Re: [gentoo-dev] Funding Request

2006-05-18 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: Hey all, To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen, particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the community

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.

2006-06-13 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:30:27 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote: I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree, and there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Future developer

2006-06-30 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 21:54 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: I'm proud to announce the arival of a future developer. His name is Tom. He arived last monday on 10:22 am (UTC+02). I and my wife will take care of mentoring him to full developership ;-). In the meantime, he's got his own album on

Re: [gentoo-dev]

2006-07-13 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 01:02 +0100, Ser Gio wrote: On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:19:44 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ser Gio wrote: Hello, Why does x11-libs/gtk+-2.8.19 has the X useflag? The ebuild doesn't look like it's using it. thanks, Sérgio Because

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hiatus

2006-07-19 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Roy Marples wrote: On Saturday 15 July 2006 19:25, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: As some of you already know, I will be taking a hiatus from Gentoo starting this weekend. While I am gone, the mobile herd is pretty much left without active developers. Uberlord and phreak have already adopted some

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

2006-08-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Enrico Weigelt wrote: Not actually an eye-catching. Ummm, D, as opposed to U... Yeah, that catches my eye. I am weird like that though. 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 ? Yes, honestly,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should patches sit withing the portage tree ?

2006-08-08 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Enrico Weigelt wrote: Hi folks, I'm interested in arguments whether patches should sit directly within the portage tree or downloaded when needed. My feeling: downloading on demand is better. + makes the tree smaller, saves space, saves network traffic - downloading lots of patches

Re: [gentoo-dev] Who wants to tinker with a Palm Zire 71?

2006-08-09 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Noack, Sebastian wrote: Hi, I have a Palm Zire 71 device, with Palm OS on it and a 400 MHz ARM-Processor in it. Actually I don't use this device anymore, so if somebody wants try to get Gentoo Linux run on it, I would give it to him. There is an SD/MMC-Slot which could become used to get

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

2006-09-10 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: how about a local USE flag like all-the-junk-in-the-trunk ? Why? Just makes more work for us, for no apparent reason. I'd rather be able to pull unused stuff from the tree after a while than add a new option to install stuff nobody will ever run.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

2006-09-10 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Stephen P. Becker wrote: Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: how about a local USE flag like all-the-junk-in-the-trunk ? Why? Just makes more work for us, for no apparent reason. I'd rather be able to pull unused stuff from the tree after a while than add

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: Hello all, I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. Thanks in advance! snip I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Simon Stelling wrote: Hello all, I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. Thanks in advance! snip I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. And to expand, per blubb's request, all

Re: [gentoo-dev] SCHEDULED DOWNTIME: {cvs,svn}.gentoo.org - 2006-10-05 - 1900UTC - 2300UTC

2006-10-02 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Chris White wrote: On Monday 02 October 2006 13:30, Robin H. Johnson wrote: We'll keep status in the topic at #gentoo-dev while we're working on it. Alright, I'm starting a pool on how many people will still ask why cvs and svn are down. Starts at $5, who'se in? What about how soon

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] patch linux-mod.eclass to add support for module signing

2013-03-06 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-Original Message- From: Carlos Silva r3...@r3pek.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] patch linux-mod.eclass to add support for module signing Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:25:38 -0100 @@ -663,7 +696,7 @@ # This looks messy, but it is needed to handle multiple

Re: [gentoo-dev] devs on IRC (was :Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support ))

2009-03-11 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
memoserv

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-16 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400 James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: OK.  Let me rephrase.  Portage does not need to validate local changes. Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits

2010-04-26 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alistair Bush ali_b...@gentoo.org wrote: snip Use common sense here. ^^ Seems pretty clear to me.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why isn't /root/.bash_profile in the stage tarballs?

