Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 17 August 2013, at 12:49, Dan Johansson wrote: ... The usr-merge will be a slow, gradual change; it will probably take years. The systemd package entered the tree in June 2011, after more than a year in an overlay, and then it took more than two years to make it an official alternative to OpenRC. The /usr merge will take a similar amount of time, if not longer. And when we are at it, why not rename '/' to 'C:\' ? Well, seriously, why not? You haven't made any arguments against putting everything on a single partition, just made a cheap lolz, micro$oft windoze analogy. I can understand wanting to put /home on a separate partition or /var/spool/mail or /var/www/sites but I don't understand this obsession with several different partitions for system files which are always going to be managed by portage and which I'm never going to move or mess with manually. Having /usr on a separate partition dates back to an era in which 10MB and 40MB harddisks were prohibitively expensive - they cost $1000s. Now we can host a complete Gentoo system on a $5 or $10 SDcard, I'm struggling to see the value. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Advice needed regarding udisks
When trying to eject a USB camera in thunar in xfce4, the error appears and the device does not umount. Here is a command that also produces the error: # udisks --detach /dev/sdb Detach failed: Error detaching: helper exited with exit code 1: Detaching device /dev/sdb USB device: /sys/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/usb2/2-6) SYNCHRONIZE CACHE: FAILED: No such file or directory (Continuing despite SYNCHRONIZE CACHE failure.) STOP UNIT: FAILED: No such file or directory # emerge -pv gvfs libgdu [ebuild R] gnome-base/libgdu-3.0.2 USE=-avahi -doc -gnome-keyring 0 kB [ebuild R] gnome-base/gvfs-1.12.3-r1 USE=cdda gdu http udev -afp -archive -avahi -bluetooth -bluray -doc -fuse -gnome-keyring -gphoto2 -ios -samba (-udisks) 0 kB ^^^ There's your problem. thunar depends on gvfs, which can use udisks, but in your case the USE flag is forced, masked, or removed. You need to find out why that happened, it might be a profile thing, maybe it's a local config. Try grep -r udisks /etc/portage/ Nothing comes back from that grep. My profile is default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop. What else could be preventing me from enabling that USE flag? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
2013/8/18 Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com I tend to agree. And I still wonder why it's called /usr merge if it only affects /bin and /sbin. If it's really a merge, shouldn't /lib also be affected? Sure, /lib is affected. This was the idea of FreeDesktop.org's article http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/, and so does my script.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
2013/8/18 Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us On 08/17/2013 02:26 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder andreas_e...@gmx.net wrote: On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote: But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system that doesn't legitimately require it is silly. I don't even have /usr mounted separately, but there are many, many different system configurations out there and Gentoo is famous for supporting a wide variety. That variety is stomped on if something like a /usr merge is forced. It also makes building your default environment more complicated due to generating an initramfs. Absolutely agreed. Might be a good time to switch to freebsd :-( I agree. This is the only escape plan against the new wind of dictation into monolithic approach that comes from systemd sponsors direction. Let's see how it turns out... if Linux userspace will become like the Windows user space, then freebsd suddenly looks very promising alternative. Regards, Alon I've considered this as well. It's simply beyond me why so many people are willing to drink the kool-aid from a *single upstream* and let them shape the entire GNU/Linux landscape. It's one thing to support an *option*, but quite another to *force* users to use this option. Systemd itself doesn't look to be forced yet, but if the requirements for it are forced onto users, forcing systemd afterwards would be child's play. I saw this in action when I used Arch. It started with bash functions in their init scripts calling some systemd tools. Then the /usr merge. Eventually systemd itself was pushed. I'm beginning to lose confidence that Gentoo will avoid the same fate as Arch. Even Debian is falling to the systemd crowd. If this keeps up, it's only a matter of time before systemd infects every Linux-based distribution and BSD will be the only major free OS to avoid it. Red Hat may end up digging its claws into the kernel itself. What will protect the Linux landscape, if not distros like Gentoo that supposedly support user choice? Will all users who give a damn be forced to run LFS or Slackware if they wish to use Linux as their kernel? Maintain their own portage|pacman|deb repos and keep systems free of systemd? Where does the madness end? systemd is devouring other daemons. udev was the first victim, and now consolekit is dead and replaced with systemd-logind. Who knows what will be the next? Gentoo guys maintain now eudev. Ubuntu (which avoids systemd and uses its own upstart) splits systemd into several parts and happily uses them. The second way seems to be easier for me. BTW, what are you arguments against systemd (except for /usr merge)? Best regards, Alessio Ababilov
Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 18/08/2013 08:40, Stroller wrote: On 17 August 2013, at 12:49, Dan Johansson wrote: ... The usr-merge will be a slow, gradual change; it will probably take years. The systemd package entered the tree in June 2011, after more than a year in an overlay, and then it took more than two years to make it an official alternative to OpenRC. The /usr merge will take a similar amount of time, if not longer. And when we are at it, why not rename '/' to 'C:\' ? Well, seriously, why not? You haven't made any arguments against putting everything on a single partition, just made a cheap lolz, micro$oft windoze analogy. I can understand wanting to put /home on a separate partition or /var/spool/mail or /var/www/sites but I don't understand this obsession with several different partitions for system files which are always going to be managed by portage and which I'm never going to move or mess with manually. Having /usr on a separate partition dates back to an era in which 10MB and 40MB harddisks were prohibitively expensive - they cost $1000s. Now we can host a complete Gentoo system on a $5 or $10 SDcard, I'm struggling to see the value. I agree. You've read that post to an embedded list that lays out clearly why this /usr thing happened, right? I see computer files falling in two large categories - the system and data. Portage manages the system, I only need to ensure there's enough space. The data is mine and I may well have very different needs for different parts - the fs settings for the portage tree definitely don't work well for my media store with 4G BluRay rips! While we're on the topic, what's the obsession with having different bits of the file hierarchy as different *mount points*? That harks back to the days when the only way to have a chunk of fs space be different was to have it as a separate physical thing and mount it. Nowadays we have something better - ZFS. To me this makes so much more sense. I have a large amount of storage called a pool, and set size limits and characteristics for various directories without having to deal with fixed size volumes. There's LVM of course which makes things far easier than not having LVM, but by $DEITY, it forces me to think of my storage in terms of 4 distinctly different layers = far too complex (even though the clever design appeals to my inner nerd). I can think of only one modern use case where a separate /usr is desirable - as a read-only NFS mount for terminal servers. But that is already a large complex setup, very stable and not changing much, usually with an admin, so a boot environment with an initramfs shouldn't be any real burden at all. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Advice needed regarding udisks
On 18/08/2013 09:33, Grant wrote: When trying to eject a USB camera in thunar in xfce4, the error appears and the device does not umount. Here is a command that also produces the error: # udisks --detach /dev/sdb Detach failed: Error detaching: helper exited with exit code 1: Detaching device /dev/sdb USB device: /sys/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/usb2/2-6) SYNCHRONIZE CACHE: FAILED: No such file or directory (Continuing despite SYNCHRONIZE CACHE failure.) STOP UNIT: FAILED: No such file or directory # emerge -pv gvfs libgdu [ebuild R] gnome-base/libgdu-3.0.2 USE=-avahi -doc -gnome-keyring 0 kB [ebuild R] gnome-base/gvfs-1.12.3-r1 USE=cdda gdu http udev -afp -archive -avahi -bluetooth -bluray -doc -fuse -gnome-keyring -gphoto2 -ios -samba (-udisks) 0 kB ^^^ There's your problem. thunar depends on gvfs, which can use udisks, but in your case the USE flag is forced, masked, or removed. You need to find out why that happened, it might be a profile thing, maybe it's a local config. Try grep -r udisks /etc/portage/ Nothing comes back from that grep. My profile is default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop. What else could be preventing me from enabling that USE flag? It might be masked by the profile. As I understand it, recent EAPIs allow USE flags to be forced per-profile. This makes sense - a dev might enable USE=udev everywhere except on gentoo-freebsd profiles, just as an example. But I'm not yet up to speed on how to detect and over-ride such things. I think you should log a bug now at b.g.o. and let the devs tell you what's really going on with your selections. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 08/18/2013 03:53 AM, Alessio Ababilov wrote: 2013/8/18 Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us mailto:li...@sporkbox.us On 08/17/2013 02:26 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Eder andreas_e...@gmx.net mailto:andreas_e...