Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion

2006-01-17 Thread Richard Fish
On 1/15/06, Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not use the splitdebug instead of nostrip? And make building with -g the default, then tell small HD users how to disable it in the docs. And it needs to disable -fomit-frame-pointer at least on x86. I've been building my whole system with

Re: [gentoo-dev] /sbin /usr/sbin security hole

2006-01-17 Thread Richard Fish
On 1/17/06, Paweł Madej [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ ls -al /sbin/ Please don't bother the devs with this anymore. We will be happy to explain the intricacies of unix permissions on gentoo-user. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla etiquette suggestions

2006-02-13 Thread Richard Fish
On 2/13/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But... If INVALID is renamed, could we get a new GOAWAY resolution for people who really deserve it? I would tend to agree with this. I myself was the 'victim' of an aggressively worded INVALID resolution to a bug report I filed due to my

Re: [gentoo-dev] missing ide discs mapping is udev's fault?

2006-02-21 Thread Richard Fish
On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, So I have /dev/hda through /dev/hdl which are ok. But the mappings to /dev/discs/discX with X 7 are missing. snip I wanted to file a bug report, but I'm not certain if it's actually udev's fault. Yes, it is udev's fault, but it

Re: [gentoo-dev] missing ide discs mapping is udev's fault?

2006-02-21 Thread Richard Fish
On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And hdparm iterates through /dev/ide/* if found... I assume you are talking about the init script? Because my hdparm binary requires one to specify a device node, there is no iteration... If so, AFAIK that exists only for those still

Re: [gentoo-dev] Wishlist: an automated package upgrade system with fine-tunable sysadmin control

2006-04-26 Thread Richard Fish
On 4/26/06, Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to have the capability of being able to list some packages that should never be upgraded automatically (I realize I can do this to some degree already with portage), some others that are very unlikely to break from an automated upgrade

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Wishlist: an automated package upgrade system with fine-tunable sysadmin control

2006-04-27 Thread Richard Fish
On 4/27/06, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In any case, once you get your list and weed out the stuff you /don't/ want on it, rather than doing that copy trickery, try this: Yeah, much smarter than my cp tricks. Although using emerge to generate the package list will have a problem in that it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

2006-05-06 Thread Richard Fish
On 5/4/06, Bart Braem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What makes us think we can not trust the KDE devs? 1. bugs.gentoo.org 2. bugs.kde.org I personally have been running KDE 3.5 since the RC days...when you actually had to add it to package.unmask. And *yes*, it has had more than it's share of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

2006-05-06 Thread Richard Fish
On 5/5/06, Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

2006-05-06 Thread Richard Fish
On 5/5/06, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the whining leaves me with the feeling that I'm less interested to work for you. The question What can I do? I do never hear. Stop whining, but decide to help or give another distro a try. These are your choices. Just to try to counter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 6/9/06, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that point. You can't go to o.g.o and

Re: [gentoo-dev] bugzilla 2.22 masked ~x86

2006-07-05 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/5/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, if this short question cannot be anwered with an short help or an direct pointer to some help, it seems my contribution obviously isn't wanted. So I won't waste anymore of your and my time on this topic and don't file a bug. Just forget

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

2006-07-06 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/6/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right now we have mmx, 3dnow, 3dnowex, sse, sse2 and so on useflags present in the tree, almost never used to get new dependencies, but usually used to supply econf switches. Hoping the S/N ratio here hasn't gotten too high... IMO

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-06 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/6/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evolution depends on Mozilla and Mono depends on SeaMonkey. I don't think this is right, at least not for what is currently in portage. When I do a USE=mono emerge -Devp evolution No mozilla comes in. So evolution does not depend on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

2006-07-07 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/7/06, Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's because CFLAGS=-msse currently doesn't do what the user would think it does. Which is the real problem, which we're solving with the change Diego suggested. Well I certainly do *not* expect it to run configure with --enable-sse.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-07 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/7/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you using an portage overlay? If so, what is in it? No. No idea what that is. Sounds interesting, though. It is a local portage tree with ebuilds that you have either written yourself or downloaded from others. Since the overlay

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-09 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/9/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try reading the bug - users are basically being shoved off with an arrogant silence and a stamp on their forehead saying INVALID. *Sigh*. You really should post to -user first. The expectation here is that when a new version of gcc is

Re: [gentoo-dev] helping out - how?