2007-09-21 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 11:37 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: ebuild when it is being merged. If this really is so objectionable, I'd just assume WONTFIX the request and move on with it. +1 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]

2008-06-14 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 11:39 +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On 12 Jun 2008, at 04:16, Brian Harring wrote: Why the exherbo/paludis/PMS folk decided to go this route to report, I'm not quite sure aside from assuming they're just griefers. s-exherbo/paludis/PMS-pkgcore-g and:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council nominations deadline

2008-06-17 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 23:04 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: Just for completenessess sake, i was nominated and declined. No one likes my idea of teaming up with McDonalds to create the McGentoo meal (each includes a free collectible developer bobblehead and maintainer-needed bug). Depends on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

2008-07-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:33 +, Duncan wrote: Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:10:14 -0400: Here's an interesting solution for those who find it annoying though: Just file your own 0-day bump request in bugzilla. In theory

[gentoo-dev] Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?

2008-10-05 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Not wanting to start a huge war about what arches are slacking and which aren't - I asked in -dev on IRC and was told to check out profiles.desc - based on this information, I closed Bug 208917 which was about stablizing dbus-glib-0.74. The bug was opened on 04 Feb 2008, and as of today 05 Oct

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?

2008-10-06 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500 Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest moving all the slacking arches to experimental until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to support a stable tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo

2012-06-16 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Just picking a random response to reply to. I'm not speaking officially, however, I'm pretty sure we at Genesi aren't going to pay Microsoft in order to boot our own boards.

Re: [gentoo-dev] About unresolved bugs assigned to mobile for ages

2012-10-30 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 09:50 +, Markos Chandras wrote: On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello I would like to know about mobile team status and also show that this team has important bugs assigned to them for a long time, some of them with patches

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users

2006-10-05 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Simon Stelling wrote: Jakub Moc wrote: The missing Stage3 is the real problem. Apparently... http://gentoo.osuosl.org/releases/x86/2006.1/stages/stage3-i686-2006.1.tar.bz2 http://gentoo.osuosl.org/releases/amd64/2006.1/stages/stage3-amd64-2006.1.tar.bz2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Livecd, python, pyopengl and broken gtk installer

2006-10-11 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Dominique Michel wrote: It seam at it is a big problem with the livecd. From the forum: QUOTE: The problem is you can't use the GTK installer due to this problem. It crashes out and leaves you with no option but to wash, rinse, repeat, re-crash. By saying they won't fix the bug the

[gentoo-dev] Breaking your box with dbus

2006-10-30 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just a heads up... This is part of the reason that dbus .9x is still p.masked. We are moving from dbus-core back to dbus - dbus will NOT be a meta package for dbus .9x. It will be the core daemon. You should be depending on either just the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: portage idea - auto embed user patches

2006-12-21 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Steve Long wrote: Alec Warner wrote: http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/bashrc At the bottom of solar's bashrc you will find some lines dealing with AUTOPATCH, I don't see the bashrc.autopatch in his dev space, but you can probably request it from him. Would it be possible to post that to this

Re: [gentoo-dev] add bzip2/zlib to default USE in default-linux

2007-02-25 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Luca Barbato wrote: Tóth Csaba wrote: hal cannot install when one dependencie built with zlib USE flag.. Hal should be fixed then... lu We've already been arguing about this on the bug, can we please not bring it here... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] add bzip2/zlib to default USE in default-linux

2007-02-26 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:46:40AM -0600, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: T?th Csaba wrote: hal cannot install when one dependencie built with zlib USE flag.. Hal should be fixed then... lu We've already been arguing about this on the bug, can we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-14 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: snip Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others have informed us all. Case in point: you need to distinguish

Re: [gentoo-dev] Firefox 1.5 series will get removed in 30 days

2007-03-29 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:50 +0200, Christian Birchinger wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 12:23:49PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: If you read what you are quoting: Mozilla will drop support for that series from 24 April 2007 onwards. That's still almost a month + the time

Re: [gentoo-dev] *DEVELOPMENT* mail list, right?

