[gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved lib: # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command: # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \ rm '/

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

On 2/24/12 6:56 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command: > > # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \ > rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' Given supporting comments to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Janitor scripts

On 2/20/12 6:03 PM, Corentin Chary wrote: > Since I plan to use the remote remote-id tag for euscan, and I already > use SRC_URI but I'd like all ebuild to use mirrors, I've wrote to > scripts to cleanup your ebuilds and metadata. > There are available here: https://github.com/iksaif/portage-janito

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass for Python

On 2/28/12 10:13 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: > Highlights: > - <400 lines of code including documentation > - should work for >95% of packages (my educated guess) > - did I mention it's *SIMPLE*? > - easy to maintain & read so it's also easy to use This is awesome! Compare that to over 3000 LO

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

On 2/27/12 10:37 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> I think somebody pointed some "revdep-rebuild" versions where exiting >> with successful code even when failed, was fixed version stabilized? > > No, it is only in - so far. It has not been released in a -0.3* > ebuild yet. > > The last patch to re

Re: [gentoo-dev] Doubts about need for "ewarn" when strip-linguas is used

On 3/6/12 11:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > What do you think? I second removing a possibly spammy warning. Maybe provide a way in the ebuild to silence it (if it makes sense), but I'm fine either way. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

On 3/6/12 11:17 PM, Thomas Kahle wrote: > the x86 team has many ruby keywording bugs in the queue and it is > hard to keep up because testing them can be a pain. There are tons > of circular deps with USE="test" or USE="doc", there are the > different ruby interpreters. Yeah. Maintainers, if you

[gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/shadow

I'd like to add to the tree. It is an alternative implementation of shadow utilities (passwd, su, login, etc) based on ideas from Openwall's tcb. Earlier I tried upstreaming the Openwall's shadow patches, and you can see a log of those efforts at

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/shadow

On 3/8/12 2:23 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > And then convert profiles to the new virtual (the relevant files; below > are all occurrences of sys-apps/shadow): Because of no comments, I went ahead and checked in sys-apps/hardened-shadow and virtual/shadow, and now made cha

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/shadow

On 3/12/12 11:27 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > My rsync0 now spits out this message: > > Virtual package in package.provided: virtual/shadow-0 > See portage(5) for correct package.provided usage. > > I did not forsee this happening, but each and every Prefix user now gets > this complaint on ea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization requests from users

we can think about better process. By the way, commenting on existing stable requests (success reports are also valuable) is another great way to contribute. Paweł Hajdan, Jr. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass proposal: chromium.eclass

On 3/11/12 6:27 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > I moved some of the functions currently implemented in the ebuilds for > www-client/chromium and www-client/google-chrome into a new eclass > "chromium.eclass". LGTM (Looks Good To Me). It seems no one else commented on this one, so I'm totally fine with

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

On 3/21/12 3:18 PM, Justin wrote: > http://fizz.cmp.uea.ac.uk/dyndom/dyndomDownload.do Have you suggested the authors to use a more standard license? A good article about that (and more) is That could also address possible interpretation q

[gentoo-dev] automated bug filing (i.e. pybugz) failing because of missing token

If you wonder why I stopped filing new stabilization request, the pybugz-based script that was filing those bugs started failing. I have added some debugging statements to see what's going on, and here's what https://bugs.gentoo.org says as a response to pybugz's request to create a new bug:

Re: [gentoo-dev] automated bug filing (i.e. pybugz) failing because of missing token

On 3/26/12 7:20 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." > wrote: >> I posted this issue here because it's not obvious what to do with it. >> That version of pybugz worked for me before (20 February 2012). >> >>

[gentoo-dev] lastriting sys-auth/tcb

OK to lastrite sys-auth/tcb? There are following problems with it: - it requires non-trivial patching to be compatible with glibc that doesn't have Openwall patches; the next version of tcb (1.1) would need to be updated to work with Gentoo - there are other bugs too (#371167, #408647) And now w

[gentoo-dev] suspicious code in gnustep eclasses

This is from gnustep-base.eclass: > egnustep_doc() { > if [[ -d ./Documentation ]] ; then > # Check documentation presence > cd "${S}"/Documentation > if [[ -f ./[mM]akefile || -f ./GNUmakefile ]] ; then > emake "${GS_ENV[@]}" all || die "doc make failed" >

