Thanks Ben,
Ben Kohler writes:
> To stay on the original track, I was suggesting adding it to the linux
> profile component, not base. And people who are unwilling to use udev
> would disable it globally, like people who are unwilling to use pam or
> ipv6.
>
> But I understand where you're
Hi Rich,
Rich Freeman writes:
> I don't believe anybody suggested making Gentoo harder to customize.
> This is just about setting reasonable defaults.
>
> You can run a server without bash, openrc, sysvinit, or glibc. Should
> these also be removed from the base profile?
A reasonable default
On 07/26/2018 02:59 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite a
Hi!
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite a few packages
> used on non-desktop linux
On 07/25/2018 02:28 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
Adding udev to the base profile will make customization much harder
for people unwilling to use udev. This is the problem.
To stay on the original track, I was suggesting adding it to the linux
profile component, not base. And people who are
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:14:55 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:06 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >
> > On 07/24/2018 11:39 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >
> > > You can run any system without udev, but you need to be very careful
> > > about what Linux features you utilize and
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:11 PM Dennis Schridde wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 20:57:09 CEST Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > > I don't think the process needs to be simplified much more than this;
> > > each layer above has its purpose.
On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 20:57:09 CEST Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > I don't think the process needs to be simplified much more than this;
> > each layer above has its purpose. However I do very much want to
> > caution on making it more
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> I don't think the process needs to be simplified much more than this;
> each layer above has its purpose. However I do very much want to
> caution on making it more complicated, especially with the addition of
> syntax that allows
On 2018-07-24 1:55 p.m., Dennis Schridde wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. Juli 2018, 19:15:19 CEST schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
>>
>> This is getting a little scary as to what is overriding what, within a
>> repo.
>
> I also tried to untangle this in my email from Sat, 21 Jul 2018 14:45:12 +
>
Yeah I
Am Dienstag, 24. Juli 2018, 19:15:19 CEST schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
> On 2018-07-21 9:33 a.m., Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:33 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Sure, why not? So ^flag would mean that the flag state propagates from
> >> the settings in IUSE.
> >
> > Presumably this
On 2018-07-22 1:52 p.m., Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> It looks to me like *within (sub)profiles*, a USE="-foo" should undo
> USE=foo, rather than adding "-foo" to the list of tokens that get pushed
> down via USE_ORDER.
>
...except that we often want the sub-profile containing "-foo"
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:49 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 12:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> harder to customize, because you can't turn it off.
> >
> > This was already addressed in a previous comment - PMS can be modified
> > to nullify flags
> Saying that hypothetically we
On 2018-07-21 9:33 a.m., Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:33 AM Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> Sure, why not? So ^flag would mean that the flag state propagates from
>> the settings in IUSE.
>
> Presumably this could be overridden in subsequent profiles, or
> /etc/portage. That is, one
On 07/24/2018 12:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> harder to customize, because you can't turn it off.
>
> This was already addressed in a previous comment - PMS can be modified
> to nullify flags
Saying that hypothetically we could modify the PMS and wait for a new
EAPI and wait for all package
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 12:24 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > For example, dhcpcd integrates with udevd via libudev to ensure that
> > udev has finished renaming your network interfaces before dhcpcd
> > attempts to configure them. I believe lvm2
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:27 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 12:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe anybody suggested making Gentoo harder to customize.
> > This is just about setting reasonable defaults.
>
> For the (N+1)th time:
Well, if it was already said, why
On 07/24/2018 12:24 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> For example, dhcpcd integrates with udevd via libudev to ensure that
> udev has finished renaming your network interfaces before dhcpcd
> attempts to configure them. I believe lvm2 uses libudev to prevent
> various races in block device setup and
On 07/24/2018 12:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> I don't believe anybody suggested making Gentoo harder to customize.
> This is just about setting reasonable defaults.
For the (N+1)th time: enabling this flag by default does make Gentoo
harder to customize, because you can't turn it off. And so
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:06 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 11:39 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > You can run any system without udev, but you need to be very careful
> > about what Linux features you utilize and how you have the system
> > configured.
> >
> > Most Linux servers
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:06 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 11:39 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > You can run any system without udev, but you need to be very careful
> > about what Linux features you utilize and how you have the system
> > configured.
> >
> > Most Linux servers
On 07/24/2018 11:39 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> You can run any system without udev, but you need to be very careful
> about what Linux features you utilize and how you have the system
> configured.
>
> Most Linux servers out in the wild are running udev; your
> configuration is an exception to
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:05 AM Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 11:03:34 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:47 AM Andreas K. Huettel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Am Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2018, 23:51:17 CEST schrieb Ben Kohler:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I'd
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 11:03:34 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:47 AM Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2018, 23:51:17 CEST schrieb Ben Kohler:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> > >
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:47 AM Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2018, 23:51:17 CEST schrieb Ben Kohler:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> > profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> > enabled on
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2018, 23:51:17 CEST schrieb Ben Kohler:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite a few packages
>
> Any
On 07/21/2018 12:59 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> If it adds no additional dependencies, why do you care?
