Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due apache herd removal

2012-11-27 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/27/2012 02:43 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: After discussing it at: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/262834 ... Apache itself is in need of some attention these days. The ChangeLog shows only Patrick committing in the last six

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Defaulting desktop profiles to net-nds/openldap[minimal]

2012-12-01 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/01/2012 09:48 PM, Duncan wrote: Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 01:28:26 +0100 as excerpted: If this change is applied anyway, I suggest to at least produce a news item in order to not surprise users about the sudden loss of their openldap server. I wouldn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Defaulting desktop profiles to net-nds/openldap[minimal]

2012-12-01 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/01/2012 10:50 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 01/12/2012 19:44, Michael Orlitzky wrote: Someone's going to reboot three months after this change and their whole office is going to be down while they try to figure out why they don't have an LDAP server. For even a small business

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Defaulting desktop profiles to net-nds/openldap[minimal]

2012-12-01 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/01/2012 11:21 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 01/12/2012 20:09, Michael Orlitzky wrote: The only way to know what's going on is to read the ebuild. And nobody has the time to do that for every default USE flag change, especially when you're managing multiple machines. In this case

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Defaulting desktop profiles to net-nds/openldap[minimal]

2012-12-02 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/02/2012 04:40 AM, Duncan wrote: As others have mentioned, equery u[ses] openldap . Does nothing in this case. Actually, I have a bug open at this very moment about a new ambiguous USE flag, USE=fma, in the new sci-libs/fftw-3.3.3 ebuild. My bdver1 has fma4, but not fma3. Does

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Defaulting desktop profiles to net-nds/openldap[minimal]

2012-12-02 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/02/2012 11:19 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 02/12/2012 08:02, Michael Orlitzky wrote: I think you have Stockholm syndrome. I've updated thousands of packages this month. I cannot do this for each one, and even if I could, there's a huge (unnecessary) opportunity cost to doing so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due nelchael retirement

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/16/2012 09:22 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: net-misc/openntpd This one's easy, I could proxy-maintain it. These two are also maintainer-needed: * app-doc/djbdns-man I'm maintaining djbdns, so I suppose I should have this one too. On the

[gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
Inspired by the number of packages being unmaintained -- why not use some of that bug bounty money to fix up the recruitment documentation and maybe give the webpage a makeover? Marketing is a big part of the problem. 1. Even MediaWiki (wiki.gentoo.org) looks better than www.gentoo.org.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/16/2012 12:02 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 16-12-2012 11:57:35 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: 3. Get off CVS for Christ's sake. Nobody wants to work with that. I don't know how this fits into my bullet list, but it's important. It doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/16/2012 12:23 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 16-12-2012 12:20:10 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: Many new developers who want to contribute to to some project will learn git, because a large number of important projects use git. No (new

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/16/2012 01:27 PM, Duncan wrote: Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:20:10 -0500 as excerpted: On 12/16/2012 12:02 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 16-12-2012 11:57:35 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: 3. Get off CVS for Christ's sake. Nobody wants to work with that. I don't know

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/16/12 16:32, Michał Górny wrote: Get off powerpoint for your god of choice's sake. Nobody wants to work with that (well, everybody I meet outside actually wants but whatever) :P. Sorry, couldn't resist. I was hoping nobody would call my bluff. This is the only avenue available to me

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/16/12 13:53, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: 1. Even MediaWiki (wiki.gentoo.org) looks better than www.gentoo.org. That's impressive-bad. People still think of Gentoo as a ricer distro that's broken all the time, when in reality, it's one of the most stable. No one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2012-12-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/16/12 14:04, Markos Chandras wrote: On 16 December 2012 16:57, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: Inspired by the number of packages being unmaintained -- why not use some of that bug bounty money to fix up the recruitment documentation Recruitment documentatiob? What does

Re: [gentoo-dev] College Course in Gentoo Development

2012-12-17 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/17/2012 10:32 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Hi everyone, Give the talk on the list about attracting devs, I've should probably mention that I'm teaching a College Course on Gentoo Development next semester. I know two students will most likely go through the recruitment process,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [brainstorm] dev-lang internal package managers and portage

2013-01-01 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/01/2013 02:14 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: Hi there! Long time ago I discovered that many language-specific packages (libraries, webapps) written on languages like PHP, Ruby, Lua and so on has (often) almost hardcoded dependence to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [brainstorm] dev-lang internal package managers and portage

2013-01-01 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/01/2013 04:53 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 01/01/2013 22:12, Michael Orlitzky wrote: In lieu of that, what we do is create ebuilds like www-apps/redmine-dependencies. I manually parse the Gemfile for the (R)DEPENDs. My life would