[gentoo-dev] haskell-cabal.eclass suggestions

Those are really just nits, but I thought I'd share what I've noticed. > cabal-mksetup() { > local setupdir > > if [[ -n $1 ]]; then > setupdir=$1 > else > setupdir=${S} > fi > > rm -f "${setupdir}"/Setup.{lhs,hs} > > echo 'import Distribution.Simple; mai

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sys-auth/tcb

# Masked for removal, use sys-apps/hardened-shadow instead. # Needs too much special patching to work in Gentoo, # bugs: #371167, #408647. Removal in 60 days (31 May 2012). sys-auth/tcb signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: iotop needs to run as root after kernel change

On 4/4/12 8:32 AM, justin wrote: > 1. > Leave it to root (Fedora and Suses way) I think that's the best option, at least for now. > 2. > suid it (bad in my view) Agreed, that'd be very bad, any crashing bug in it could become a privilege escalation problem. > 3. > file capabilities (can this be

Re: [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

On 4/10/12 8:58 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that > profiles. I prefer this. Changing USE flag meaning in a counter-intuitive way (to let "gtk" mean "wxwidgets") would seem frustrating to me. With "wxwidgets" enabled by default people will ge

Re: [gentoo-dev] pybugz call for testers

On 4/10/12 7:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I have updated pybugz- to work with the xmlrpc interface of > bugzilla. Cool, thank you for working on that. > I can name a couple of issues that are api limitations that we can't do > anything about: > > - you can't search on cc: or keywords fields

Re: [gentoo-dev] pybugz call for testers

On 4/10/12 11:17 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:45:14PM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> On 4/10/12 7:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> I can name a couple of issues that are api limitations that we can't do >>> anything about:

Re: [gentoo-dev] pybugz call for testers

On 4/13/12 5:19 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > Do you need the command line front end for your arch testing > utilities, or are you using the bugzilla.py module directly? If the > latter, I think it would be possible to restore the old bugzilla.py > module, possibly with a different name. Just the modu

[gentoo-dev] testing pambase-20120417

# Pawel Hajdan, Jr. (17 Apr 2012) # Masked for testing and review. >=sys-auth/pambase-20120417 >=sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1 >=sys-apps/hardened-shadow-0.9-r1 Please help testing above packages (feel free to skip hardened-shadow if you're not using it, but I'm pretty sure you have shadow and pambase

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Add new remote-id types in metadata.dtd

On 4/19/12 5:31 PM, Corentin Chary wrote: > Add rubygems, github, gitorious, pecl, pear, bitbucket. > All of them are handled by my remoteids.py script. Just making sure: do github, gitorious and bitbucket provide file hosting? I know they host repos, but for most ebuilds where remote-id would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

On 4/30/12 6:32 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote: >>> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark, >>> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium sou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

On 4/30/12 7:42 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > ffmpeg upstream is not afraid of making API changes, so it has proven > quite difficult to make chromium work with all versions on ffmpeg in > portage, plus the bundled snapshot. When we were using the system lib, > it would break nearly every time a new ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

On 5/4/12 8:02 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: > I consider dbus still not reliable for core services. Just curious - why? I just have no idea about how dbus works or what are possible problems with it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to > make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they > target a given version of Ubuntu. I think a patch to make them > optional might be accepted, but it probably isn't g

[gentoo-dev] pushing fixes to stable before closing bugs

I noticed a general tendency to close bugs affecting stable before pushing the fix to stable. One recent example is , but there are more. The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and _known_ regression in stable, which could be

Re: [gentoo-dev] pushing fixes to stable before closing bugs

On 5/12/12 6:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:34 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." > wrote: >> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and >> _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided. > > How can you have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] suspicious code in gnustep eclasses

On 3/31/12 8:45 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 30-03-2012 13:00:33 +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> This is from gnustep-base.eclass: >> >>> egnustep_doc() { >>> if [[ -d ./Documentation ]] ; then >>> # Check documentation presenc

[gentoo-dev] RFC: trivial chromium.eclass patch

I'd like to commit the following chromium.eclass patch. The rationale is that checked kernel config options are not needed for SELinux sandbox. After that patch gets committed, I plan to modify the ebuilds in tree. Can the deprecated function be removed immediately after that, or should it stay l

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion to drop "pcre" from default enabled USE flags in profiles

On 6/6/12 10:26 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > After reading: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=419795 > > I think that would be interesting to try to not get grep build with pcre > support by default, specially after reading "man grep" and seeing that > its support is tagged as experimental: T

Re: [gentoo-dev] Github.com tarballs eclass idea

On 6/11/12 3:41 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > i've some packages fetching SRC_URI from github.com > tarballs/tags/files like x11-misc/trayer-srg. Have you seen ? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

On 7/26/12 8:26 PM, 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-visib

Re: [gentoo-dev] doheader function for EAPI 5?

