

2016-10-26 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
On 25/10/16 06:44 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 16:07 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 25/10/16 04:02 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Francesco Riosa
2016-10-26 11:04 GMT+02:00 Michał Górny : > Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard > napisał(a): > >On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Peter Stuge
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated > tools are a vital part of the distro. A stage4 created (and updated) on a catalyst build farm doesn't need to have gcc, but may still need libstdc++. //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread waltdnes
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 08:05:55AM -0700, Nick Vinson wrote > Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball > has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't generate / > distribute a release tarball. > > However, I don't think this is the criterion used to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Walter Dnes
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated > > tools are a vital part of the distro. > > A stage4 created (and updated) on a catalyst build farm doesn't need > to have gcc, but may

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote >> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: >> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated >> > tools are a vital part of the distro. >> >> A stage4

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-26 Thread Peter Stuge
Rich Freeman wrote: > I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that > header on your work is an assignment of copyright. > You could also argue otherwise. Especially in jurisdictions where copyright can not be assigned. //Peter

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] cmake-utils.eclass: Fix multi-arg CC/CXX/FC, #542530

2016-10-26 Thread Michał Górny
Fix handling CC/CXX/FC values that contain three or more words by splitting all multi-argument CC/CXX/FC into the executable name kept in the variable, and additional options that are moved to CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS or FCFLAGS appropriately. --- eclass/cmake-utils.eclass | 21 ++--- 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Peter Stuge
Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > by mount and works regardless of device manager, therefore removing > the the dependency of having udev-settle before mounting these paths. the the Looks good. Thanks. //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Peter Stuge
Raymond Jennings wrote: > Why exactly isn't libstdc++ a separate package anyway? I guess because it has no separate upstream. I think a separate package would be a fantastic improvement though. //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-26 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: > And I see absolutely no harm in explicitly annotating the actual > copyright in gentoo ebuilds. It seems like a simple and practical enough way to go. However, one of the arguments going for assigning copyright to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

2016-10-26 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 10/26/2016 04:02 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > I did suggest that we probably should ban this header until we > actually have a DCO because it blurs the lines. However, it isn't Makes sense, at least strongly discourage, although it likely isn't too difficult to do a full ban on git push >

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard napisał(a): >On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs >wrote: If you are not

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to >> take any action for this news item.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

2016-10-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > That said, we could always make it possible for the developer to > voluntarily assign copyright to the foundation if (s)he so desires. > And I would certainly do that for myself. > The envisioned approach was being

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Raymond Jennings
Why exactly isn't libstdc++ a separate package anyway? We already have glibc as a separate package, so why the difference? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson > wrote: > > That

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 04:49:04AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > I take it us museum relics still using jurassic-era device names like > /dev/sd* or /dev/md* aren't affected by this? Actually, I can see a use case for it even with classical device names: Specifically if the nodes (or symlinks)

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-26 Thread Tom H
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > requirement for udev to "settle" before it's startup completes. The its startup