2007-04-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *daemons/applications that crashed: dbus powersaved - KPowersave Networkmanager - KNetworkmanager Also, the new hald didn't want to start, because dbus had crashed because of the auto-hald-reload. So we need to prevent this before it goes stable: a) print out a big

Re: [gentoo-dev] genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-09 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:03 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: Been a while, upstream moved on in life but we continued to get interested users filing bugs, so genlop-0.30.6 went into the tree this morning. Primarily a bug fix release based on what was open in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation

2007-04-17 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Bryan Østergaard wrote: snip On the contrary we warn people about not behaving badly and if that doesn't help despite many warnings and complaints being filed we finally take to firmer action which is exactly what have happened in this case. snip Regards, Bryan Østergaard Sorry, I am going

Re: [PROCTORS] Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

2007-04-24 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wernfried Haas wrote: Just a general note to everyone in this thread: I haven't had the time to read the posts in this thread, but proctors have received complaints about behaviour within. For the time being, i would ask all people participating

Re: [gentoo-dev] [news-item] Paludis 0.24

2007-05-04 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Færøy wrote: On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 12:13:12AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: Isn't such use case just a replacement for elog? I thought news were supposed to be delivered before upgrading. Also You should update your configuration files

Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning^2

2007-06-06 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:29:47 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to be a proctor directive.) He changed the subject and signed on behalf of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning^2

2007-06-06 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:44:49 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or... perhaps when asked not to respond to a thread for 24 hours, you could keep your fucking trap shut? If I'm asked by someone with a good reason, sure. If I'm told to by someone

Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning^2

2007-06-06 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Mike Doty wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:29:47 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to be a proctor directive.) He changed the subject and signed on behalf of gentoo-proctors. Is there a way to fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning^2

2007-06-06 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Sled wrote: Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: got out of hand. Perhaps the goal was laudable, but the methods were not? (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to be a proctor directive.) Or are people really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?

2007-06-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: snip various good infos The Code of Conduct was written with the hopes that its existence would help to curb the flamewars and other general nastiness between people within the community. The proctors were created to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: phasing out app-accessibility/festival

2007-06-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 William Hubbs wrote: Hi all, app-accessibility/festival has not done a release upstream in some time. We currently have several bugs against this package, including one security bug. Since a lot of blind people are now using espeak as their

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:50:02 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. It's censorship when it's being done one-sidedly in order to skew an argument based upon

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-07 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-12 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200 Benjamin Judas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...which means that he has a documented history of trolling not only on mailinglists but also in irc-channels;

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Vlastimil Babka wrote: Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? Said the java dev Personally, I'd say if upstream doesn't provide downloads, nothing we can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Jayson Vaughn wrote: Ok, Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts. Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other distro seems to be as lost or confused as Gentoo is. And WTF is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-18 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Steve Long wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful piece of software. We're not debian. Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-18 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Steve Long wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful piece of software. We're not debian. Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a licensing issue? If the latter case

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

2007-07-19 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 snip everything not technical, take it to -project. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGn9rz1c+EtXTHkJcRAqEiAJ91+dcEu2/q6F1K/QTkqaHgWJUl0QCeMh6u

Re: [gentoo-dev] have any developers subscribed to -project?

2007-07-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Dale wrote: George Prowse wrote: Ned Ludd wrote: On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 20:58 +0100, George Prowse wrote: Do any devs subscribe to -project because no replies have yet to be heard from developers... Please stop flooding my inbox. It is an honest developer question because it was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: why? pciutils with zlib use-flag went stable on x86

2007-07-29 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Sven Köhler wrote: Why did you provocate this breakage? Which breakage? It didn't install a gzipped pci.ids here. That is with USE=hal. Crap... Oh! So USE=hal forces pciutils not to use zlib? And so the check, which the hal ebuild performs, should be modified to check for USE=hal rather