On 8/31/12 10:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > A new "doheader" (and "newheader") helper function is on our list of > possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just > copy the code from doconfd or doenvd. I'm somewhat interested. Here's the current code dev-lang/v8 uses to instal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On 9/7/12 5:46 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus > about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES' I also like at least significant parts of the DEPENDENCIES concept, especially when we start adding more dep variables like HDEPEND. My understanding

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On 9/7/12 6:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Why the dev community only? We have many active contributors who aren't > devs and who work hard with ebuilds. It's *their* time which will be > wasted on rewriting dependencies into new form, not yours. Should those contributors also vote? Do they have any

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On 9/18/12 7:07 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how >> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going >> to help us. They fit just fine into build-time depende

[gentoo-dev] packages which won't support x32

This is the case with dev-lang/v8: it doesn't build on x32 (), and upstream said they *won't* support x32 (). Note that with v8 it's not just about getting v8 itself to compile, but also making it ge

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

On 10/31/12 11:13 PM, Graham Murray wrote: > Ryan Hill writes: > >> Christ on a $#@%! crutch. You can NOT auto-enable C++11 in your library >> based >> on a configure test and then stuff flags that are not supported by previous >> compiler versions into pkg-config for library consumers. Somebo

[gentoo-dev] fixing dev-libs/icu c++11 bustage, testers wanted

tl;dr - please test dev-libs/icu-50.1-r2 and report if it works for you or not; if it doesn't, please try dev-libs/icu-50.1-r1 and also report I've done two version bumps of dev-libs/icu related to the c++11 bug (feel free to add the package to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] fixing dev-libs/icu c++11 bustage, testers wanted

On 11/14/12 9:09 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 14/11/2012 21:02, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> My _limited_ testing seems to indicate it's "working". But if you >> people can just do your tests, that would be most welcome. Please >> report bac

[gentoo-dev] linux/dma-buf.h mysteriously missing

I was packaging chromium-59.0.3053.3 . I worked around the problem described here, but I'd like to find the right long term solution. I was hitting the following compile error: ../../ui/gfx/linux/client_native_pixmap_dmabuf.cc:39:27: fatal error: linux/dma-buf.h: No such file or directory #inclu

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux/dma-buf.h mysteriously missing

On 29/03/2017 19:51, Matt Turner wrote: > It's a bug that has since been fixed by kernel commit > 2220fc1ab363e6fab1f321430d69be17a8b92bd7 ("uapi: add missing install > of dma-buf.h"). The header was originally added in 4.10, and the fix > commit is in 4.11-rc1. > > I guess we just need to hack ar

[gentoo-dev] chromium-59.0.3053.3 will require >=sys-apps/sandbox-2.11 (currently hard masked)

The latest dev channel release of chromium (59.0.3053.3) will require >=sys-apps/sandbox-2.11 to build. I'm sending this announcement because this version of sandbox is currently hard masked. So is the chromium version, but with its fast release cycle we can expect it hitting ~arch in few weeks, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/4] www-client/chromium: Use eninja from ninja-utils

On 30/04/2017 22:28, Michał Górny wrote: > --- > www-client/chromium/chromium-59.0.3067.0.ebuild | 19 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 18 deletions(-) Thanks! Please make sure to patch the latest chromium version - at this moment, 60.0.3080.5 . I'm fine with backporting the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla package list editing

On 02/05/2017 02:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 30. April 2017, 12:29:46 CEST schrieb Mart Raudsepp: >> Please stop editing package lists when you are not the maintainer and >> arches are already CCed. > +1 > > Please stop it. > And yes that's also true for arch team members. > > Pac

[gentoo-dev] packages up for grabs (from phajdan.jr, May 2017)

This is probably overdue. I'm not really maintaining the following packages, mostly because I no longer use them. I have dropped myself from metadata.xml . Feel free to grab. If you have questions about them, just email me. app-admin/logcheck (2 bugs) app-admin/syslog-summary (1 bug) app-misc/loc

[gentoo-dev] crossdev: installing _host_ build dependencies not automatic?

I encountered while working on some cross-compiling project. Admittedly, it may not be that easy to handle host package dependencies fully automatically. I'm wondering - is it documented what portage guarantees, and what I'm expected to just manual

Re: [gentoo-dev] crossdev: installing _host_ build dependencies not automatic?