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

2013-01-06 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/05/2013 12:47 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Some early work on it using Bootstrap: http://a3li.li/~alex/g.o/ I really like this. The (admittedly kind-of ugly) logo and the flying saucer thing are incorporated tastefully and it makes a big difference. The zebra tables, and especially

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lifting the HOMEPAGE requirement for ebuilds

2013-01-13 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/13/2013 12:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote: If something is a six-liner made by Gentoo and for Gentoo, noone cares enough to create a homepage for it. http://gentoo.org is the most useless 'homepage' value you can use. It doesn't mean

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

2013-01-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/16/2013 11:36 AM, Michael Weber wrote: emerge --upgrade with a predefined EMERGE_UPGRADE_OPTS in make.conf (where EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS lives). +1 so I can stop adding --oneshot onto every upgrade.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

2013-01-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/16/2013 11:47 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 01/16/2013 11:36 AM, Michael Weber wrote: emerge --upgrade with a predefined EMERGE_UPGRADE_OPTS in make.conf (where EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS lives). +1 so I can stop adding --oneshot onto every upgrade. Oh, damn, this isn't suggesting what I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

2013-01-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/16/2013 12:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 16/01/13 11:47 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 01/16/2013 11:36 AM, Michael Weber wrote: emerge --upgrade with a predefined EMERGE_UPGRADE_OPTS in make.conf (where EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS lives

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

2013-01-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/16/2013 12:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: --upgrade wouldn't (couldn't, imo) replace --update. Yes, sorry for the confusion. I use more than one package manager, and when doing an update or upgrade I'm basically flipping a coin. I just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

2013-01-17 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/17/2013 09:52 AM, Zac Medico wrote: I strongly believe that it shouldn't; nevertheless, it does. You can avoid this by adding --select=n to EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. Then, if you want to add something to world, use --select (or -w in latest portage which isn't marked stable yet). This

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

2013-01-17 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/17/2013 12:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: ... so what's the problem here, exactly? I don't want @world to get screwed up, either by having unnecessary packages, or by missing ones we need. (a) 'emerge -u [pkg]' adds extra bits to @world

Re: [gentoo-dev] news item for udev 197-r3 upgrade (yes, I know, it's late)

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/13 05:02, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: I've recently upgraded some server from kernel-2.6.28 to kernel-3.5.7 and encountered that the root-device was renamed from /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 to /dev/sda1 due to some kernel driver change (took me a while to find out). I'm not using genkernel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/13 13:25, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: a fatal die in pkg_pretend could be circumvented by an environment variable such as ${PN}_I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING being set. Just a thought. If we're going to do this I'd definitely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/13 13:58, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: How about, you know what you're doing and are going to build a new kernel as soon as the emerge finishes (since the emerge is also bringing in a new gentoo-sources)?? If you're going to upgrade both anyway, you should be upgrading the kernel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/13 15:26, viv...@gmail.com wrote: If you're going to upgrade both anyway, you should be upgrading the kernel first. That way if you lose power or the system crashes, the box can reboot. which can be the exact opposite order if instead you have to _disable_ a feature in the kernel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/13 15:39, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 01/24/13 15:26, viv...@gmail.com wrote: If you're going to upgrade both anyway, you should be upgrading the kernel first. That way if you lose power or the system crashes, the box can reboot. which can be the exact opposite order if instead you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/13 19:29, viv...@gmail.com wrote: actually it wasn't an issue that could made a system un-bootable but was like this: * udev-129 could live with CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=y * udev-130 require CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED not set The example was given just to underline the fact that a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/2013 08:39 PM, Duncan wrote: Now I've chosen to set that using package.env so it applies only to glibc, but I imagine many users have it set in their make.conf, because a lot of packages use it, and they were forced to set it for one or another at some point. Using package.env

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 01/24/2013 10:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: Otherwise we're just finding creative ways to drive away users. Sure, we can call them stupid on their way out the door, but while I can't speak for anybody else, I'm mainly here because I'd like to do some good, and I wouldn't mind it if I found

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog

2013-03-10 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/10/2013 02:11 PM, hasufell wrote: On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into testing, and as you said there was no previous version on

Re: [gentoo-dev] New install isos needed

2013-03-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/23/2013 02:50 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: El sáb, 23-03-2013 a las 14:40 -0400, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina escribió: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/23/2013 02:06 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: Today I tried to boot latest install ISO

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to normal users

2013-05-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/23/2013 04:02 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: I can't speak for others who wish to rid their systems of systemd, but personally I look for any excessive use of space on my HDD, despite it being rather large. Since you brought it up, which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/12/2013 01:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs better package management support for overlays? No. You make a persuasive