@gmx.net wrote: On 17 Aug 2013, the guard wrote: But requiring people to have an initramfs to boot a system that doesn't legitimately require it is silly. I don't even have /usr mounted separately, but there are many, many different system configurations out there and Gentoo is famous for supporting a wide variety. That variety is stomped on if something like a /usr merge is forced. It also makes building your default environment more complicated due to generating an initramfs. Absolutely agreed. Might be a good time to switch to freebsd :-( I agree. This is the only escape plan against the new wind of dictation into monolithic approach that comes from systemd sponsors direction. Let's see how it turns out... if Linux userspace will become like the Windows user space, then freebsd suddenly looks very promising alternative. Regards, Alon I've considered this as well. It's simply beyond me why so many people are willing to drink the kool-aid from a *single upstream* and let them shape the entire GNU/Linux landscape. It's one thing to support an *option*, but quite another to *force* users to use this option. Systemd itself doesn't look to be forced yet, but if the requirements for it are forced onto users, forcing systemd afterwards would be child's play. I saw this in action when I used Arch. It started with bash functions in their init scripts calling some systemd tools. Then the /usr merge. Eventually systemd itself was pushed. I'm beginning to lose confidence that Gentoo will avoid the same fate as Arch. Even Debian is falling to the systemd crowd. If this keeps up, it's only a matter of time before systemd infects every Linux-based distribution and BSD will be the only major free OS to avoid it. Red Hat may end up digging its claws into the kernel itself. What will protect the Linux landscape, if not distros like Gentoo that supposedly support user choice? Will all users who give a damn be forced to run LFS or Slackware if they wish to use Linux as their kernel? Maintain their own portage|pacman|deb repos and keep systems free of systemd? Where does the madness end? systemd is devouring other daemons. udev was the first victim, and now consolekit is dead and replaced with systemd-logind. Who knows what will be the next? Gentoo guys maintain now eudev. Ubuntu (which avoids systemd and uses its own upstart) splits systemd into several parts and happily uses them. The second way seems to be easier for me. BTW, what are you arguments against systemd (except for /usr merge)? Best regards, Alessio Ababilov Systemd has a monolithic design, is headed by an egotist with no respect for other developers, and cannibalizes other projects. The projects it can't cannibalize will be strongarmed into irrelevance. Couple this with Red Hat employees working on both systemd and GNOME, with a very clear agenda to vertically integrate them, and you have a recipe for a closed and/or heavily limited operating system. This is becoming clear with the way GTK+ 3.x is handled, too. I don't approve of an init system (or any other software) becoming everything-and-the-kitchen-sink. UNIX philosophy is being forgotten by these developers, and they openly condemn it while benefiting from it at the same time. While the job of init could be argued as complex or multifaceted, an init system can still do one thing, and do it well: Bring the system to an initial state. At the core, it means populate sysfs (or an equivalent), start the specified daemons, load the relevant modules, and standby until an event signals it to shutdown or restart. No splash screens needed, no need to swallow a device management system, no need to replace logging mechanisms, and so on. Coupling systemd with udev was a political move, not a technical one. It was a deliberate effort to force their software on the FOSS world, with the false pretense of standardization, which is a buzzword among developers that's effective at garnering support. The sad part is people bought it. They will regret this move.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Advice needed regarding udisks
When trying to eject a USB camera in thunar in xfce4, the error appears and the device does not umount. Here is a command that also produces the error: # udisks --detach /dev/sdb Detach failed: Error detaching: helper exited with exit code 1: Detaching device /dev/sdb USB device: /sys/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/usb2/2-6) SYNCHRONIZE CACHE: FAILED: No such file or directory (Continuing despite SYNCHRONIZE CACHE failure.) STOP UNIT: FAILED: No such file or directory # emerge -pv gvfs libgdu [ebuild R] gnome-base/libgdu-3.0.2 USE=-avahi -doc -gnome-keyring 0 kB [ebuild R] gnome-base/gvfs-1.12.3-r1 USE=cdda gdu http udev -afp -archive -avahi -bluetooth -bluray -doc -fuse -gnome-keyring -gphoto2 -ios -samba (-udisks) 0 kB ^^^ There's your problem. thunar depends on gvfs, which can use udisks, but in your case the USE flag is forced, masked, or removed. You need to find out why that happened, it might be a profile thing, maybe it's a local config. Try grep -r udisks /etc/portage/ Nothing comes back from that grep. My profile is default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop. What else could be preventing me from enabling that USE flag? It might be masked by the profile. As I understand it, recent EAPIs allow USE flags to be forced per-profile. This makes sense - a dev might enable USE=udev everywhere except on gentoo-freebsd profiles, just as an example. But I'm not yet up to speed on how to detect and over-ride such things. I think you should log a bug now at b.g.o. and let the devs tell you what's really going on with your selections. Will do, and I'll report back with the results. Thanks, Grant
[gentoo-user] what is /usr/bin/{gcc,cc,g++,c++}?