On 03/05/2017 17:56, Alexis Ballier wrote: > From man emerge: > >--root-deps[=rdeps] > If no argument is given then build-time dependencies of >packages for ROOT are installed to ROOT instead of /. If the >rdeps argument is given then discard all build-time

[gentoo-dev] stabilization candidates, July 2017

Hey folks, If you'd like to help Gentoo stable be more up to date, please read on. See for potential stabilization candidates (over 1000 of them). These are automatically checked to pass repoman, and bugzilla is also che

[gentoo-dev] can't gpg sign with repoman, but can with git

Hey folks, This is mysterious, and likely some issue with my setup, although it used to work. Trying tocommit with repoman commit (app-portage/repoman version 2.3.1) results in the following: * 4 files being committed... error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object !!!

Re: [gentoo-dev] can't gpg sign with repoman, but can with git

On 20/07/2017 11:38, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/19/2017 09:24 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: >> * 4 files being committed... >> error: gpg failed to sign the data >> fatal: failed to write commit object >> !!! Exiting on git (shell) error code: 128 > > y

Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisions for USE flag changes

On 12/08/2017 03:11, Brian Evans wrote: > --changed-use (-U) >Tells emerge to include installed packages where USE flags have >changed since installation. This option also implies the >--selective option. Unlike --newuse, the --changed-use option >does not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

On 19/10/2017 21:08, Michał Górny wrote: > Considering all arguments made so far, I'd like to propose changing: > manifest-hashes = SHA256 SHA512 WHIRLPOOL > to: > manifest-hashes = SHA512 SHA3_512 +1, fine for me > 1. The main argument for using multiple hashes is to prevent the (very > unli

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th

On 20/10/2017 18:15, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu pią, 20.10.2017 o godzinie 17∶42 +0200, użytkownik Paweł Hajdan, > Jr. napisał: >> Curious, do we have any measurements/estimates of the performance cost? > > With a single thread serial processing of all hashes, it's just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th: 3 hashes for the tie-breaker case

On 24/10/2017 06:11, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu wto, 24.10.2017 o godzinie 06∶04 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny > napisał: >> Three hashes don't give any noticeable advantage. If we want a diverse >> construct, we take SHA3. SHA3 is slower than SHA2 + BLAKE2 combined, so >> even with 3 threaded c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th: one hash to decide them all

On 25/10/2017 14:32, Hanno Böck wrote: > Good security includes reducing complexity. Tough (as evident by this > thread) it's a thought many people find hard to accept. > > This thread is going into a completely different direction and I find > that worriesome. We have two non-problems ("what if se

Re: [gentoo-dev] about stable, dev and exp profile status

On 11/01/2018 08:43, Fabian Groffen wrote: > I always was under the impression the following order (and explanation) > was the case: > > stable -> development -> experimental > > For this reason, e.g. Prefix profiles are (still) experimental, which > means they really shouldn't bother non-Prefix

Re: [gentoo-dev] SAT-based dependency solver: request for test cases

On 10/02/2018 09:20, Michał Górny wrote: > To be honest, I don't think this is the right approach to the problem. Feel free to suggest a better one. > Truth is, dependencies in Gentoo are seriously broken, and most of > the developers aren't even aware of that because of layers upon layers > of h

[gentoo-dev] stability of 17.0 hardened profile

I was looking into the new 17.0 profiles (nice work!), and noticed the hardened one is marked as dev. I'm somewhat concerned about switching to that on my laptop (I'm currently using hardened/linux/amd64). Is there something I can do to help move the profile to stable? Alternatively, is there a d

[gentoo-dev] bug queue size over time

Is it possible to get graphs of bugs.g.o bug queue size for certain query (e.g. by assignee) over time? Best, Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] bug queue size over time

On 19/03/2018 21:33, Alec Warner wrote: > I'd avoid the REST API here. If you want this data; I'd consider filing a > bug. Infra can do stuff like run nightly reports for this information and > hang them off of endpoints you can access. > This works well for public bugs; and not well for private on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness

On 20/03/2018 05:17, Michael Palimaka wrote: > I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with > implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is > not "approved" will have their mail rejected). > > Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly co

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: empty directories in ${D}

On 29/03/2018 19:00, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu czw, 29.03.2018 o godzinie 11∶34 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs > napisał: >> If we are going to strip the empty directories, we should hard fail the >> emerge at the same time. Otherwise there is no way to know whether the >> package we successful