Re: TLDR: rant in support of overlays (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays)

2013-06-12 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 06/12/2013 06:31 PM, Greg Turner wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 06/12/2013 01:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-14 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 06/13/2013 12:56 AM, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: The main reason it isn't is because nobody wants to use CVS. For good examples, see sunrise or gentoo-haskell. As a part of gentoo-haskell team, I'd like to say that CVS issue is not strongest one, there are much more meaningful reasons

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

2013-08-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2013 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote: I thought about gentoo-networking, but that sucks in a way too because it implies that everyone on gentoo should be using it. ... How about gen-net? It's nice, short and the name is more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

2013-08-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2013 06:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 10:15:35PM +, Duncan wrote: Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:01:40 -0400 as excerpted: Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name netrc also suggests itself

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

2013-08-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2013 06:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name netrc also suggests itself. 'net run control'? Sounds about right. We can say it's net run configuration if that's better politically. -BEGIN PGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

2013-08-05 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 08/05/2013 06:09 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: - netrc (conflicts) Would naming it net-rc alleviate the perceived conflict?

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

2013-08-05 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 08/05/2013 09:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 08/05/2013 06:09 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: - netrc (conflicts) Would naming it net-rc alleviate the perceived conflict? Or, duh, networkrc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Patch applying function for EAPI 6

2013-08-18 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 08/18/2013 12:39 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: The current epatch() would remain available in eutils.eclass for cases where its more advanced modes of operation are needed. ... 2. Should the function do automatic -p* detection, or should it default to -p1? Both would be overridable by an

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-20 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 08/20/2013 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: My question is, how can we improve our stabilization procedures/policies so we can convince people not to run production servers on ~arch and keep the stable tree more up to date? Just delete /etc/conf.d/net with an ~arch update every once in a

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 08/21/2013 12:35 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: On 21 August 2013 04:12, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: [snip] Ok, this one is ridiculous. The stable version of Rails is 2.3.18, and 3.0 was released almost exactly three years ago. Every time rails-3.x gets bumped, I have to manually

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: GRUB2 migration

2013-09-21 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/21/2013 11:42 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: GRUB2 will be stabilized soon (bug 455544). Here's a draft of a news item to hopefully prevent any confusion. Please review. The FAQ / Known Problems / Gotchas section of the guide is still empty. Maybe

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-07 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: *** Proposal 2: EAPI in header comment *** A different approach would be to specify the EAPI in a specially formatted comment in the ebuild's header. No syntax has been suggested yet, but I believe that the following would work as a specification:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-08 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/08/2012 07:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the least-disagreeable solutions proposed. We could of course define our own custom format, but I think something like,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-08 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: *** Proposal 1: Parse the EAPI assignment statement *** There's also libbash now: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/libbash/index.xml Anyone know how close we are to being able to use it to parse the EAPI?

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-08 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote: And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And that introduces new problems: I'm just parroting someone else's suggestion; I don't really know enough about the details to answer these properly. Not that that will stop me. 1)

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-08 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/08/2012 12:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500 Michael Orlitzkymich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote: And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And that introduces new problems: I'm just parroting

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-08 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/08/2012 01:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow. The notion of execute them somehow that's used doesn't fit in with the #! interpreter model. You aren't executing ebuilds via an interpreter. You're performing an action that

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-08 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/2012 12:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: This is of course isomorphic to requiring a specific EAPI=4 format, but does allow you to do stupid things like x=`seq 4 4`; eapi $x; if you want. What advantage does it give us? We still can't change ebuild syntax in global scope because bash will

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 00:51, Zac Medico wrote: On 03/08/2012 09:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: The function can do any crazy thing you want. We don't need a function. We need to know the EAPI before we source the ebuild, and a function doesn't give us that. Surely we can source one or two lines

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 10:05, Zac Medico wrote: Surely we can source one or two lines of the ebuild safely, like the example shows? Why would we though, when sourcing is a relatively costly operation, and there are much more efficient ways to get the EAPI? There do not seem to be any that people

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 10:58, Zac Medico wrote: On 03/09/2012 07:51 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:41:09 -0800 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that it's not magic -- it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 11:29, Michał Górny wrote: What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at 'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff? It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, so we can bail out early. This returns 1: exit 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at 'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff? It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, so we can bail out early

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 12:47, Zac Medico wrote: Ulrich is talking about extensions which require a newer version of bash. These kinds of extensions are quite common and don't cause massive breaking because people simply have to upgrade bash in order to use the new extensions, and their old scripts

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote: On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a different name. I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better approach than semi- or repeat