I have noticed that these files md5 are the same,and none of them belongs to the gcc package.How and when does the system make them?
Re: [gentoo-user] what is /usr/bin/{gcc,cc,g++,c++}?
On Sunday 18 August 2013 19:28:59 东方巽雷 wrote: I have noticed that these files md5 are the same,and none of them belongs to the gcc package.How and when does the system make them? Probably done by gcc-config script.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 2013-08-18 11:44, Daniel Campbell wrote: Systemd has a monolithic design, is headed by an egotist with no respect for other developers, and cannibalizes other projects. The projects it can't cannibalize will be strongarmed into irrelevance. Couple this with Red Hat employees working on both systemd and GNOME, with a very clear agenda to vertically integrate them, and you have a recipe for a closed and/or heavily limited operating system. This is becoming clear with the way GTK+ 3.x is handled, too. Seems to me everything Gnome related is becoming the proverbial metric ton gorilla (on steroids, in a china shop)... Systemd follows that pattern. And Lennarts track record with avahi and pulseaudio does not inspire confidence, imho... I'm sure, given time, systemd will pull in Gnome as a building dependency... I joke of course, but then again nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to the above mentioned projects... The supposedly advantages that systemd[1] has over other init systems are, supposedly: 1. To allow parallel boot of system services 2. cgroup integration 3. Re-start of services In my opinion: 1. Most of the time spent when cold booting is spent in the BIOS/UEFI cycle (around 30 seconds), the time from grub display to login (I'm using slim) is 5 seconds (max). Ergo, parallel boot will do nothing for me. The parallel boot and the starting of services is also the thing that breaks the separate /usr philosophy (without static binaries). 2. cgroup can be handled by OpenRC as well. Not that I see much improvement, if any, over pre-cgroup kernels... So no advantage there either, for me. 3. Re-start of services (a.k.a. daemons in the UNIX world). Why would anyone want an automatic re-start of a daemon is beyond me. If a daemon crashes/doesn't start properly then it will not work by automatic re-start; I would like to believe that starting a daemon is not a stochastic process... I, however, would like to be told that it doesn't start so I can fix it. OpenRC does the latter well. Systemd also replaces the following services[1]: sysvinit, initscripts, pm-utils, inetd, acpid, syslog, watchdog, cgrulesd, cron, atd ...which obviously makes the code more complex, which goes against the KISS rule[2]. On a personal note, I like this quote best (from [2]): It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away For the record... size comparisons (from [3]): OpenRC (0.9.3): sysvinit + 300 files, ~30k lines, 3.3k posix sh, ~12k C (sysvinit: 560kB, 75 files, ~15k lines) systemd (v44+): dbus + glib + 900 files, 224k lines, 125k C (D-Bus: 11MB, ~500 files. 300k lines, 120k C) (glib: 72MB, ~2500 files, ~1.7M lines, ~430k C) Also, integrating the services into one tool (systemd) makes a more fragile system (again, imho)... I don't approve of an init system (or any other software) becoming everything-and-the-kitchen-sink. UNIX philosophy is being forgotten by these developers, and they openly condemn it while benefiting from it at the same time. While the job of init could be argued as complex or multifaceted, an init system can still do one thing, and do it well: Bring the system to an initial state. At the core, it means populate sysfs (or an equivalent), start the specified daemons, load the relevant modules, and standby until an event signals it to shutdown or restart. No splash screens needed, no need to swallow a device management system, no need to replace logging mechanisms, and so on. From [4]: Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. :-) Coupling systemd with udev was a political move, not a technical one. It was a deliberate effort to force their software on the FOSS world, with the false pretense of standardization, which is a buzzword among developers that's effective at garnering support. The sad part is people bought it. They will regret this move. Standardization per se is not a bad thing, i.e. protocols, APIs etc. (like POSIX)... I agree that Lennart and Kay motives are political though. Also, Lennart says this ([5]): So, get yourself a copy of The Linux Programming Interface, ignore everything it says about POSIX compatibility and hack away your amazing Linux software. It's quite relieving! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_It_Simple_Stupid [3] http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy [5] https://archive.fosdem.org/2011/interview/lennart-poettering At the end of the day I want the compute power in my computers/devices not to spend *one* cycle unnecessarily and it is very hard for a kitchen-and-sink system to do that, imho. I would very much like to see a LEGO approach (i.e. small individual tools with well defined interfaces that can work together) which imo is the UNIX philosophy. Best regards Peter K
[gentoo-user] grub2 generate wrong uuid for other system
I noticed that when grub2 generate boot menu for other linux system,the line linux /boot/vmlinux-3.10.7 root=/dev/sda6 ro is error,sda6 is root of current system,and sda8 is the right one of another system.Is it a bug? gentoo amd64 testing.kernel 3.10.7,grub-2.00_p5107,os-prober-1.62
[gentoo-user] libreoffice cannot use oxygen theme
I download LibreOffice_4.1.0_Linux_x86-64_deb.tar.gz from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ and extract all the deb files.My desktop is KDE,but libreoffice only uses gtk+ theme. How should I find out the problem?
Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice cannot use oxygen theme
On 18/08/2013 17:16, 东方巽雷 wrote: I download LibreOffice_4.1.0_Linux_x86-64_deb.tar.gz from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ and extract all the deb files.My desktop is KDE,but libreoffice only uses gtk+ theme. How should I find out the problem? Why are you downloading LibreOffice and extracting it manually? There are 2 ebuilds for it in the tree: libreoffice and libreoffice-bin. Use those instead, they work properly. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Advice needed regarding udisks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/18/2013 05:50 AM, Grant wrote: When trying to eject a USB camera in thunar in xfce4, the error appears and the device does not umount. Here is a command that also produces the error: # udisks --detach /dev/sdb Detach failed: Error detaching: helper exited with exit code 1: Detaching device /dev/sdb USB device: /sys/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/usb2/2-6) SYNCHRONIZE CACHE: FAILED: No such file or directory (Continuing despite SYNCHRONIZE CACHE failure.) STOP UNIT: FAILED: No such file or directory # emerge -pv gvfs libgdu [ebuild R] gnome-base/libgdu-3.0.2 USE=-avahi -doc -gnome-keyring 0 kB [ebuild R] gnome-base/gvfs-1.12.3-r1 USE=cdda gdu http udev -afp -archive -avahi -bluetooth -bluray -doc -fuse -gnome-keyring -gphoto2 -ios -samba (-udisks) 0 kB ^^^ There's your problem. thunar depends on gvfs, which can use udisks, but in your case the USE flag is forced, masked, or removed. You need to find out why that happened, it might be a profile thing, maybe it's a local config. Try grep -r udisks /etc/portage/ Nothing comes back from that grep. My profile is default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop. What else could be preventing me from enabling that USE flag? It might be masked by the profile. As I understand it, recent EAPIs allow USE flags to be forced per-profile. This makes sense - a dev might enable USE=udev everywhere except on gentoo-freebsd profiles, just as an example. But I'm not yet up to speed on how to detect and over-ride such things. I think you should log a bug now at b.g.o. and let the devs tell you what's really going on with your selections. Will do, and I'll report back with the results. Thanks, Grant - From $PORTDIR/profiles/base/package.use.mask: # GNOME gn...@gentoo.org (02 Oct 2012) # Mask USE=udisks and use USE=gdu as the default for gnome-base/gvfs-1.14; # older gvfs releases have problems with recent stable udisks:2 (bug #463792) gnome-base/gvfs-1.14 udisks - -- Jonathan Callen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSEQhYAAoJELHSF2kinlg4614P/3oNTHWpSWaVttWLwphBf1Q4 aDIIc/gSH9+In+S4ksvELniJ6C1x3GxeJa7QbOjE+lFJgotTaafCzdhkQ/i4zX6E 2vWVgdSNX5HKzFwudY/Qc/N+//9ab+SyiVG7JK6Z3DLtcOUspG615hzuhOU99SFP FmSgfEL2W11583RYtv0PxY9tHb+T+O+6sL6RkWrDuqeSE6zJ9Tq+NzHEMwMlqSjs I61sxEStZ+GR4mJOwvHbejEE/nfUEvfwmhb0oYlTPvasi/VQ4rj5EkJH+LGAJsCr MA/pMHCbVcDL70HULOR8xvbB1MQWBNSbKwEF1ozqdfwc/yZ5WhZmyvuDhVu7Hu/V UVQD8saf422fI7pizqRItrLqzZGJ+Rkuxn2OSQI+QweWZ3z+T3SM9dIuU1HrrFfp TBdMmimU/dknetkeE9gSZEh2gAgLOI5dsZkeY68qf8RWLKpf6jjmMmOzSbJ+VC3A Oml8UeR8EKr1ShxPkOUcWPvO/Olx8ivZeO0zJwWk8TjCCSgkL9rJxgU7+XPdgoJh RZ0Ej1dhoPerf0Rbz7eK7vkxYEcfR2IzLGXe48uu8aPUXyorq16ewpM2xw15WEuT 19vKLDbnnM3mjuGkKJNYX6MjsCneBzxVBz+5EfjaS6MT65hxJZo/Wik1f5IJqYzy gX8ZOjfsbzqsPMF9Erwt =CNx1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 2013-08-18 4:40 AM, Alessio Ababilov ilovegnuli...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, /lib is affected. This was the idea of FreeDesktop.org's article http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/, and so does my script. And so the /usr merge is part and parcel of systemd. I'm not afraid that the gentoo council is drinking the kool-aid, it is as obvious as the nose on my face that they *are*, and as has been said, unless someone or more people return some sanity to the project, gentoo will be systemd only sooner rather than later. Guess I need to start looking at FreeBSD too... :(