2006-07-09 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/9/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to take a stab at maintainership (or at least fixing) an unmaintained ebuild. What versioning system do you guys use (CVS?), and what's the URL for checking out ebuilds? bugs.gentoo.org is where this kind of work is done. -Richard

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/9/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I can tell, the complaints are about Portage being unable to handle GCC upgrades gracefully for end users. The thing is, that portage doesn't technically handle gcc upgrades. The user really needs to do that, and they (should) know

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/9/06, Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) If yes, are there any other flags that ebuilds should die on ? My (user) opinion is that ebuilds should not die on CFLAGS, at least not until per-package CFLAGS are implemented. Now if someone is crazy enough to enable -ffast-math globally

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: per pkg cflags are here already it would fall under the per pkg env variables. Please forgive my stupidity, but the only place I could see to set a env var per package was /etc/portage/bashrc. Is that what you are referring to? -Richard --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish wrote: of gcc doesn't seem very effecient. I can't see why it would not be efficient? I think it is an inefficient use of developer time. Do we really want gentoo devs spending their time figuring out what the minimum gcc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It shouldn't even be _necessary_ to create bugs and receive advice from a living, breathing human being just to perform a system update. It isn't necessary. -user, the forums, IRC, all are monitored by living, breathing human beings.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish wrote: On 7/10/06, Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: per pkg cflags are here already it would fall under the per pkg env variables. Please forgive my stupidity, but the only place I could see to set a env var per package was /etc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dying on some CFLAGS instead of filtering them.

2006-07-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/10/06, Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds like your after bug 95741: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95741 Yeah, that would be nice! :-) -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] aging ebuilds with unstable keywords - how can we help?

2006-07-26 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/2/06, Daniel Ahlberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, This is an automatically created email message. http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 15968 ebuilds. A question [1] has come up on -user about why some ebuilds take so long to become stable for an arch. This isn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: aging ebuilds with unstable keywords - how can we help?

2006-07-27 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, they shouldn't be stable. In fact, likely, many shouldn't be in the tree. We have way too many packages that are used solely by a small group of people sitting around the tree. These would be better served in official overlays,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation

2006-08-01 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/1/06, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that's why it has been announced as the best since sliced bred - urging all users to give it a try, but with the option to point with the finger on them, laughing Ha, ha, you should have known dumb nuts., later. Brett is absolutely right

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Masking practics

2006-08-07 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge output if there's any D flag, without the risk of overlooking it someday ? Um, sorry, but users *should* be looking at the output of --pretend to get an idea of what portage wants to

Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk1 vs. gtk2

2006-08-07 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions of one library. They are completely different libraries, where one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look similar, but are in no ways equal. Have you

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

2006-08-08 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/8/06, Jason Wever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature that folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to be on by default. Which would be fantastic IMO. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk1 vs. gtk2

2006-08-08 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/7/06, Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What sort of problems? An example backing up your claims would be very nice. While I don't agree with Enrico that splitting up slotted packages is the right thing to do, there are some corner cases involving slots that portage (more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

2006-08-08 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/8/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think, modularized Xorg, as we have today, is far much better than the old monolithic thing. I think you are failing to realize that this isn't something that Gentoo did on it's own. Upstream went to separate packages, and Gentoo followed.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-09 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/9/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i asked some others and they didnt get the e-mail either ... looks like our gentoo mail server is really starting to crash here ... http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141904 -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

2006-08-10 Thread Richard Fish
On 8/9/06, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: General problem with use deps; *could* still implement it via seperating out use specific restrictions and generating the second logic statement above, but that's bit magic imo. Is it really magic? Admittedly I know exactly nothing about

[gentoo-dev] Why can't I re-open this bug??

