Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag "ps"

2012-06-14 Thread Pacho Ramos
El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 05:43 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió: > On 06/15/2012 05:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 14 June 2012 21:16:31 Samuli Suominen wrote: > >> So how about renaming USE="gs" consumers to USE="ps" and making USE="ps" > >> global flag with the proposed description?

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

2012-06-14 Thread Eray Aslan
On 2012-06-15 7:56 AM, Greg KH wrote: > Distributing a first-stage bootloader blob, that is signed by Microsoft, > or someone, seems to be the only way to easily handle this. Fedora agrees: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html Other distros haven't decided yet afaik although there have been som

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

2012-06-14 Thread Philip Webb
120614 Greg KH wrote: > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo > or not worry about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? > Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft > to sign o

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new global useflag libass

2012-06-14 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/15/2012 08:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: Hi, As per the discussion in bug #328245, we would like to propose a new global useflag, to replace both ass and libass local useflags currently in media-video/{ffmpeg,mplayer,mplayer2,vlc}. The proposed description is the one already used in mplayer{

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

2012-06-14 Thread Arun Raghavan
On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote: >>> So, anyone been thinking about this?  I have, and it's not pretty. >>> >>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to >>> sign our boot

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

2012-06-14 Thread Arun Raghavan
On 15 June 2012 10:26, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote: >> > So, anyone been thinking about this?  I have, and it's not pretty. >> > >> > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about

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

2012-06-14 Thread Matthew Finkel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote: > >> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. > >> > >> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to >

[gentoo-dev] RFC: new global useflag libass

2012-06-14 Thread Ben de Groot
Hi, As per the discussion in bug #328245, we would like to propose a new global useflag, to replace both ass and libass local useflags currently in media-video/{ffmpeg,mplayer,mplayer2,vlc}. The proposed description is the one already used in mplayer{,2}: libass = SRT/SSA/ASS (SubRip / SubStatio

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

2012-06-14 Thread Ben de Groot
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote: >> So, anyone been thinking about this?  I have, and it's not pretty. >> >> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to >> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side

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

2012-06-14 Thread Matthew Finkel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: > > > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. > > > > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about > > Gent

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

2012-06-14 Thread Duncan
Arun Raghavan posted on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:15:28 +0530 as excerpted: > I guess we're in an especially bad position since everybody builds their > own bootloader. Is there /any/ viable solution that allows people to > continue doing this short of distributing a first-stage bootloader blob? As I s

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

2012-06-14 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Greg KH schrieb: > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. > > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about > Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? > > Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to > sign

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

2012-06-14 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote: > > So, anyone been thinking about this?  I have, and it's not pretty. > > > > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about > > Gentoo right now and just focus on the o

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

2012-06-14 Thread Duncan
Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. > > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about > Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? > > Minor details like, "do we h

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

2012-06-14 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:28:10PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. > > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about > Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? > > Minor details like, "do we have a 'c

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

2012-06-14 Thread Arun Raghavan
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote: > So, anyone been thinking about this?  I have, and it's not pretty. > > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about > Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? I think it at least makes sense to talk about it, and work

[gentoo-dev] UEFI secure boot and Gentoo

2012-06-14 Thread Greg KH
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag "ps"

2012-06-14 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/15/2012 05:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 14 June 2012 21:16:31 Samuli Suominen wrote: So how about renaming USE="gs" consumers to USE="ps" and making USE="ps" global flag with the proposed description? merging is a good idea. getting away from "ghostscript" is good. i might

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag "ps" (was: USE="gs")

2012-06-14 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 14 June 2012 21:16:31 Samuli Suominen wrote: > So how about renaming USE="gs" consumers to USE="ps" and making USE="ps" > global flag with the proposed description? merging is a good idea. getting away from "ghostscript" is good. i might suggest expanding "ps" to "postscript" though

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag "ps" (was: USE="gs")

2012-06-14 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/15/2012 02:58 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: Samuli Suominen wrote: 9'ish consumers. I propose "Enable support for the PostScript language" Perhaps "ps" or "postscript" instead of the implementation-centric "gs" ? //Peter Ah, you have a point here. We are already using USE="ps": app-misc/r

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag "gs" (app-text/ghostscript-gpl)

2012-06-14 Thread Peter Stuge
Samuli Suominen wrote: > 9'ish consumers. I propose "Enable support for the PostScript language" Perhaps "ps" or "postscript" instead of the implementation-centric "gs" ? //Peter

[gentoo-dev] New global USE flag "gs" (app-text/ghostscript-gpl)

2012-06-14 Thread Samuli Suominen
9'ish consumers. I propose "Enable support for the PostScript language" app-office/rabbit: Ghostscript support (app-text/ghostscript-gpl) dev-ml/camlimages: Ghostscript support (app-text/ghostscript-gpl) media-gfx/gimp: Enable Ghostscript support (app-text/ghostscript-gpl) media-gfx/graphicsmagi