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: default desktop profile

2007-08-02 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Martin Schwier wrote: snip The gnome meta ebuild pulls in way too much stuff. I always have to copy it in my local overlay and have to remove epiphany, evolution, vino, ekiga and more. There are no use flags to control this and I expect many gnome users to use Firefox and Thunderbird instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality

2007-08-04 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Vlastimil Babka wrote: dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before commiting a bump, IMHO Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die because TODO wasn't around. Vote against || die - it doesn't affect anything aside from misc docs not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: vim and gvim package split

2013-11-01 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 16:52 +, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: Kent Fredric kentfredric at gmail.com writes: Useflags have their perks for giving variations on behaviour, but having 3 effective packages in one, governed by useflags, means you'll have 3 much more tightly coupled

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

2013-12-05 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 09:01 +0100, Martin Gysel wrote: if you're on x86/amd64 and want to prepare a sdcard for e.g. arm. you extract the stage3 to the card but then you can't just chroot and emerge netifrc... on the other hand, as long as busybox' default config includes a dhcp client one

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

2013-12-09 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:28 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: Ok, now the concern is becoming more clear. You're intending to boot directly to the stage3 and not chroot into it, and so you want the stage3 to be a fully-functional userspace, though you don't actually need it to contain a

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

2013-12-10 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote: I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as networking.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

2013-12-10 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 06:23 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here. Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-15 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 13:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: When you say drop keywords do you mean: 1) revert the old version back to ~arch or 2) remove the old version. As a maintainer, I would rather do 2, because I do not want to backport fixes to the old version. William I'm not

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-15 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 02:32 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: In my testing, one known issue was that git on uclibc did (and still doesn't) work properly starting with git 1.8 - so I noted in the bug that this was the case, and to NOT stable it for arm. Unfortunately, someone else on the ARM

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add a KEYWORD representing any arch

2014-01-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 10:46 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: Now what problem are we trying to solve? As I see it, it is mainly one of manpower, namely that some arch teams cannot keep up with stable requests, and I doubt that any technical solution will help to solve this. Introducing a noarch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-23 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was really the old complaint about slow architectures; the -* arch solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of dropping keywords, in the absence of AT

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-23 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 00:50 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:42:28 +0100 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Tom Wijsman wrote: you shoot down solutions Maybe it wasn't a very good solution that deserved to be shot down. Maybe it was; what is needed here, is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-23 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 04:04 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:04:19 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: Your suggestion was expanding the arm keyword to armv4-linux, armv5-linux, armv6-linux, armv6-hardfloat-linux, armv7-softfp-linux, armv7-hardfloat-linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 18:26 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all. It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload. You can easily

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:29 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have people that test on ARMv5, some that test on ARMv6, we have some that test on ARMv7 - until

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Hosting daily gx86 squashfs images and deltas

2014-01-26 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 21:00 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: Hi again. If someone is interested in the results of my tests and benchmarks, I've uploaded the initial version of my article on the topic in our dev-space. http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/squashfs-deltas.pdf I am terribly busy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-26 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 16:35 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: I don't think that's completely optional though, it sounds like a one-way function. If have ever stabilized a package once then must ensure a stable package forever.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-27 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 09:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: It's not necessarily the STABLEREQs stopping, some of the issues are (at least on some arches!) that some of the unstable software doesn't quite work properly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-28 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 03:15 +, Duncan wrote: Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:11:48 +0100 as excerpted: [Seven J. Long wrote...] There's plenty of ways to stay on the bleeding-edge; throwing out the baby with the bathwater will only tip you over it, and bork the distro for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

2014-02-04 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs. [1] You can keep rehashing about winning, but all it does is break policy. [1]:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

2014-02-04 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:07 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:23:28 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions which are not worth trying

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

2014-02-04 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up. Instead of having something working we should just remove ebuilds of working packages. s/should/could/ s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

2014-02-05 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Against my better judgment... On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:55 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:15:47 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:48 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski st