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

2012-03-09 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/09/12 13:56, Zac Medico wrote: On 03/09/2012 10:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote: On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a different name. I think

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

2012-03-12 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is still not needed. ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55 definitely works, whereas

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

2012-03-13 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/13/2012 08:29 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: I'm answering Ciaran's and Brian's posts together, because the answer is the same for both... namely, we need a 2-pass processor, regardless of whether it's bash/perl/python/whatever. Pass 1 checks for syntax errors and retrieves special variables,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

2012-03-13 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/13/2012 10:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote: On 03/13/2012 06:42 PM, Brian Harring wrote: Leaving it such that the PM has to enforce things like don't have multiple EAPI assignments means by default, one of them isn't going to... leading to the ebuilds breaking... specifically the common case

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

2012-03-13 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/13/2012 10:36 PM, Zac Medico wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:23 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: Someone should really throw up a table on wiki.g.o with a comparison of the proposed methods. We've got one already: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Alternate_EAPI_mechanisms *facepalm*

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

2012-03-16 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/16/12 11:18, Greg KH wrote: At least find a package that people use :) www-client/httrack?

Re: [gentoo-dev] If anyone is intrested in helping around with Xfce...

2012-03-22 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 03/22/2012 03:29 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 03/22/2012 09:25 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: If anyone is intrested in helping around with Xfce we have 2 bigger tasks on going: 1) Pass --libexecdir=${EPREFIX} to all plugins installing to /usr/libexec/xfce4/ as opposed to /usr/lib/xfce4/

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for (libre)office extensions: office-ext ?

2012-05-05 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 05/05/12 14:40, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hiya, there's a growing culture of libreoffice extensions, and (with the help of an eclass prepared by scarabeus) it would be nice to get some of them into the portage tree. Now we have to decide where to put them. Suggestion: new category

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Enable FEATURES=userpriv usersandbox by default?

2012-05-29 Thread Michael Orlitzky
How about introducing e.g. FEATURES=nouserpriv, and make the current userpriv behavior the default? The migration might be a bit more confusing, but it allows portage to gradually adopt better stuff without having FEATURES=everything under the sun.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Enable FEATURES=userpriv usersandbox by default?

2012-05-29 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 05/29/12 15:58, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: How about introducing e.g. FEATURES=nouserpriv, and make the current userpriv behavior the default? Portage currently defaults to running the build process as root

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should packages auto-eselect alternative implementation on removal?

2012-05-30 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 05/30/2012 05:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 30 May 2012 13:01:24 Michał Górny wrote: This issue was given my attention through bug 418217 [1]. Long story short -- there are applications which call pager implicitly. Those are git systemd. They don't actually require any pager

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

2012-05-31 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 05/31/12 16:09, Michał Górny wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them have to be signed once again? The

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] prune_libtool_files(): go into .a removal only when .a exists.

2012-06-15 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote: It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when no such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed. Why keep the -f? --- eclass/eutils.eclass |6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: upgrading to postfix-2.9

2012-07-17 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/17/12 07:21, Eray Aslan wrote: On 07/17/2012 02:00 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: It may be a small issue, but since the potential pain is quite large, Yes, that's the idea. since postfix config file changes are usually pretty hard to review for merges. Hmm, that's a failure on our

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

2012-07-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/24/12 09:21, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: Given that this just affects new installs, is a news item (via portage) a particularly good way to inform everyone? I was wondering if it'd make more sense to notify on the website and *definitely* change the Handbook... ..and maybe include an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

2012-07-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/24/12 14:52, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote: This is a big enough change that it will throw users who do not know, and my first impression of /etc/make.conf et all missing on a new stage is file a bug report for a broken stage and assign it to those morons in releng. (please note the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage FEATURE suggestion - limited-visibility builds

2012-07-26 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/26/12 14:26, Rich Freeman wrote: I've been messing around with namespaces and some of what systemd has been doing with them, and I have an idea for a portage feature. But before doing a brain dump of ideas, how useful would it be to have a FEATURE for portage to do a limited-visibility

Re: [gentoo-dev] UTF-8 locale by default

2012-07-30 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/27/12 16:16, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: No user will be happy with whatever we decide to use as a default. The defaults should be what's best for the most people, with a bias towards safety. Why don't we just take a survey and choose the most common utf8 response?