>
It adds complexity and attack surface for something I apparently don't
need. You'll have to take it on faith that turning off shit I don't
understand has made my job/life a lot easier over
On 07/21/2018 03:01 AM, Dennis Schridde wrote:
>
> What about adding a third operator, e.g. `^`, that resets a use flag to the
> unset state?
>
The behavior of USE (in profiles) is documented in the PMS, so I don't
think we can add a new operator so easily. But, this is what the PMS has
to say
Matt Turner schrieb:
As an example of how this works out, I have both sys-apps/hwids and
sys-apps/pciutils built with USE=udev, but media-gfx/gimp built without it.
If it adds no additional dependencies, why do you care?
USE flags are supposed to control features, not dependencies.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/20/2018 03:37 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>>
>>> If I want to undo your new flag, I have to set USE="-udev" globally, and
>>> that clobbers any important per-package defaults that maintainers have set.
>>
>> I understand the concern at
On Saturday, 21 July 2018 11:33:23 CEST Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/21/2018 12:01 AM, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 July 2018 08:25:05 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> Yes, when you set USE=foo in profile A and USE="-foo" in profile A/B,
> >> the end result is USE="foo -foo" which is the
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:33 AM Zac Medico wrote:
>
> Sure, why not? So ^flag would mean that the flag state propagates from
> the settings in IUSE.
Presumably this could be overridden in subsequent profiles, or
/etc/portage. That is, one profile might set a flag, and another
profile could
On 07/21/2018 12:01 AM, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> On Friday, 20 July 2018 08:25:05 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 07/20/2018 02:12 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>>> Ok, I can see that point of view for make.conf.
>>> I can't agree with changes in other profiles though, as other profile
>>> will fall
On Friday, 20 July 2018 08:25:05 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/20/2018 02:12 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Ok, I can see that point of view for make.conf.
> > I can't agree with changes in other profiles though, as other profile
> > will fall under the same category in USE_ORDER (in fact,
On 2018.07.20 14:14, Rich Freeman wrote:
> While you can get Gentoo
> running with busybox and such and I completely support having profiles
> to enable this, I'm not sure this is the sort of thing that we want to
> point new users towards as a starting point.
>
> --
> Rich
>
New to Linux
On 07/20/2018 03:37 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>> If I want to undo your new flag, I have to set USE="-udev" globally, and
>> that clobbers any important per-package defaults that maintainers have set.
>
> I understand the concern at least in theory. But can you please give
> me a concrete example
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > * USE=udev means different things for different packages. You think
> > it "makes udev work" or whatever, but nobody has any idea what it
> > does for half of the packages that use it. The meaning is package-
> > specific, so the default should be package-specific.
>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2018 07:55 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > While I agree that setting USE=-udev isn't the same as leaving it to
> > package defaults, you further claim that setting this globally causes
> > severe breakage in some cases. Can
On 07/20/2018 07:55 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> While I agree that setting USE=-udev isn't the same as leaving it to
> package defaults, you further claim that setting this globally causes
> severe breakage in some cases. Can you provide an example of this?
>
https://bugs.gentoo.org/640226
Or
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM M. J. Everitt wrote:
>
> The hierarchy method is indeed flawed, it would be better to have
> something akin to USE flags for profiles (PROFLAGS?) .. so that you
> could mingle different aspects without replicating sections of the
> 'tree' to get the common
On 20/07/18 13:39, n...@troglodyte.be wrote:
> Hi,
>
> July 20, 2018 2:26 PM, "Ben Kohler" wrote:
>
>> On 07/19/18 23:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you really want to enable it globally after being told that it's bad
>>> engineering and downright annoying, go do it in a profile
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:05 AM wrote:
>
> I’m not sure I was clear enough in what 13.0 would mean : basically, its
> current content would be
> delegated to common, and 13.0 would keep only things needed to have minimal
> breakages/conflicts.
> And we would keep the current directory-like
On 20/07/18 13:20, Ben Kohler wrote:
> On 07/19/18 20:54, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>
>> +1. widely used profiles should have as least flags enabled by default
>> as possible, I would not be happy with +udev on my servers.
>>
> I disagree with this premise. The default and most widely used profiles
>
July 20, 2018 2:55 PM, "Rich Freeman" wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:39 AM wrote:
>
>> Why not introducing a new level in the hierarchy ? Something like "common"
>> could be fit.
>>
>> default/linux/amd64/13.0
>> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common
>> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common/desktop
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:39 AM wrote:
>
>
> Why not introducing a new level in the hierarchy ? Something like "common"
> could be fit.
>
> default/linux/amd64/13.0
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common/desktop
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common/developer
> ...
>
>
Hi,
July 20, 2018 2:26 PM, "Ben Kohler" wrote:
> On 07/19/18 23:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If you really want to enable it globally after being told that it's bad
>> engineering and downright annoying, go do it in a profile that I can
>> avoid and not "linux".