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

2014-02-05 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 05:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote: You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Keeping it around for slower arches does NOT block progress. I have intimate knowledge with what ACTUALLY

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

2014-02-05 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:58 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is insufficient? https://bugs.gentoo.org/chart.cgi?category=-All-datefrom=dateto=label0=All%20Openline0=320name=320subcategory=-All-action=wrap PS: As a bonus, here's a nice view of

Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords)

2014-02-16 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 09:03 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: Also, keeping the bugs assigned to package maintainers will still allow them to try to get that pending bugs fixed (or resolved in some way) as they will take care

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-19 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote: Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by 27 packages, so I suggest making it a global flag: gtk3 - Add support for x11-libs/gtk+ (The GIMP Toolkit) version 3

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:40 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 20/02/14 09:44, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote: Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by 27 packages, so I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 09:11 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-02-20, o godz. 01:44:17 Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote: Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: new global USE flag gtk3

2014-02-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:59 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: And this is an example of why everyone on the gnome team doesn't like the gtk3 flag. Because well-meaning developers will be looking at their one corner of the portage tree, deciding that they are going to handle the choice of gtk

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for =sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

2014-02-23 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 07:32 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild SHOULD or NEEDS TO BE ? Honestly, this didn't read like much of a news announcement at all, and reads more like something I'd write when I

Re: [gentoo-dev] News draft #2 for the udev-210 upgrade (was: 209 upgrade)

2014-02-25 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 10:43 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: Here is a bit better worded news item for the upgrade. I think I've taken into account any concerns, but please check the grammar part. Thanks! - Samuli CONFIG_DMIID isn't available for ARM. Can we make that warning go away if on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild?

2014-02-28 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 10:31 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: I think using INSTALL_MASK to kill a few inodes that probably don't even have extents using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, and if you put some holes in your walls in the process I_TOLD_YOU_SO. However, I won't tell people they can't do

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild?

2014-02-28 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:32 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 07:09:08PM -0600, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: I'm not exactly a fan of systemd, though I know it has some uses, and I'm still curious as to why it installs/stores *configuration* data in /lib - if only from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild?

2014-02-28 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:18 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 28/02/14 19:01, Lars Wendler wrote: On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:41:23 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 28/02/14 16:41, Lars Wendler wrote: On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:28:30 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: It would be very helpful if

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Removing src_test from www-client/chromium

2014-05-29 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 10:09 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: I don't know how much chromium is built and tested on lesser-used arches (ie: arm, hppa, ia64, etc), but if there are dev's that try and maintain these keywords that aren't in the team, it might be a good idea to leave src_test in

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for upower

2014-06-03 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 18:43 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: I find this useless at this time because the work is in-progress, but in order to silence the loud minority, please review the news item. Thanks! - Samuli I appreciate your work on this - and you may call them the loud

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: crossdev and multilib interference

2014-06-16 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 13:37 +, hasufell wrote: Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn: hasufell schrieb: No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev, unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage. More packages are popping up that randomly break. Recent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer request: sys-apps/kmscon

2014-06-26 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 22:42 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: alexxy added it more than a year ago to the tree as part of the x11 herd, of which he isn't a maintainer. It hasn't been really seen any attention and is broken with current versions of Mesa. I've pinged him multiple times to see if he's

Re: [gentoo-dev] arm64

2015-01-28 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 14:10 +0800, Yixun Lan wrote: On 20:57 Sat 24 Jan , Tom Gall wrote: Hi All, This is sort of a CFP in some ways but not quite that formal. I’ve been throttled back on arm64 for a bit as the hardware I’ve had access to has all been painfully remote and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Referencing bug reports in git

2015-08-12 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Someone end the bikeshed train please. Seconded.

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan schedule

2015-07-08 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: Hi! On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:07:34 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: In essence, assuming we can just scale to make CI work is ignoring the matter of the slower archs.