Re: [gentoo-dev] UTF-8 locale by default

2012-07-30 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/30/12 10:41, Michał Górny wrote: On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:35:36 -0400 Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 07/27/12 16:16, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: No user will be happy with whatever we decide to use as a default. The defaults should be what's best for the most people

Re: [gentoo-dev] UTF-8 locale by default

2012-07-30 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/30/12 12:28, Michał Górny wrote: My point here is that you want the thing to change. So you first try to convince people here to change. We practically did a small survey here and in the result we didn't agree on doing the change. So you're saying we should do another survey on

Re: [gentoo-dev] UTF-8 locale by default

2012-07-31 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 07/30/12 15:02, Walter Dnes wrote: Would forcing UTF-8 cause problems for packages that expect specific ISO encodings in X fonts? Not that I know of (and setting a default wouldn't force anything). xfreecell's readme states Make sure there is a font named 7x14 and another thread mentions

Re: [gentoo-dev] UTF-8 locale by default

2012-08-01 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 08/01/12 16:18, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: If it turns out that C or POSIX is the most common response, we should then default the locale to en_US.UTF-8 if we really want to default to a UTF-8 setting. The reason being it makes sense to have the default locale set to the country of

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

2012-09-02 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 09/02/2012 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance... rantOk, it REALLY

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

2012-09-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: As a compromise, it could be made policy that bump to EAPI=foo bugs are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is under no more pressure than usual to

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

2012-09-06 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 09/05/2012 12:15 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: As a compromise, it could be made policy that bump to EAPI=foo bugs are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

2012-09-06 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 09/05/2012 05:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote: Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane. and isn't a compromise at all. I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required outcome of this. Given the choice between something productive, and something not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

2012-09-07 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 09/07/2012 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly manner, and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice to explain the idea here, here's some more details on the DEPENDENCIES proposal. It seems to me that the problem

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

2012-09-08 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 09/08/2012 02:43 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400 Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical Situations like foo? ( bar? ( || ( a ( b c ) ) ) ) do happen, so any new syntax would have to be able

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies

2012-09-19 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 09/19/2012 06:59 AM, Duncan wrote: Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:22:06 +0800 as excerpted: On 16 September 2012 21:15, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: So... basically, people are already doing this manually with their own intermediate vars. And this works fine, so

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 100 bugs

2012-10-31 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 10/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:18 AM, li...@aixah.de wrote: Maybe you should remember that non-devs simply /aren't allowed/ to assign bugs correctly... And if you look closer into these bugs, you might discover that jer instructed this guy to file

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Maintainer needed: dev-libs/icu

2012-11-05 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/05/2012 10:39 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote: Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the package would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have to file any bugs at all, just (automatically) email the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Maintainer needed: dev-libs/icu

2012-11-05 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/05/2012 12:15 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 05/11/12 12:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: 1) Over time, unstable has become too stable (I know, I know). People expect things to work, and nobody wants to break working systems by committing

Re: [gentoo-dev] XFCE needs help with maintaince of xfce-extra/ (at least temporary)

2012-11-14 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/14/2012 06:17 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: Samuli Suominen wrote: so unless you are willing to go that far as introducing yourself at the xfce devel mailing list and accepting the mantle of upstream of them, we are really stuck at this distribution level patching just like others That

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Official way to do rolling update (Was: Re: Releng breakage with respect to move from dev-python/python-exec to dev-lang/python-exec)

2013-11-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/04/2013 04:46 PM, Duncan wrote: I imagine were emerge being written today, -1 /would/ be the default, and there'd be an option like --select to add to the @world file if necessary. That's actually the way I setup my scripts, with -1 the default, and an extra 2 suffix script variant

Re: [gentoo-dev] friendly reminder wrt net virtual in init scripts

2013-11-05 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 11/05/2013 09:49 AM, mingdao wrote: Flameeyes wrote the following blog post concerning this issue: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2012/10/may-i-have-a-network-connection-please and the link gives me a (Error code: sec_error_ocsp_unknown_cert). You should disable OCSP anyway. In Firefox,

Re: [gentoo-dev] friendly reminder wrt net virtual in init scripts

2013-11-06 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/06/2013 02:11 PM, Thomas D. wrote: This is going OT but I cannot leave this statement uncommented, because from my knowledge this is wrong/you are hiding important information everyone should know about: I figure everyone here is smart

Re: [gentoo-dev] Recommend cronie instead of vixie-cron in handbook?

2013-12-11 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/10/2013 09:18 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote: I'd say go one step further and get rid of vixie-cron completely, is there anything it does that cronie can't do as well or better? Is cronie a drop-in replacement, or do I have to do some thinking when replacing vixie-cron?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Recommend cronie instead of vixie-cron in handbook?

2013-12-14 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 12/11/2013 03:03 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: Is cronie a drop-in replacement, or do I have to do some thinking when replacing vixie-cron? It should be a drop-in. The only change to make would be to remove vixie-cron and add cronie to the default runlevel. I noticed two small differences:

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >