Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests > using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the issue with > making that global), though for the most part it is more metadata > caching. A key principle is that it

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:11 PM Johannes Huber wrote: > > Am 09.07.2018 um 20:05 schrieb Rich Freeman: > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote: > >> > >>> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of > >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests > > using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the issue with > > making that global), though for

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs > napisał: > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations > > > have been

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Brian Dolbec
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:21:36 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of > /usr/portage by default? > > If not, what is the status of us being able to do this? > > Thanks, > > William > I don't recall a tracker bug ever being

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations > have been changed to: > > DISTDIR="/var/cache/portage/distfiles" > PKGDIR="/var/cache/portage/packages" > RPMDIR="/var/cache/portage/rpm" > > Plus

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs napisał: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations > > have been changed to: > > > > DISTDIR="/var/cache/portage/distfiles" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-09 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 22∶12 +0200, użytkownik Manuel Rüger napisał: > On 09.07.2018 10:40, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses > > for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of > > developers is

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:34 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems > ++ If a user wants to migrate it is pretty easy to do. Update the setting and do an mv, or don't do an mv in which case it will just regenerate. I think

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: > On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems >> > Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. > > My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems > Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage tarballs. When sys-apps/portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

2018-07-09 Thread Andrey Utkin
On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:57:40AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > net-im/mcabber > net-libs/loudmouth Taking these. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:53:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs > > napisał: > > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:53:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Though I do prefer /var/lib or /var/cache over /var/db, simply >> because /var/lib is actually in FHS. > Agreed, /var/db I guess is a Gentoo invention of some kind? No, it exists in

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems >>> >> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. >> >> My

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 07/09/2018 11:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> Though I do prefer /var/lib or /var/cache over /var/db, simply because >> /var/lib is actually in FHS. > Agreed, /var/db I guess is a Gentoo invention of some kind? well, for a gentoo-based PMS that might not be a bad thing.. but I'd say cache is

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
On 07/09/2018 01:00 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests >>> using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-09 Thread Manuel Rüger
On 09.07.2018 10:40, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses > for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of > developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a few > developers are using some other

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 12∶21 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs napisał: > All, > > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of > /usr/portage by default? > > If not, what is the status of us being able to do this? sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
On 07/09/2018 01:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 07/09/2018 01:00 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests using it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-09 Thread Aaron Bauman
On July 9, 2018 4:40:22 AM EDT, "Michał Górny" wrote: >Hi, > >We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses >for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of >developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a few >developers are using

[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: dev-python/pgasync

2018-07-09 Thread Aaron W. Swenson
# Aaron W. Swenson (9 Jul 2018) # Hasn’t been updated in years, upstream’s download source is blank, and depends # on an outdated twisted-core (Bug 660668). Removal after 2018-08-08. dev-python/pgasync signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-09 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 09.07.2018 kell 10:40, kirjutas Michał Górny: > Hi, > > We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail > addresses > for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of > developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a > few >

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: Portage rsync hardlink support

2018-07-09 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 07/08/2018 11:59 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> It used to make a special statement for a new stable Portage and >> strongly recommended that it be emerged first. It should probably do the >> same for openpgp-keys-gentoo-release. > Sure, but it this case we have a chicken-and-egg problem, because I >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-09 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 07/09/2018 10:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Therefore, I'd like to start enforcing (at the level of the hook > verifying signatures) that all commits made to gentoo.git (and other > repositories requiring dev signatures) are made using @gentoo.org e-mail > address (for committer field). Sounds

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-09 Thread Michał Górny
Hi, We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a few developers are using some other addresses. Using n...@gentoo.org e-mail addresses

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/5]-r1 toolchain.eclass: Prefix patches, Cygwin related

2018-07-09 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
On 06/22/2018 03:10 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > Hi, > > now reordered for EAPI 7 first. > > Also, the downloaded cygwindist patches file now is renamed to > gcc-cygwindist-.tar.gz rather than just .tar.gz. > > Thanks for the reviews, pushed now, thanks! /haubi/

[gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
All, is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of /usr/portage by default? If not, what is the status of us being able to do this? Thanks, William signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Alec Warner
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:21 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of > /usr/portage by default? I suspect the answer is 'whenever' but that mostly depends on implementation and what you want to accomplish. Do you want: - All hosts

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-09 Thread David Seifert
On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 10:40 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail > addresses > for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of > developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a > few > developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Dennis Schridde
On Monday, 9 July 2018 19:26:54 CEST Alec Warner wrote: > [0] A number of people already point PORTDIR at some other location and > appear to operate without major issues. I do have it in /var/cache/portage/gentoo (alongside /var/cache/portage/ {distfiles,packages,local} and that works quite

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote: > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of > /usr/portage by default? > If not, what is the status of us being able to do this? Please remind me, what was the plan for the new location? Somewhere under /var/db or /var/lib,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:26 PM Alec Warner wrote: > > The former is probably 3 times easier than the latter. > - Get testers to move their tree and report issues[0]. > - Change the stage3 defaults to be the new location. > - Explicitly do nothing else. > > New installs will get the new

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote: > > > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of > > /usr/portage by default? > > > If not, what is the status of us being able to do this? > > Please remind me, what was

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Johannes Huber
Am 09.07.2018 um 20:05 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of >>> /usr/portage by default? >> >>> If not, what is the status of us