Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: >> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but >> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned >> neither in the Specification or the Rationale. > Why not in the rationale? It is the most

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:55:13 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > > > I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current > > practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's > > meant mostly to clear

[gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

Hi, everyone. I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's meant mostly to clear the rules for pull requests. However, the rules are generic enough to cover other contribution media -- patches attached to

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current > practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's > meant mostly to clear the rules for pull requests. However, the rules > are generic enough to cover other

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:00:35 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > > >> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but > >> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned > >> neither in the

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

On 10/26/2016 11:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > This is why I think "@system" oversimplifies all of this. IMO we > should just specify all dependencies for everything (and those could > include some virtuals for convenience, like the C toolchain), and then > have different sets or virtuals for

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

On 26/10/16 11:43 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > 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

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

Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Mart Raudsepp > wrote: > > > > > > Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or > > CLAs > > are those that want to be able to re-license the code without

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

On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 25/10/16 05:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500 > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > >> Title: Inportant fstab update > >> Author: William Hubbs > >> Content-Type: text/plain > >>

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

Ühel kenal päeval, E, 24.10.2016 kell 19:07, kirjutas Rich Freeman: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner > wrote: > > > > In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright > > assignment statement. > > > > Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman: >> >> Actually, that isn't allowed, and was the very issue that kicked off >> the entire matter. You can't just take somebody else's code and >> change the

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

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 26.10.2016 kell 14:58, kirjutas Kent Fredric: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:25:52 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > And I guess that even most ebuilds for new > > packages aren't written from scratch, but will be based on an > > existing > > ebuild or on

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or CLAs > are those that want to be able to re-license the code without getting > permissions from everyone (some of whom might not be possible to > contact at

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Please review the following draft: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC > Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo project provides a specific set of official channels of contribution in which all project

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

Ühel kenal päeval, E, 24.10.2016 kell 15:29, kirjutas Matt Turner: > A former co-worker of mine is now at Google and wants to contribute > ebuilds he wrote for ChromeOS to Gentoo. They add packages necessary > for Vulkan (new 3D graphics API). > > For instance:

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Personally I'd rather see us go the other way, ensure udev settles >> before localmount runs, and maybe ewarn if /dev/disk/by-* is in fstab >> or something. Leave the

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

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Matthias Maier wrote: >> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source >> tree which is distributed under the GPL-2 > I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There > is no readme/header, or other indicator stating

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux > kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted > otherwise. > Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:13:48 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: >> > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> >> >>

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

> So, it is probably simpler to avoid controversy by just incorporating > it by reference under their original name, which is certainly the > intention of the Linux Foundation in promoting it. +1 :-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge-webrsync: use gkeys to verify gpg signatures (bug 597918)

On 10/27/2016 11:09 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 27/10/16 19:16, Zac Medico wrote: >> Use gkeys to verify gpg signatures by default. Refresh the gentoo >> snapshot signing key before signature verification, in order to >> ensure that the latest revocation data is available. Add an >>

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge-webrsync: use gkeys to verify gpg signatures (bug 597918)

On 27/10/16 19:16, Zac Medico wrote: > Use gkeys to verify gpg signatures by default. Refresh the gentoo > snapshot signing key before signature verification, in order to > ensure that the latest revocation data is available. Add an > --insecure option which disables gpg signature verification.

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge-webrsync: use gkeys to verify gpg signatures (bug 597918)

On 10/27/2016 10:38 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:16:42 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> Use gkeys to verify gpg signatures by default. Refresh the gentoo >> snapshot signing key before signature verification, in order to ensure >> that the latest revocation

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

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind > of bootstrapping stage1. I'm just saying we should separate that need > from the issue of fully specifying dependencies, at least in an ideal >

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > With a DCO, it greatly complicates things. Would my right to keep my > contributions in an overlay be infringed upon? What would change if we > switch to this? > The DCO doesn't change your rights at all, or change the

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind >> of bootstrapping stage1. I'm just saying we should separate that

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

On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL= is not > good? I realize that s are not required when doing a mkfs, but > if the admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter, why should > it be "deprecated"? I don't think

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

2016-10-28 3:32 GMT+02:00 Ian Stakenvicius : > On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL= is not > > good? I realize that s are not required when doing a mkfs, but > > if the admin does so reliably and wants to use

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > This is not unlike the kerfufle that occurred when systemD was introduced > not so long ago. To use it folks had to make major changes to their systems > that took several months to iron out the kinks. Additionally,

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

Rich Freeman wrote: > We give you the tools when you install your system, and we give you > the tools when it is time for renovations... On that note - thank you very much to everyone who contributes to Gentoo! <3 //Peter

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

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which is distributed >> under the GPL-2, instead of the non-free version

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are defined, > how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? Defining all > dependencies means the graph is completely cyclic. Well, we'll need

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

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:42:53 +0200 Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard > > napisał(a): > > >On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > > >> On Tue,

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

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 09:21:06 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are > > defined, how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? > > Defining all

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

> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source > tree which is distributed under the GPL-2 I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this. Not everything in the linux repository falls under

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, > > So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" That's

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the > >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider > >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under > trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the > "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC > LICENSE." The

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:22 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I do think that this is one of the areas where hasufell's concept of >> making the 3rd-party workflow the main workflow could have helped. >>

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: >> > >> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, >> >> I'd think

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under >> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the >>

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge-webrsync: use gkeys to verify gpg signatures (bug 597918)

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:16:42 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > Use gkeys to verify gpg signatures by default. Refresh the gentoo > snapshot signing key before signature verification, in order to ensure > that the latest revocation data is available. Add an --insecure option > which

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

On 10/27/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >> I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux >> kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted >> otherwise. >> > > Stepping back,

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > Seriously though, it makes more sense to have a conservative default > (udev-settle). Especially since OpenRC is not well-equipped to deal > with event-based device management. > > It seems to me that the problem is

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Neither were network device names. But now they are! As long as you > predict to which USB port the dongle will be plugged ;-). > It would be nice if standards like USB incorporated some kind of GUID. I ended up having

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

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 11:14:53 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > 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,

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Please review the following draft: > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC > > > > Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo

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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under trademark law

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

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> This is from the last policy draft: > >> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml > > > Why redraft the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:22 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> > >> I think this reflects reality. You can submit all

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

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:13:48 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > >> Personally I'd rather see us go the other way, ensure udev settles > >> before

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> >> I think this reflects reality. You can submit all the patches you >> want via bugzilla but it isn't like we punish developers for not >>

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

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > 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

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

On 10/25/2016 10:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to > move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles. > > I do have a question about the newsitem -- how do I make it display only > for Linux users? > > Thanks, > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > [snip] > > To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling > it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was > supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they > either tried to be too

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

On 10/26/2016 01:49 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 wrote: If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge-webrsync: use gkeys to verify gpg signatures (bug 597918)

Use gkeys to verify gpg signatures by default. Refresh the gentoo snapshot signing key before signature verification, in order to ensure that the latest revocation data is available. Add an --insecure option which disables gpg signature verification. Warn about man-in-the-middle attacks when the