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On Sunday 18 Aug 2013 20:37:19 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-08-18 4:40 AM, Alessio Ababilov ilovegnuli...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, /lib is affected. This was the idea of FreeDesktop.org's article http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/, and so does my script. And so the /usr merge is part and parcel of systemd. I'm not afraid that the gentoo council is drinking the kool-aid, it is as obvious as the nose on my face that they *are*, and as has been said, unless someone or more people return some sanity to the project, gentoo will be systemd only sooner rather than later. Guess I need to start looking at FreeBSD too... :( Having left Slackware for Gentoo more than 10 years ago this is going to feel like a regressive step for me, but if it comes to it I guess I will have to consider it. I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should follow? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should follow? Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying to turn Gentoo into Fedora? Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
pk wrote: On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should follow? Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying to turn Gentoo into Fedora? Best regards Peter K Picking random message sort of. Isn't eudev still going to support a separate /usr? That is my understanding. If eudev is not then I may have to reconsider some things myself here. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice cannot use oxygen theme
libreoffice-bin needs older icu version,libreoffice need so much time to compile 2013/8/18 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com On 18/08/2013 17:16, 东方巽雷 wrote: I download LibreOffice_4.1.0_Linux_x86-64_deb.tar.gz from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ and extract all the deb files.My desktop is KDE,but libreoffice only uses gtk+ theme. How should I find out the problem? Why are you downloading LibreOffice and extracting it manually? There are 2 ebuilds for it in the tree: libreoffice and libreoffice-bin. Use those instead, they work properly. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
在 2013-8-19 上午5:55，pk pete...@coolmail.se写道： On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should follow? Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying to turn Gentoo into Fedora? Best regards Peter K any one complant to systemd is not a programer. he does not understand how bad sysvinit it is from the code point of view.. some one even say the old version is more stable than latest version even the author say no and drop the support. this is all the stupicy of non programer. they think they understand progam while in fact no.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:54 PM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote: On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should follow? Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Probably for exactly the same reason you or anyone else uses Gentoo; USE flags, portage, you can customize at your hearts content... Are they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying to turn Gentoo into Fedora? I've never used Fedora. I used RedHay back in the day of RedHat 4.2 (it was my very first use of Linux in 1996), then moved to Mandrake (remember Mandrake?), then Gentoo in 2003. I haven't used any other distro since then. I want Gentoo to keep being the best possible Linux (I *really* don't care if it works in *BSD, Solaris, or Windows). Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure that for Gentoo to keep being the best possible Linux, it has to use systemd. You don't have to agree with that, of course. But please understand that I only support systemd in Gentoo, because I love Gentoo. And, putting aside systemd and getting back on topic to the council's decision of (eventually) not supporting separated /usr without an initramfs; have you ever stopped to consider that, perhaps, that's the best *technical* decision? (*gasp*) When you have almost all distributions converging on that, and even *the OpenRC maintainer* (which is the one pushing this, BTW, not the systemd guys) supporting that decision, don't you think that perhaps, just *perhaps*, everybody screaming about the sky falling (which, BTW, they are certainly noisy, but I really don't think are that many) are overreacting and even (*gasp* again) wrong? Just something to think about it. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 08/18/2013 09:39 PM, microcai wrote: 在 2013-8-19 上午5:55，pk pete...@coolmail.se mailto:pete...@coolmail.se写道： On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should follow? Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying to turn Gentoo into Fedora? Best regards Peter K any one complant to systemd is not a programer. he does not understand how bad sysvinit it is from the code point of view.. some one even say the old version is more stable than latest version even the author say no and drop the support. this is all the stupicy of non programer. they think they understand progam while in fact no. As a budding programmer I understand that a lot of the functionality that users take for granted in sysvinit scripts is hacked together and prone to bash upgrades breaking them, syntax for outside programs to change, and other auxiliary breakages. This is true of *any* program that relies on code not written by the author, however, and it is managed through something called maintenance. All code needs maintenance or it will eventually cease to work, unless the code that the programs rely on does not change. It's a fact of life for programming projects. Some would rather maintain C code than bash scripts. Nothing wrong with that. I prefer C over bash as well, but it's not like bash is *terrible*. It's a language that practically any serious *nix user will know some variant of. Due to this, sysadmins and users can gain familiarity with sysvinit or other bash-script-using init systems much faster than with a broad, C-only init system like systemd. This familiarity means end-users can fix their own problems without needing to recompile or do backtraces or other higher-level debugging tasks. This also ensures that the primary init binary stays untouched and can still bring up a system. sysvinit may not be perfect, but systemd's approach (Include as much as possible in one package) is just as bad, if not worse. At least sysvinit is hackable, which adds to its versatility. Systemd is not free of good ideas. cgroups can be a useful, optional build-time thing that Linux users can opt into. Parallel boot sequences can speed up the booting of a machine that launches many services. The fatal mistake made from a technical point is that systemd became too ambitious. Taking on a new feature or a new task in a project has a multiplicative or exponential effect, *not* an additive one. Given the broad array of features that systemd has, its purpose is spread too thin and tries to do too much. It's not simple code and it does too many things. People often forget that there are other init systems out there, as well. runit is a great little package, and also uses bash scripts like sysvinit. It's designed to be lightweight, supports a custom amount of run levels, and a few extras I'm forgetting. The important thing about runit is that *it knows what it is*. It's an init system with service-management added in. It doesn't log things for you, it doesn't manage your splash screen, it doesn't manage devfs/sysfs, it doesn't make you coffee and comb your hair, it doesn't take over security-related tasks. It knows itself and is *happy* to stay focused on its one job. Because of this, runit and other specialized projects can focus on being the best it can be on that single task. Compare this approach to a project that wants to add tons of features or do a little bit of everything to appeal to the broadest audience possible. This is literally what systemd does, as a project and as code. It's a yes project instead of a no project. Lastly, programmers are not immune to the effects of cognitive biases. They are just as prone as anyone else to social engineering and groupthink influencing their decisions. To believe any group is immune to social misdeeds is foolhardy. This doesn't completely discredit programmers (or other groups that fall to kool-aid), but it certainly casts an unfavorable light and earns them suspicion. By asserting that only the programmers' viewpoints matter, you are forgetting the social aspects of software development, which are equally important. Without an audience and users who have good relations with the devs, there's not a healthy dialogue to enrich the project and make bug fixes, feature discussions, and so on easier to work
Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice cannot use oxygen theme