>
> I believe
On 07/19/18 23:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> No I'm not. I'm saying add them per-package, because it's a better
> design. We have package.use in profiles now, not just IUSE defaults.
>
> Global defaults have problems:
>
> * They can't be undone. It's next to impossible for me to undo
>
On 07/19/18 22:40, Benda Xu wrote:
>
> To represent the Gentoo Prefix users, we would like to have USE=udev
> turned off or even hard masked on linux-prefix profiles.
>
> Yours,
> Benda
>
I believe this is an argument in favor of moving the default to profiles
then, out of IUSE defaults,
On 07/19/18 20:54, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
> +1. widely used profiles should have as least flags enabled by default
> as possible, I would not be happy with +udev on my servers.
>
I disagree with this premise. The default and most widely used profiles
should fit the most common use cases.
I'd be
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:58 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2018 01:06 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> >>
> >> * They can't be undone. It's next to impossible for me to undo
> >> USE=udev when set in a profile that is inherited by all others.
> >
> > You set USE=-udev in your make.conf.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:51:05 -0400 Aaron Bauman wrote:
> You are the minimalist... Not the rest. Provide a reasonable scenario please.
Such setup is quite simple: secure server or container usually for
a single task with minimal setup of packages and USE flags to
reduce attack surface.
Best
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 20.07.2018 kell 17:01, kirjutas Benda Xu:
> Hi Mart,
>
> Mart Raudsepp writes:
>
> > That said, I would question such a choice. Does it technically not
> > work or what's the problem with it?
>
> It works partially. Most of the time they does not bulid.
That sounds
Hi Mart,
Mart Raudsepp writes:
> That said, I would question such a choice. Does it technically not
> work or what's the problem with it?
It works partially. Most of the time they does not bulid.
The host OS handles /dev for Gentoo Prefix, be it mdev or udev.
> But it's up the prefix
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/19/2018 05:51 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
>> profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
>> enabled on desktop profiles but it also
On 07/20/2018 02:12 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>
> Ok, I can see that point of view for make.conf.
> I can't agree with changes in other profiles though, as other profile
> will fall under the same category in USE_ORDER (in fact, it's the same
> thing, as the end USE from "defaults" comes from your
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 20.07.2018 kell 01:58, kirjutas Michael Orlitzky:
> On 07/20/2018 01:06 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > >
> > > * They can't be undone. It's next to impossible for me to undo
> > > USE=udev when set in a profile that is inherited by all
> > > others.
> >
> > You set
On 07/20/2018 01:06 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>>
>> * They can't be undone. It's next to impossible for me to undo
>> USE=udev when set in a profile that is inherited by all others.
>
> You set USE=-udev in your make.conf.
That doesn't work, for reasons already stated.
If I set USE="-udev"
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 20.07.2018 kell 12:40, kirjutas Benda Xu:
> > Any objections to this idea?
>
> To represent the Gentoo Prefix users, we would like to have USE=udev
> turned off or even hard masked on linux-prefix profiles.
Nothing stops you from doing that in prefix profiles, just like
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 20.07.2018 kell 00:04, kirjutas Michael Orlitzky:
> On 07/19/2018 11:49 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > You are denying the majority default here. Granted, we don't have
> > statistics... Cuz Gentoo.
>
> No I'm not. I'm saying add them per-package, because it's a better
>
Hi Ben,
Ben Kohler writes:
> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite a few packages
> used on non-desktop linux systems.
>
> This flag provides
On 07/19/2018 11:49 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> You are denying the majority default here. Granted, we don't have
> statistics... Cuz Gentoo.
No I'm not. I'm saying add them per-package, because it's a better
design. We have package.use in profiles now, not just IUSE defaults.
Global defaults have
Please provide substantial evidence for your claims. Furthermore, a profile of
your choice would be honorable.
On July 19, 2018 9:58:25 PM EDT, Rich Freeman wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:42 PM Andrew Savchenko
>wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
>> > Hello,
It's not about *you*. Please provide a reasonable justification.
On July 19, 2018 9:54:40 PM EDT, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>
>
>On 20.07.2018 04:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux
You are the minimalist... Not the rest. Provide a reasonable scenario please.
On July 19, 2018 9:42:11 PM EDT, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
>>
You are denying the majority default here. Granted, we don't have
statistics... Cuz Gentoo.
On July 19, 2018 6:00:44 PM EDT, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>On 07/19/2018 05:51 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
>>
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:42 PM Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> > profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> > enabled on desktop
On 20.07.2018 04:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
>> profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
>> enabled on desktop profiles but it also
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite a few packages
> used on non-desktop
On 07/19/2018 05:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Please add defaults per-package, only where they make sense. Enabling
flags globally creates a huge headache for people that want them off.
If I want to undo your new flag, I have to set USE="-udev" globally, and
that clobbers any important
On 07/19/2018 05:51 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> enabled on desktop profiles but it also affects quite a few packages
> used on non-desktop linux
70 matches
Mail list logo
