Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: >> >> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >> >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On 11/08/17 03:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Lets go down this rabbit hole. Let's not. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

se taking a hammer to a problem or with a particular desire to recover a broken system. Again, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to - removing a package you've told it to remove (unless it's one of the few almost-always-critical packages). -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

m, > profile, and set files. > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624630 My point was that --unmerge is not intended to be dependency-aware. --depclean is. As far as I can tell, that is the point others have been trying to make as well, when pointing out the differences between -c and -C. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

e may or may not be a dependency, may or may not have been --oneshot'd. It may have been installed as a dependency but the requiring package was removed, or may have been installed as an orphan but is now a dependency. Assuming that if it's not in a set it must be a dependency is incorrect and misleading. -- Sam J

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 16:06, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:49:14 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> I have trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night, let alone >> what I may or may not have merged a week,

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: systemd rootprefix migration

. You may notice > that system units move from /usr/lib/system/system to > /lib/system/system as you upgrade/re-install packages; this is normal. > Units will function properly from both locations. s:/lib/system:: > As always, if you run into problems, please report a bug. Otherwise, lgtm. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

ell, also preventing stabilisation of packages with some known issue. Therefore packages with known issues don't get stabilised automatically. Similarly, if the maintainer believes more comprehensive testing should be done (eg. for critical base-system packages) a note could be made somewhere of that requirement (metadata.xml?), meaning significantly reduced workload for people like ago (if the maintainer doesn't stabilise it beforehand). -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

manager would have installed it, rather than extracting whatever upstream supplies verbatim. This includes things like any wrappers, desktop files or symlinks created by the ebuild, or other such downstream-isms. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On 09/08/17 10:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:29:40 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 09/08/17 04:20, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:32:48 +0200 >>> Kristian Fiskerst

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

anifest file works within a repository. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

trator, not Gentoo (as a distro), it remains with the administrator to adhere to any relevant license restrictions. Plus the package manager can't tell if you're distributing binaries or not. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On 10/08/17 11:47, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:25:34 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 09/08/17 10:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> Also your redistributing another's package >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On 10/08/17 11:42, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:50:45 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 10/08/17 06:35, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> FYI binpkgs have no hash. If someone did something malicious wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app-admin/kube-bench: convert to go-module go.sum

your useless comments > everywhere, all the time and just get irritated for no benefit to > Gentoo? Perhaps I'm the one being ignorant here, but why are we lambasting someone for seeking clarification about an unusual inclusion on a review thread? -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: 0xD6180C26

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app-admin/kube-bench: convert to go-module go.sum

On Saturday, 15 February 2020 3:14:55 AM AEDT Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:31 AM Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote: > > In this instance, at least two people (myself included) have drawn an > > impression that led them to voice their concern in some way (I'm unsure

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app-admin/kube-bench: convert to go-module go.sum

On Friday, 14 February 2020 2:21:32 PM AEDT Matt Turner wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:12 AM Mike Pagano wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 06:46:43PM +1100, Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote: > > > On Thursday, 13 February 2020 5:40:46 AM AEDT Matt Turner wrote: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] app-admin/kube-bench: convert to go-module go.sum

On Thursday, 13 February 2020 5:40:46 AM AEDT Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:59 AM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:54:19PM +1100, Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote: > > > On Monday, 10 February 2020 7:55:01 AM AEDT Michał Górny wrote: > > > &g