2013/8/19 东方巽雷 dongfangxun...@gmail.com: libreoffice-bin needs older icu version,libreoffice need so much time to compile libreoffice-bin (at this time only 4.0.4.2 is present) requests icu/51.1, while the latest is slotted 51.2. I don't know of any package that specifically asks for such a new version of icu; a quick equery on my system shows this: equery depends icu * These packages depend on icu: app-i18n/fcitx-4.2.8.1 (icu ? dev-libs/icu) app-office/libreoffice-4.1.0.4 (=dev-libs/icu-4.8.1.1) app-text/libmspub-0.0.6 (dev-libs/icu) app-text/texlive-core-2013 (xetex ? =dev-libs/icu-50) dev-db/sqlite-3.7.17 (icu ? dev-libs/icu) dev-lang/php-5.4.18 (intl ? dev-libs/icu) dev-lang/php-5.5.1-r1 (intl ? dev-libs/icu) dev-libs/boost-1.53.0 (icu ? =dev-libs/icu-3.6) dev-libs/libxml2-2.9.1-r1 (icu ? dev-libs/icu) dev-qt/qtcore-4.8.5 (icu ? =dev-libs/icu-49) dev-qt/qtwebkit-4.8.5 (icu ? dev-libs/icu) dev-tex/bibtexu-3.71_p20130530 (=dev-libs/icu-4.4) media-libs/harfbuzz-0.9.18-r1 (icu ? dev-libs/icu) media-libs/libcdr-0.0.14 (dev-libs/icu) media-libs/libvisio-0.0.30 (dev-libs/icu) media-libs/raptor-2.0.9 (unicode ? dev-libs/icu) net-libs/webkit-gtk-1.8.3-r201 (=dev-libs/icu-3.8.1-r1) net-libs/webkit-gtk-2.0.4 (=dev-libs/icu-3.8.1-r1) net-nds/openldap-2.4.35 (icu ? dev-libs/icu) sys-apps/gptfdisk-0.8.6 (icu ? dev-libs/icu) (icu ? dev-libs/icu[static-libs(+)]) www-client/chromium-29.0.1547.41 (=dev-libs/icu-49.1.1-r1) So at least nothing installed on my system requires a recent icu to run. Thus, you shouldn't have problems setting up libreoffice-bin; if you indeed have to stick with the latest icu, share with us your specific setup and we'll be glad to help.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote: On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should follow? Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying to turn Gentoo into Fedora? This kind of response has been repeatedly grating on my nerves on this mailing list. It's just so TECHNICALLY WRONG, but more than that I feel that it hints at a deeper problem about user attitudes and the need to act like a know-it-all that is so prevalent on this mailing list. Systemd is _not_ a monolithic design. I don't know how anyone who has taken even a casual glance at it, or its documentation, can say otherwise. It's so reminiscent of qmail or postfix, where you have a bunch of small programs each doing one thing well, but for init systems rather than for mail, that it's just one step away from being the kind of program you show to kids to teach them how to Unix. Scroll up further on the random systemd rants on this mailing list and you'll learn that systemd has a binary / xml configuration format (it doesn't, it's plaintext INI, like samba) that requires binary code to run daemons (um, no it doesn't), or that thanks to systemd, old, perfectly working servers will just stop running... You know what I think? You can't understand why some people like or want to support systemd because you don't _want_ to understand. It requires you to learn something new. There's an old problem, _mostly_, but not entirely, solved, where we've swept the ugly parts out of sight so that they don't bug you. The parts of systemd that you don't understand why they should be there are the parts that deal with those ugly things you don't want to learn. I know that feeling, of being forced to learn something new and thinking do I really have to? and I know I hate it. It's the same reason why RTFM is considered rude. But it's basically the appropriate response here. You wanna figure out why systemd does what it does? RTFM. Yes, system initialization SHOULD be simple. Just like mail or web SHOULD be. And heck, If you want to run some bash script to do your web or mail or init, nobody's stopping you. But somebody, somewhere, is going to want features, which is why we have apache or postfix, and what-have-you. And if other projects want to use those features, they're free to want to require those software as they please. You don't like it? Don't use those projects. Or fork them. But stop acting like a pompous know-it-all, quoting software design witticisms as if you've actually looked at the problem domain even half as seriously as the developers involved. Oh but systemd is going to eat up all our software so that nothing will run without it! Don't be ridiculous. They said that about Emacs, Java, Lisp, GNOME, kdepim, The Browser(tm), etc etc etc. If you've paid any attention at all to the history of software, it's obvious that it's not happening. Why the hell would apache, which runs on windows, require systemd? Or firefox? Or google chrome? Or qmail? Or postfix? Or MySQL? Or samba? etc etc etc If there's anything surprising, it's that you seriously thought a software development house (cough cough Redhat) wouldn't try to dogfood their own stuff into their other products (cough cough GNOME) _which already have forks by the way_, so what are you worried about? -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
[gentoo-user] how can I pause emerge after it finish running configure or cmake and before it do any compilation?
I need to change some arguments in Makefile.