2006-08-12 Thread Richard Fish
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67179 is marked RESOLVED/WORKSFORME, which according to the descriptions means that I should be able to re-open the bug. But there is no option to do so. Why? -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Democracy: No silver bullet

2006-09-02 Thread Richard Fish
On 9/2/06, Wiktor Wandachowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose that there is a way that Gentoo can follow, only that its leaders, developers and users need to see it clearly. Is there a publicly visible page that contains current goals for new releases? Where all sub-project leaders could add

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Democracy: No silver bullet

2006-09-04 Thread Richard Fish
On 9/3/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish wrote: The problem I see is that for Gentoo the releases are not really useful milestones for most projects. A release is really significant That is not a problem. That is a feature. A small clarification may

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Democracy: No silver bullet

2006-09-04 Thread Richard Fish
On 9/3/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really wish people would take the time to either ask the Release Engineering team, or learn how we work before they go off making accusations against us. There was no accusation there. I picked on X only for its popularity and relative

[gentoo-dev] Need guidance for updating CHOST

2006-09-12 Thread Richard Fish
With the stabilization of the nptl-only glibc-2.4, many users are finding out that they installed their systems with CHOST=i386-pc-linux-gnu, and now need to either mask the new glibc, or figure out how to change their CHOST. I am not able to find any official guide on changing CHOST, and the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Need guidance for updating CHOST

2006-09-12 Thread Richard Fish
On 9/12/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 12 September 2006 22:23, Richard Fish wrote: What I've basically been telling people is to: please god stop telling people that ive given Wernfried Haas proper instructions, he just needs to write them up Is there a Readers

Re: [gentoo-dev] newb question about emerge ...

2005-06-15 Thread Richard Fish
Andrew Muraco wrote: first of all (some people will disagree with me on this) I will ;- # emerge -avuDN world does a much more through job, because it not only checks the packages you have installed, ...but only to correct this statement. It is more accurate to say that it checks all

Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on

2005-07-13 Thread Richard Fish
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 11 July 2005 03:47 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 20:34 +0200, Richard Fish wrote: for d in 0 1 2 3; do /sbin/mdadm --assemble --config=partitions --auto=md --super-minor=$d /dev/md$d /dev/null 21 done Maybe something

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

2005-09-13 Thread Richard Fish
Frank Schafer wrote: I'm still on the kernel from the life-cd. The self compiled kernel has the highmem option set to off (I have only 1GB). I'm on x86 Intel Celeron M and have CHOST set to i686-pc-linux-gnu and CFLAGS=-O2 -march=pentium2 Um, why pentium2? The Celeron-M is the same core

Re: [gentoo-dev] RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING or the net dependency

2006-10-21 Thread Richard Fish
On 10/21/06, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING is used in the init script depdency process, and quite frankly I'd like to punt it and replace it with ... rc-update! Yes, just put the init scripts that net should provide in your runlevel. boot contains net.lo by

Re: [gentoo-dev] The (lack of) use of herds

2006-10-29 Thread Richard Fish
On 10/28/06, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept. It also gives users the impression that there is an entire team of people maintaining a package,when in fact it might be just one or two people. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

2006-11-29 Thread Richard Fish
On 11/29/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made this claim on this list [1]. Many thanks for these links. I didn't see your original email. Wanna add a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev coldplugging and /etc/init.d/modules

2006-12-01 Thread Richard Fish
On 12/1/06, Sven Köhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will udev rename the card eth1 to eth0 and the card eth0 to eth1? Yes. For this, I'd recommend running /lib/udev/write_net_rules all_interfaces and then edit /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules to set the names like you want. I'd also

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Ideas for projects...

2007-01-11 Thread Richard Fish
On 1/11/07, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Gentoo Council is looking for some ideas for some small projects that we could initiate that would help Gentoo. My idea would be to extend emaint to check package.keywords and package.use for obsolete flags, unnecessary atoms (like

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Ideas for projects...

2007-01-11 Thread Richard Fish
On 1/11/07, Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 12 January 2007 05:43, Richard Fish wrote: My idea would be to extend emaint to check package.keywords and package.use for obsolete flags, unnecessary atoms (like foo-1.2 in keywords when foo-1.3 is stable), atoms that don't