Re: [gentoo-dev] bug queue size over time

On 20/03/2018 06:05, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 19/03/2018 21:33, Alec Warner wrote: >> I'd avoid the REST API here. If you want this data; I'd consider filing a >> bug. Infra can do stuff like run nightly reports for this information and >> hang them off of en

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-dev whitelisting

On 13/05/2018 20:57, Alec Warner wrote: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure/ > Mailing_Lists#Managing_the_Gentoo-Dev_whitelist I'm wondering, currently says for me "No repositories found". Am I using a wrong address, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-dev whitelisting

On 14/05/2018 07:35, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu nie, 13.05.2018 o godzinie 17∶28 -0400, użytkownik Alec Warner > napisał: >> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. >> wrote: >>> I'm wondering, >>> <https://gitweb.gentoo.org/infra/gentoo-

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] multiversion ebuilds

On 12/05/2018 14:20, Gerion Entrup wrote: > just an idea for now. But what you think about multiversion ebuilds? > Technically this could be realized with the following line in the ebuild > itself: > ``` > VERSIONS=( 3.0.11 3.0.12 3.1 ) > ``` > > and the filename without version: > //.ebuild I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

On 23/06/2018 09:43, Mikle Kolyada wrote: > But how would it serve gentoo itself? Lots of packages in the distro > have dead upstream but still work. > Why would you want to make gentoo an upstream area rather than moving a > dead project itself, say, > to github and do the job there? +1 I like t

[gentoo-dev] ssh keys setup for git.gentoo.org after ssh-dss deprecation

I recently hit ssh-dss key deprecation (), and PubkeyAcceptedKeyTypes=+ssh-dss on the client side allows me to keep access to Gentoo infrastructure I need. I generated a new RSA key using instructions from

Re: [gentoo-dev] ssh keys setup for git.gentoo.org after ssh-dss deprecation

On 3/26/16 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:40:17 +0900 > Aaron Bauman wrote: >> Git SSH key changes are done manually by the infra team. I just went >> through >> the same issue when I updated my keys. Hope this helps. > > Updated. Thanks! Everything works now. Should

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 15/06/16 21:11, Michał Górny wrote: > I would personally go for the following layout: > > - All packages, > - Core system [includes baselayout], > - Eclasses and Profiles, > - GCC Porting, > - Hardened, > - Keywording & Stabilization, > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously), > - SELinux. S

[gentoo-dev] chromium-54 needs ffmpeg-3.0.1

See for context. chromium-54 is currently hard masked; it'd soon enter ~arch, and then stable in ~6 weeks. ffmpeg-3.0.1 is currently hard masked. These are the options I see for how to proceed. Feel free to share further alternatives. A. Prepare t

[gentoo-dev] recommended way to get gcc-6 for testing packages

I was looking at . gcc-6 doesn't seem to be in portage. Is there recommended way to get it installed? I'm also wondering what are the plans for adding it to portage. Why not just add it hard masked or unkeyworded? Paweł signature.asc Descripti

Re: [gentoo-dev] recommended way to get gcc-6 for testing packages

On 05/09/16 13:07, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 08/31/2016 17:28, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: >> gcc-6 doesn't seem to be in portage. > It's in the hardened-development overlay. You can use layman to install the > overlay, then test out gcc-6.2.x. Already found a bug relat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Local workarounds with no reported bugs

On 17/10/2016 12:42, Patrice Clement wrote: > We don't need yet another policy to "fix" two problems you've > encountered +1 ; policies don't always fix things It's a worthwhile guideline though - as Gentoo devs, and maybe even wider community, we should work together to fix problems. That's one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mentor request

On 19/10/2016 07:14, Kevin Simmons wrote: > In general, I could use a mentor I can ask questions of and get answers > from. I have been a tinkerer/user only of Gentoo in the past and am now > wanting to be more involved. Sounds great! :) Not sure if I'd call myself a mentor, but feel free to send

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

On 25/10/2016 01:03, Rich Freeman wrote: > As long as you have their permission to change the copyright notice. > You cannot currently commit anything with a different copyright notice > to gentoo.git, and you cannot legally change it without permission. How should that permission be documented?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code shutdown requires 524 ebuilds to be fixed before end of 2016

On 05/11/2016 00:54, Jonas Stein wrote: > Today we have still 524 ebuilds with SRC_URI=*googlecode* in the tree > [2] and should get these fixed before end of 2016. > > [3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_google_code The wiki page seems to indicate some sense of urgency. I'm not sure how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stats: Gentoo developer commit timeline

