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

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained state? openrc-settingsd was

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

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:38:14PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote It will probably be more than a decade before anybody is FORCED to run systemd on Gentoo. You don't even have to run udev on Gentoo. It will probably be years before the default even changes, assuming the trajectory of systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:25:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote > On 02/06/16 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote > >> > >> IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for > >> users who don't want to care

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:50:59AM +0100, Graham Murray wrote > waltd...@waltdnes.org writes: > > > Let me re-phrase my question... is there *ANY* set of circumstances > > under which any of X/xorg/wayland/mir/qt4/qt5/gtk2/gtk3/fltk USE flag > > can be set for a package *WITHOUT* requiring a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote > > IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for > users who don't want to care about X/wayland/mir and do not want to care > about gtk/qt, they just want windows to be drawn for the applications > they

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote > USE=gui is about building the graphical user interface that an > application offers, when it is optional. That's it. What > dependencies that means and so on have nothing to do with the flag. That reasoning may have been

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:58:35PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote > On 06/11/2016 10:53 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > On 06/11/2016 07:48 AM, james wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > >> Good/Bad idea, posting proxy-maintainer questions to gentoo-user? > >> (recall irc does not work for me). Also, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:45:15PM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote > Suggested description: Add support for the WebP image format > Currently in use by the following packages: Out of sheer curiousity... grep -i -w webp /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc ...returns the same list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation

st all GNOME > libraries as well, but most of them only provide gtk3 now, as gtk2 is, > well, dead. What at the original gtk+, for which the "gtk" flag was probably originally invented? [i3][waltdnes][~] ls /usr/portage/x11-libs/gtk+/*.ebuild /usr/portage/x11-libs/gtk+/gtk+-1.2.10-r

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:29:55PM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote > It is meant as a feature based USE flag, as opposed to the "extra dep" > based USE flags we've been using for this. > There are a lot of those with USE=gtk right now. In many cases it's > some little add-on graphical utility for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:56:41PM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > I see this as at least a redundancy, if not a problem. First, let's > > look at the general case. An optional "UI" (User Interface) is also > > selected... > > * via the "tools" useflag 78

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] How to deal with LINGUAS mess?

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 02:58:03PM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote > On Sat, 21 May 2016 11:19:07 -0400 > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > 5. An reversed variant of INSTALL_MASK in make.conf, e.g. > > LOCALE_ALLOW="foo bar fubar" > > > > which would block installing files in /usr/share/locale/* and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote > On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: > > Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: > > > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Micha?? Górny wrote: > > >> I'm strongly against this, because: > > > > > > agreed. i also

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 08:15:42PM -0500, Alex McWhirter wrote > As far as upstream support for eudev goes, consider that we are > currently breaking out udev for use with openrc. There may still be > loose support for this now, but when udev is not longer able to be > separated from systemd it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 03:47:34PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote > I think the only people who can rightfully complain about lack of > attention or coverage are those who are using these lesser-known or > lesser-used systems. Maybe we can get some users to step up to the > plate and contribute to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:45:20PM +0100, Micha?? Górny wrote > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:25:02 + > Roy Bamford wrote: > > > There is no point in removing unmaintained but perfectly functional > > software from the tree. It needs to be both unmaintained and broken. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 07:51:51PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote > On 01/21/2016 05:41 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > > Maybe we should start a "gentoo-ebuilds" mailing list to help regular > > users learn the ins and outs of making ebuilds. > > Try gentoo-devhelp@lists.g.o, or the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:54:01PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote > Please make this optional. Elog already contains too much information > and it is already hard to read logs after world update or other > massive change. It literally takes hours sometimes. Agreed 100%. I filed a successfull

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:18:58PM -0400, Joseph Booker wrote > > From my own experience, it is useful to run "ifconfig" or "mount" > as a regular user, same as the gimp or firefox commands. Given that > all the commands you listed are in /usr/bin or /bin, I think I'm > not the only one. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > It was simply a recognition that we were already in a state where > booting a system without /usr mounted early can cause problems. For certain edge cases... yes. But they were already using initramfs or merging /usr into /. I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:59:09PM -0400, Damien Levac wrote > > > Seriously... how many people run Bluetooth keyboards on Gentoo > > anyways? > > That you ask such a question is concerning to me. Are we > discriminating against normal desktop users now? Here's the item that really bugs

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr > mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in / > that could conceivably be needed during early boot we'd end up with > everything there.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:15:58AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote > If others are not willing to be advocates for ***THOSE USERS THAT WOULD > ONLY MAKE THEMSELVES KNOWN AFTER AN A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE > AND PEOPLE ARE DETERMINED TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS***, I suggest having > and testing a

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:20:19AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote > > Here is more info about the split and why it exists. It turns out it hs > nothing to do with system admininistration or permissions. > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html >

[gentoo-dev] Is X86 uclibc environment supported?

I'm currently trying to get a 32 uclibc environment working in a QEMU VM. My eventual goal is to get my ancient 32-bit-only Atom netbook working under uclibc. Is it worth bothering to file bugs for stuff that builds under glibc, but fails under uclibc? Or should I forget it? If it's not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is X86 uclibc environment supported?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:19:53PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote > 1) i support uclibc across many arches. see > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Hardened_uClibc > > > 2) you can file uclibc bugs and i will look at them. i know about that > one and i've got the fix upstream. its going

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] How to deal with LINGUAS mess?

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote > I see the following possibilities: > > 1. We start explicitly listing linguas_* in all ebuilds, no matter how > tiny they are. Maintainers are required to keep IUSE up-to-date > and users are forced to rebuild a lot. This is also a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is X86 uclibc environment supported?

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:37:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote > On 29/04/16 09:34 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:19:53PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote > > > >> 1) i support uclibc across many arches. see > >> > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:05:50PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote > On 04/05/16 03:43 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > > emerge --keyword-write > > > > ... similar to "emerge --autounmask-write", but have it write to > > package.accept_keywords, rather than package.unmask? > > > > That

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is X86 uclibc environment supported?

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:04:46PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote > On 5/2/16 2:37 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:37:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote > >> On 29/04/16 09:34 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:19:53PM -0400, Anthony

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES

On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 09:46:10PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > >> The solution is to have people with an actual interest in a specific > >>

[gentoo-dev] What is the procedure for requesting a new eselect module?

I've cobbled together a bash script that resembles an eselect module, to list/set cpu speeds on my netbook and notebook. It may be useful to a lot of other people. The script is a bit ugly looking, but it has done the job for me for several months. Some may prefer to treat it as "proof of

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is the procedure for requesting a new eselect module?

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:17:06PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote > >>>>> On Mon, 9 May 2016, waltdnes wrote: > > > I've cobbled together a bash script that resembles an eselect > > module, to list/set cpu speeds on my netbook and notebook. It may be &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: migration from uclibc to uclibc-ng

way. E.g. in a 32-bit VM... [g32gst1][waltdnes][~] date --date='@-2147483649' date: invalid date '@-2147483649' [g32gst1][waltdnes][~] date --date='@-2147483648' Fri Dec 13 15:45:52 EST 1901 [g32gst1][waltdnes][~] date --date='@2147483647' Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 EST 2038 [g32gst1][waltdnes][~] d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signed push & clock drift rejection

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:27:09PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote > > As I wrote earlier in this thread, ntp server is not a guarantee > that such problems will not happen. If hardware clocked was > significantly offset during boot, it may take several _hours_ for > ntp to fix this via clock skew.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signed push & clock drift rejection

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:07:12AM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote > Kent Fredric schrieb: > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:21:22 -0400 > > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > >>I'm amazed that "robust linux servers" are deathly afraid of simply > >> setting the time, and being done with

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new global use flag: luajit

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:23:37PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:34 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> I'd rather avoid adding more of this until we figure out what to do > >> about multiple Lua versions. The Lua5.1/5.2 split is still stuck > >> nowhere,

[gentoo-dev] Multiple occurences of flags in use.local.desc

Another day, another thread about multiple occurences of a flag in use.local.desc. Howsabout a serious overall look at the situation? Start with the following short script... #!/bin/bash rm -rf flagcount0.txt sed "s/:/ /" /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc | \ cut -d \ -f 2 | \ sort

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eclass/toolchain-funcs: add clang version functions

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 01:08:13AM -0500, Austin English wrote > > My goal is clang support parity with gcc. If you are opposed to these > sort of checks, then why don't we deprecate and remove those functions? > I want to know why gcc deserves special treatment, either all compilers > should

Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: grub2 multislot use flag is being disabled

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:12:32AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote > Title: Grub2 multislot use flag is being disabled > Author: William Hubbs > Content-Type: text/plain > Posted: 2086-01-09 ?!?!?!?! > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 1.0 > Display-If-Installed:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Firefox bloat Was: chromium ...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:36:27AM +, Duncan wrote > FWIW, the australis thing never really affected me much. I had some > extensions (and configuration mania guified native options) changing > the look somewhat before, and have some extensions (and config mania > options) changing the look

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

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:12:08PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 21:03:34 -0500 > »Q« wrote: > > > says it's in Gentoo overlays, but I don't > > know which ones. > > Tar.bz2's from http://linux.palemoon.org/download/mainline/ are >

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc runscript transition (draft 3)

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:32:05PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:43 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > I thought about dropping the version number from the > > display-if-installed line, but that doesn't make sense because it means > > that everyone,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 08:05:55AM -0700, Nick Vinson wrote > Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball > has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't generate / > distribute a release tarball. > > However, I don't think this is the criterion used to