Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting

2011-09-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Zac Medico wrote: >> So in your opinion, it would be fine to bump profiles/eapi to >> EAPI=4 now? > Yes, it's feasible. As a consequence, we may get some complaints > from users who haven't upgraded during the last six months.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting

2011-09-17 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26:57PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote: > >> Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different > >> matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev and /usr

2011-09-17 Thread Luca Barbato
On 9/15/11 1:33 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:31:45 PM Luca Barbato wrote: On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote: Hi Devs, Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list about the upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting

2011-09-17 Thread Zac Medico
On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote: >> Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different >> matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to >> version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wai

[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.13 stabilization

2011-09-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
'bout that time again. if you peeps know of anything blocking glibc-2.13 from going stable, mark the relevant bug as blocking the tracker. tracker: https://bugs.gentoo.org/354107 stabilization: https://bugs.gentoo.org/382377 -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message p

Re: [gentoo-dev] new `usex` helper

2011-09-17 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: > What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that pushing EAPI > implementation into the tree and ignoring EAPI, or having this notion > that every repository must automatically use gentoo-x86 (pushing the > format into the tree) is /wrong/;

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting

2011-09-17 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote: > Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different > matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to > version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wait until > at least 6 months after supporting packag

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: www-plugins/weave

2011-09-17 Thread Mounir Lamouri
# Mounir Lamouri (18 Sep 2011) # Masked for removal in 30 days. Use Firefox 4 or higher instead. www-plugins/weave

[gentoo-dev] FEATURES="stricter" as a default in developer profile not the best idea

2011-09-17 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
TLDR: Let's remove FEATURES="stricter" from developer profile, I bet most people have it disabled anyway and it doesn't seem useful. I recently started more testing in one of my stable chroots, and I switched it to the developer profile. During the update the following error happened: > * QA Not

Re: [gentoo-dev] new `usex` helper

2011-09-17 Thread Zac Medico
On 09/16/2011 02:06 AM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:00:19PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Se

[gentoo-dev] Infrastructure Team survey

2011-09-17 Thread Alec Warner
Hello, My name is Alec and I am a recent addition to the Gentoo Infrastructure Team. I think our Infra team does a decent job of holding the fort. However I am curious what developers and users think about our efforts. As such I have a short (4 question) survey[1] for you. You do not need to be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev and /usr

2011-09-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > > Either udev does this already and the execution sequence is always the > > > same. In which case my suggestion above would follow the same sequence > > > as the queue would be on a First-in First-out basis. > > > Or, if udev doe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev and /usr

2011-09-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > Except that Redhat and Centos use LVM by default. Which will also mean that > "simple users" also end up using LVM. > Then again, they also end up with an initr* and a generic kernel for > everything under the sun. > I haven't properly l