On 16/01/2017 10:35, Michał Górny wrote: > Just a quick side project we've done a while ago. It's a timeline of > developer commit activity [1]. Code for data processing in [2]. I did > the data, Amynka prepared a nice JS to graph it. > > [1]:http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/dev-timeline.html > [2]:h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

On 23/01/2017 13:12, Alexis Ballier wrote: > For example, if you allow use.mask or use.force in mixins, you can end > up having unsatisfiable deps that repoman will never catch. Whoa, that sounds bad. Could you elaborate why we wouldn't be able to catch these errors? > Arguably, desktop profiles

[gentoo-dev] borked release media

Hey people, what are we going to do with bugs like: I'd like to help with things. Is the process of building livecd .isos and stages documented somewhere? I'd like to reproduce problems locally, work

[gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?

# Tomáš Chvátal (04 Nov 2012) # Masked for testing with gcc-4.7 and to verify reverse deps >dev-libs/icu-49.9.1 I think with icu-50.1-r2 the problems are solved. It should get more testing in ~arch. I'd like to unmask it. WDYT? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to end-of-life tree-clean old profiles/updates/ files

On 12/9/12 1:17 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > Starting from a question by Markos in #gentoo-portage about whether to > remove entries in profiles/updates for tree-cleaned packages... What's the advantage of doing that? > I propose that we say, once a year, schedule a tree-cleaning of old > updates fi

Re: [gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?

On 12/7/12 11:51 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Sounds good to me. Tinderbox was fine with the latest changes to icu. > > Just for reference, next time it would be nice to unmask this when chromium > and libreoffice are both bumped (i.e., two days ago), so that people don't > have to rebuild them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defaulting for debug information in profiles

On 12/17/12 2:11 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Since we already have splitdebug for quite time (and I suppose quite > few of us are using it) how about making it to default profiles > default enabled and add -g to default cflags. Currently it is only > enabled in the developer profile. Fully seconded

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving our/portage stuff to var

On 12/17/12 2:19 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > With respect to reality how stuff is done in the linux land all the > variable data should be in /var so we should adjust and move it in > there too. > > What would you think? Fully seconded. +1 to /var/cache/portage and having distfiles outside of th

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

On 12/17/12 7:32 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > So what should I teach? Here's what I've got off the top of my head: > Please comment. If it gets systematized enough, it can be a guide to > future devs too. Everything will be creative commons. I think it's worth to mention somewhere that althou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Time based retirements

On 12/20/12 7:21 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > I'm curious who had the brain dead idea to retire Gentoo developers > that are still interested in the distro, that maintain low activity > packages for herds that are stretched way too thin, and are still > contributing to the distro in many ways other

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.17: nscd is optional

On 12/29/12 5:24 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > rough poll: how many people actually care about nscd ? i'm making it into a > USE flag for glibc-2.17 and it's easiest for me to do IUSE=nscd which means > it'd default to off. If you want, you can still enable the nscd USE flag in the profile so it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On 1/1/13 2:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > IMO it would probably be good to limit our CA roots to Mozilla's > libnss selection by default and perhaps add a packaged selection of > secondary CA's (like CACert) for those who are so inclined. I think that's a good idea: make it easy to only use the

[gentoo-dev] collision-protect -> protect-owned ?

It came up again with , and I think it's worth to think about a better fix. I still keep hitting mysterious collisions with orphaned files from time to time. How about switching the developer profile from collision-protect to protect-owned, and proce

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please guys use checkpath in init scripts

On 1/6/13 8:30 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > I just gave a quick look at the init scripts installed on the tinderbox, > and the amount of them that use mkdir to create the directories in /run > and similar is astounding. > > Please check `man runscript` and use the checkpath helper instead. Sho

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

On 1/4/13 9:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > I did much of the design work nearly 2 years ago: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/gentoo_website/gentoo_landing_black.png > http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/gentoo_website/gentoo_landing_install.png > http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/gentoo_website/

Re: [gentoo-dev] DNSSEC (w/ DLV) live on *.dev.gentoo.org

On 1/6/13 5:31 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Just a heads up, > > DNSSEC is now live on *.dev.gentoo.org hosts. Wow, that sounds pretty cool to me! This could be a nice news: "Gentoo one of the first to deploy DNSSEC" - what do you think? :) Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

[gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

Please review attached automatically generated stabilization candidates for January. I don't want to annoy people with automatically filed bugs, and at the same time I also received lots of positive feedback about the effort to keep the stable tree more up-to-date. I think the best way to proceed

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >