[gentoo-dev] Packages formerly maintained by myself

The following packages are now maintainer-needed, if anyone wants to pick them up feel free to do so. app-mobilephone/x70talk app-admin/flexlm app-misc/scope app-misc/linuxspa sys-devel/bin86 sys-devel/dev86 sys-apps/yum sys-boot/raincoat sys-boot/cromwell-bin sys-boot/cromwell app-emulation/domi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for August

Hi, On 03/08/06, Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You have no concept of where the bottle neck is. The webserver hosting the cgi part isn't being loaded hardly at all. The database server is a pretty beefy box, and again, its not so much a specific hardware limitation, just more a limi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)

On 02/08/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 31 July 2006 04:52, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 30 July 2006 22:28, Dan Meltzer wrote: > > 1) Users can submit patches/ideas to bugs.g.o at whatever frequency > > they desire, contributing to gentoo casually. > > load up your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo/Java staffing needs

On 27/07/06, Bartlomiej Szymczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi. I've noticed Mozilla Foundation has a list of "good first bugs". Very useful when trying to get more developers. Could you list 2-3 "good first bugs" so that I could look at them and see if I can handle them? You are the best jud

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: aging ebuilds with unstable keywords - how can we help?

On 27/07/06, Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem is in the system. Unless you are a developer _and_ part of the arch team you cannot do anything but file a bug and wait and wait and wait until a member of the arch team decides to test the package again for his own and mark it

Re: [gentoo-dev] pybugz - python command line interface to bugzilla

On 16/07/06, Alastair Tse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, As a little weekend project, I wrote a command line interface to bugzilla in Python that is targetted to Gentoo's bugzilla (but also generalisable to other bugzillas with a little code modification). It can do the following: You migh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs

On 07/07/06, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am aware those characteristics are quantitative and don't say anything about the quality of the distribution. However, judging after those graphs, even the worst basher will recognize that we are far from being dead. It may be a better met

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

On 03/07/06, Benedikt Böhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote: > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems > more fitting to group those packages together.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, i agree, writting and maintaining ebuilds is a hard and *time-consuming* task. So if an user can't even take the time to fix a digest, why we should support him officially?. The point is that there are lots of users who are inte

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

On 09/06/06, Edward Catmur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And what if they do know what they're doing, and what they're doing is subverting Gentoo systems en masse? You're proposing to hand out commit access to anyone who makes a case on IRC; you have no way to tell that they aren't an attacker. Th

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chris Bainbridge wrote: > There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff > actually hosted by gentoo (random example > http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and supporting a semiofficial overlay.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

On 08/06/06, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap asian poetry attempt) doesn't change

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

On 08/06/06, Matteo Azzali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts. I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay bigger than 500Kb. I can beat that, try 23MB :-/ Anyway, back to your point - yes, there are lots of bugs with patches attach

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC Maintainer-Wanted Bugs/Cleaning]

On 30/05/06, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Basically, it would be something that allowed you to "browse" the current tree of submitted ebuilds. This way users that submit something can categorize it for devs to easily look for ebuilds they may be interested in, and we can make it so we c

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

On 22/05/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and > many others have survived quite well. rpm and apt have withstood the test of time and are mature pkg managers, not

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

On 22/05/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers. Surely such decisions should be based on technical merit, and not political? The technical cost of forkin

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

On 22/05/06, Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of non-Free software[1], it is safe to assume that the package manager is Free software (aka open source). Because of this, we will never be locked-in, helpless, or under the control of an external pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On 20/05/06, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the clarification. That scheme looks fine. The master manifest will add about ~700k to the tree, but since it can be rsynced the actual bandwidth usage day to day should be reasonable. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On 20/05/06, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PMFJI, but as a user, not a security expert, I had a few thoughts that I'd like to throw in. Thanks to Patrick, he helped me to drill down some of the ideas and I present them for consideration. It's just a framework, so I will be brief Thanks for y

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On 19/05/06, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Who signs the Manifests? Why are some unsigned? Is there a single Gentoo Security Key (like I know Slackware has and some other distros to ensure the authenticity of their files)? Individual developers sign the manifests with their own gpg keys. Som

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On 19/05/06, John Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Friday 19 May 2006 08:17, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > > We do? What option to emerge enables this behaviour? RSYNC_EXCLUDES is the name, IIRC... Well, that would be incompatible with a single signature. I don't really see tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On 19/05/06, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 15:13 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > There are now several hundred gentoo developers. It is more likely > that one of them has a security lapse than cvs.gentoo.org. One is a "local" bug, the o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On 19/05/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chris Bainbridge wrote: > It is a single signature across the entire portage tree. It means that > after rsync emerge can check the signature against the retrieved tree > to validate the whole tree (or overlay). This idea h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On 19/05/06, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 10:46 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > We already trust the master cvs server admins (and they could just > replace the whole tree anyway), so what benefit does a distributed > signing system like gpg a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

The only attack most people really care about is a compromised rsync server. There is no practical way to protect against the other attacks - and at the end of the day, if a developer gets compromised it doesn't matter whether it's a gpg key or ssh key, the effect is the same. The discussion about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

On 05/05/06, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Philip Webb wrote: > 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, >> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, >> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining >> about how our QA su

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union

On 30/04/06, Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:50:45AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > While we're posting useful links, here's another one from the cairo > project on switching from CVS to some distributed SCM: All this talk about switching to a more pow

Re: [gentoo-dev] Having fun with compression

On 30/04/06, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun: If you already have an old copy of the distfile it's much more bandwidth efficient to trans

Re: [gentoo-dev] Purpose of USE=doc

On 25/04/06, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello here, > > I'd like to see some clarification of intended doc use flag usage, so > that we wouldn't force users to download/install 40+ megs of docs for a > ~3 meg package, with the only reason being that USE=doc is for developer > documentat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-util/cccc

On 18/04/06, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 16:42 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > well the logical thing would be to go to bugzilla and search for "" ... > > and guess what ? no more open bug reports > > I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-util/cccc

On 15/04/06, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I still say it should be removed in 30 days. > > I agree. There is a lot of stuff that suffers from being unmaintained, > and I think we should strive towards cleaning that up. It helps no one > if there isn

Re: [gentoo-dev] When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

On 04/04/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > usable state-, KDE 3.5.1 was a bit better but stills some patches were > needed, KDE 3.5.2 is in portage since less than a month, and already had a > few patches with revbumps to few memleaks and crashes, a new kdelibs revbump > is

Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay support current proposal?

On 27/03/06, Ryan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Have you followed the threads in the past regarding using other > > version control systems for portage? Some devs have done benchmarks > > and found that there are blocking issues with subversion, p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support

On 23/03/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:40 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > > If the software a user wants is in an overlay, then the user will be > > forced to install the overlay. > > It shouldn't be in the overlay, is I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Official overlay support

On 23/03/06, Rumen Yotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Using a remote overlays is rather simple, just do "emerge layman". > Read the einfo and then "man layman". > It works flawlessly, just tested this with one remote overlay. > Beside that "man layman" explains pretty much of it's innerwork.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support

On 23/03/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:41 +, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > Your nightmare scenario seems unavoidable. Enabling per-overlay bug > > tracking doesn't stop users posting bugs in bugzilla. It just causes > > confusion for users, because the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support

On 23/03/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Developers are already using overlays, and some teams (including ones > I've been involved in) are actively and successfully using them to > help with recruitment and to provide a way to access ebuilds that > would otherwise still be rotting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support

On 23/03/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The vision I have for overlays.g.o is one official home for all Gentoo > > > overlays run by projects and by individual Gentoo devs. I see the > > Also for Arch/Herd Testers? The discussion seems to have moved from the original "how can

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19: Gentoo Stable Portage Tree -- ideas

On 06/01/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably better to iron out what y'all actually need and what the dev > community is willing to put up with. > > Eg, would do some research into it, read the archives from last few > wars over it, in general find (and address) the issues that

Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites for dev-libs/btparse

On 31/12/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's > - broken Works for me, and I can't see any bugs in bugzilla? > - dead upstream Not true, mailing list is active, last post Dec 27th, and the author responds to emails. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

On 19/12/05, Peter Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or maybe not, I dunno. The point being I don't think we should immediately > write off > any of the distributed SCMs without pondering how they might make a > difference or be usable. It would be very useful for people who aren't devs b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-video/dvdrip

On 08/12/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another package is taking a long long way that goes out of portage. > I'm running out of openings for these mails, you know? > > Alternative dvd-ripping software is present in portage, starting from mencoder > and its frontends, an

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

On 03/10/05, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd prefer if the patch was left out for amd64 users, or included via a > use flag. reiser4 isn't yet stable or proven on amd64. A quick search found this quote: "The topic in channel #gentoo-amd64 on irc.freenode.net has said "Reiser4 is evil"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

On 02/10/05, Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/2/05, Chris Bainbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 02/10/05, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Chris Bainbridge wrote: > > > > On 02/10/05, R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

On 02/10/05, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Bainbridge wrote: > > On 02/10/05, R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but > >>whatever stirs your pot. ;P > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

On 02/10/05, R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The grub maintainer's stance was that reiser 4 support would not be > included in grub until it was included in gentoo-sources, not any kernel > in portage. The grub maintainer has been AWOL for the last 9 months or > so however, so i guess it's now

[gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

Hi, I was wondering if there's any chance of having the reiser4 patch for grub (or even the whole grub-reiser4 distfile) added to the ebuild. There are various bugs where people have posted patches for 0.96x ebuilds which were never added and the bugs have been WONTFIXed or left dangling. I've bee

[gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

Subject says it all - is there any reason why 3.4.4 installs either gcc-3.3* or libstdc++-v3 built with gcc-3.3? Is it possible to compile a native 3.4 system without the old gcc if I don't need binary compatibility? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: qt.eclass

On 30/06/05, Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-30-06 at 15:09 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote: > > > > I'm sorry, yes, that's what I do in this case. > > > > Also, the eclass is in portage if anyone is so inclined to see how harmless > > it > > really i > > Why not just use =qt-3.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keys and words: ways to fail your team

On 28/06/05, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Johanson wrote: > > > it wasn't even *him* who introduced the > >keywords in question, he did a by the book bump moving arch -> ~arch for > >all arches listed in keywords. > > > Book in question sort of presumes that ones wh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Panda 3D licensing issues

On 17/06/05, Joshua Baergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "An electronic copy of the source code for all modifications > made to the Software are to be forwarded to Licensor at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] within 90 days of the date of the > modifications." > > I didn't notice anything in the license tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about licenses

On 16/06/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:12:30 +0200 > Torsten Veller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok, here is a license: > > I couldn't decide if this one is present already. > > All i have checked are slightl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

On 15/06/05, Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:04:39AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > > What about all these /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* files? Are they > > > > necessary if all licenses are in licenses/ ? > > > See first point. You want to read the lic

Re: [gentoo-dev] i have an idea ! (erescue)

I've been in this position more than once, and had to go through the bootcd+binaries (thanks to http://dev.gentoo.org/~avenj/bins/) restore. Argh. I've often thought that atomic updates and rollback within portage would be useful - maybe it could just be done as a layer over subversion for Gentoo u