On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP <
c...@colliertech.org> wrote:
> I've got a project on my plate to automate and reduce the human error in
> adding new VLANs, subnets, addresses, etc. to our production firewall
> fleet. Today, we manually make modifications to the follow
> "KF" == Kristian Fiskerstrand
> writes:
KF> I'm not familiar with any large difference.
I only mentioned sks because it is the only heavy user of berk db I
currently run. Most either moved on to other libs or I use w/ pg.
I did get the impression from the sks list that db5 worked be
As previously mentioned, we're having to move the CVS & Git (and
discontinuing SVN) very soon (possibly as soon as 2014/07/01 00:00 UTC, but
before the end of the week). There will be a followup mail with the exact time,
but it may be on short notice.
Here are the new SSH fingerprints for the serv
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 22:09 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:11:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46:38PM -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
> > > Which brings me to the question, does there exist a parser/generator for
> > > the /etc/co
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:11:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46:38PM -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
> > Which brings me to the question, does there exist a parser/generator for
> > the /etc/conf.d/net.* files? If not, would Gentoo like me to contribute
> > m
> "MG" == Michał Górny writes:
MG> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
MG> James Cloos napisał(a):
>> So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
>> dependencies to depend on 5.3 instead of whichever 4.x they
>> currently demand.
>> Unmasking the earlier 5.x releases seems u
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
James Cloos napisał(a):
> I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better with 5.3
> than they did with older versions. But upgrading needs to be done with care.
>
> So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
> dependencies to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/30/2014 11:40 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "MG" == Mike Gilbert writes:
>
> I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better
> with 5.3 than they did with older versions. But upgrading needs to
> be done with care.
>
I'm
> "MG" == Mike Gilbert writes:
MG> For example, I think the major reason for the sys-libs/db mask is a
MG> weird licensing issue. It's still nice to have it in the tree.
That only applies to db:6.0.
I know debian and ubuntu primarily use 5.3 these days, with the only
issues being related
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:46:04PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
> > package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
> > description.
> >
> > H
On 2014.06.30 16:40, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > But... if you unmask it, someone will test it and report whether
> > it works :P.
> >
>
> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
> it'll break all the systems that i
On 2014.06.30 05:01, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package,
> but I
> am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread.
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
> package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
> description.
>
> Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
> should be
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:49:54 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> So a mask on
> "=sys-devel/gcc-4.9.0" with the reason of "Masked for testing" makes
> perfect sense, especially since this version of gcc enables strong
> stack-protection.
In that case "this version of gcc enables strong stack-protection
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46:38PM -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
> Which brings me to the question, does there exist a parser/generator for
> the /etc/conf.d/net.* files? If not, would Gentoo like me to contribute
> my work on the generator, and would one of you point me to the parser?
On 06/30/2014 09:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
>
On 06/30/2014 11:27, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to
>> be banned.
>
> My original point in the other thread was that "masked for testing" is
> not a valid reason. A refere
Hello folks,
I've got a project on my plate to automate and reduce the human error in
adding new VLANs, subnets, addresses, etc. to our production firewall
fleet. Today, we manually make modifications to the following on both
members of the VRRP pair:
* /etc/conf.d/net.ext
* /etc/conf.d/net.int
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 03:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius
>>> napisał(a):
>>>
Here's a great
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> A test of a package to determine whether it appears to be working OK or
> whether it destructs your system isn't too much asked for; if it works
> it can then be ~arch tested, if it breaks you have a bug # for p.mask.
>
> If someone can't tes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:32:35 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> As said before, ~arch users know that their systems will break
> sometimes, so if the package works for you, unleash it on ~arch. If
> someone using a configuration you don't have finds that it breaks, I'm
> sure it would be reported. Then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius
> > napisał(a):
> >
> >> Here's a great example of this -- dev-libs/nss-3.16-r1 is
> >> p.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:48:22 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN
> >> TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows tha
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:12:14 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Masked commit:
> * a part of a bigger version bump, i.e. one of many packages that
> need to update together
> * or something where I *know* that issues preventing normal function
> still exist. I.e., I want to be able to ask others
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:04:20 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> I realize that not everybody agrees with me, but I see ~arch as a
> "semi-stable" branch - an internally consistent branch for people who
> don't feel like maintaining a horrific mess of keywords and masks in
> their /etc/portage an
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:07:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
> >> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>
> >> > But... if I unmask it, -every
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
>> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> > But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
>> > it'll break all the systems that
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:40:59 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'm perfectly fine with the suggestion of requiring a bug reference
> when masking for testing. I think that adds value.
You don't mean a reference to a bug report that merely says "masked for
testing" or purports to be a "tracker" (but i
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
>> it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
>> quite a lot at this point. :D
All,
Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
description.
Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
should be cleaned up by either 1) removing the mask or 2) booting the
affected p
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> > But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
> > it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
> > quite a lot at this
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
> it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
> quite a lot at this point. :D
Which is great, because then you have an actual test result, whe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius
> napisał(a):
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM,
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to
> be banned.
My original point in the other thread was that "masked for testing" is
not a valid reason. A reference to an outstanding issue, bug report,
discussion or ot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell
>>> wrote:
This is still to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 04:46 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> [snip!] * As Fabian pointed out, perl-core/Switch-2.160.0 should
> still go stable. Fine with me (but I can't read your minds about
> future stabilizations, and the virtual only had ~arch reverse
> d
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED
>> AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it.
>
> Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTE
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:29 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Huh? That's exactly the place. However, if you mean "AT ALL" in the
> sense that no one ever tried to compile it, then the guy who comitted
> should not have commit rights.
I mean in the sense that it has been compiled, but that it hasn't been
ex
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED
> AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it.
Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their
changes to the tree should immedia
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 11:29 +, hasufell wrote:
> > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm
> > not convinced that this is a bad thing.
>
> I have to reiterate:
> * increases the workload, because we are effectively running 3 branches
> * decreases the amount of te
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> > This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
>> > it can as well just land in ~arch.
>>
>> A
Rich Freeman:> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell
wrote:
>> This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
>> it can as well just land in ~arch.
>
> A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
Huh? That's exactly the place. However, if you me
Am Montag, 30. Juni 2014, 10:21:17 schrieb Tony Vroon:
> On 29/06/14 16:49, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > virtual/perl-Switch
>
> No, stop that right now.
> Bug #511874 needs to be actually fixed:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511874
>
> The explanation was closed as a duplicate, whic
On 29/06/14 16:49, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> virtual/perl-Switch
No, stop that right now.
Bug #511874 needs to be actually fixed:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511874
The explanation was closed as a duplicate, which it isn't:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496278
You are bre
Am Montag, 30. Juni 2014, 06:01:53 schrieb William Hubbs:
>
> I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch
> without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the
> understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they
> are expected to be able t
46 matches
Mail list logo
