Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Solving the problem of huge number of wrong LICENSES=*GPL-[23]

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:09:41 AM EDT Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 26/08/2018 12:53, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > The common issue here is that upstream COPYING files really do only > > talk about one of the versions. And then you get to validate or source > > files to be sure that they do have a

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Friday, January 6, 2017 5:27:24 PM EST Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:23:02 -0500 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > I tend to be firmly in the camp that a package shouldn't be removed > > unless there is evidence of a serious bug (and that includes things > > blocking other Gentoo packa

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:23:02 AM EST Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > For security's sake, even mature software needs, at minimum, routine > > auditing. Unless someone's doing that work, the package should be > >

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:24:19 AM EST Damien LEVAC wrote: > On 01/03/2017 09:14 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:05:10 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:00:52 +0700 (+07) > >> > >> gro...@gentoo.org wrote: &

Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:05:10 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:00:52 +0700 (+07) > > gro...@gentoo.org wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, Brian Evans wrote: > > > IMO, this one should be given last-rites as upstream is dead and it > > > heavily depends on wireless-tools and WE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On Friday, December 02, 2016 02:10:27 PM Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being > started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different projects > that I've forgotten who was working on most of them. > > I know that Toralf i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

On Thursday, December 01, 2016 10:13:17 PM Andrey Utkin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:50:42PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote: [snip] > > Thanks for bringing this to attention. It's somewhat related to another > > discussion we've been having about copyright, and it may be worth > > considerin

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

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 03:25:21 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:08:30 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > > IMHO it is something that should be a part of LSB. If not POSIX in > > > general. One cannot really change the past or cu

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

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 01:41:24 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:22:07 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > If Gentoo wants to do it internally, that's one thing. > > This list is about Gentoo internal things Here, let me bring up a b

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

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 04:49:24 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:40:20 AM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > Highly detailed lists like that--used as a broad standard--are a bad idea. > > They represent a single synchronization point that every

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

On Monday, November 28, 2016 02:39:48 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Monday, November 28, 2016 10:42:54 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: > > Generally speaking as a fellow who maintained thousands of systems (many > > of > > which ran various operating systems.) > > > > You cannot rely on all OS v

Re: [gentoo-dev] rsync.gentoo.org rsync modules: ChangeLogs dropped from gentoo-portage

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 05:59:50 AM Doug Freed wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 01:11:48 + > > > > So are we going to have a broken rsync tree for 4 days due to the manifest > > validation failing on every package, resulting in no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 09:21:06 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are > > defined, how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 11:14:53 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote > > > >> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > >> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated > >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:37:28 AM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400 > > > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:52:52 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > >>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based > >>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Package up for grabs: skencil

On Friday, September 16, 2016 09:54:42 PM Duncan wrote: > Kristian Fiskerstrand posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:58:22 +0200 as > > excerpted: > > On 09/16/2016 02:31 PM, Hanno Böck wrote: > >> media-gfx/skencil is a python-written vector graphics tool. It was once > >> popular before inkscape became

[gentoo-dev] Duplicate bug reports, resolution status and Bug 426262

(First, I don't care how the autoconf.in->autoconf.ac migration is handled at a code level. This isn't about that. I'd appreciate if that were largely handled in a separate thread. This (I think) is about policy around bug reporting.) Timeline: 1) *Bug 426262*

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ] >> So why don't we add something to pack

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

On 05/22/2013 08:53 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > > [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ] > > So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a > package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets > everyone opt-in, an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/21/2013 10:02 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:57:53 -0400 > Michael Mol wrote: >> On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC) >>> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> B

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack. > > Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using > it without risk of brea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/20/2013 11:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: [snip] >> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit >> files is pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, >> but that seems like a hack instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/18/2013 03:23 PM, Carlos Silva wrote: > Is the real problem just the god damn unit/init files?! Damn, who cares > about 2KiB files in the age of GiBs?! You can install 1000 of them that > it will only take 2MiB of storage, so please, quit complaining about this. Practically speaking, I think

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC supporting systemd units

On 05/08/2013 04:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michael Mol schrieb: >>> Sounds like a great feature. A crashed process is a buggy one, and I >>> would want to investigate said program before I relaunched it, and >>> not have it automatically relaunc

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC supporting systemd units

On 05/08/2013 03:18 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:55:35 +0200 > Ambroz Bizjak wrote: > >>> Init.d scripts are programs - they could probably do just about >>> anything. >> >> They couldn't monitor a process and restart it when it crashes, as >> specified by the restart options

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote: >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs abou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/08/2013 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Ben de Groot schrieb: >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote: >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about >>> new systemd unit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages using -Werror

On 05/03/2013 09:46 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2013 16:06:01 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > >> Personally I've always thought -Werror is a mistake in release code, >> but was accepted practice. I've almost never actively removed it from >> packages I maintain. That will change now,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RANT: Upgrade icu and KDE at once

On 04/30/2013 01:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> The most annoying fact is, that none of this would have been necessary with >> portage 2.2, but maybe we have to wait for 2.1.11.500 before 2.2 gets >> stable... > > Actually, @preserved-rebuil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC

On Apr 26, 2013 4:59 AM, "Tobias Klausmann" wrote: > > Hi! > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > I'm still not quite sure what newnet does that oldnet doesn't, or > > why somebody felt it was necessary to make a new package (and no, > > let's not discuss that here). Whatever it is,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [OT/NIT] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 04/24/2013 07:21 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> Er, you can't be seriously suggesting we will drop repoman checks >> with the migration to git? I don't see how that would benefit anyone. > > I would argue that repoman and/or corresponding checks should be run > by a CI system

Re: [gentoo-dev] autoconf now supports multislots

On 4/17/2013 2:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:33:29 -0400 > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> but i'm super lazy, so even this manual step is annoying. as such, >> i've added USE=multislot support to autoconf (just like it is with >> binutils & gcc). > > But it's massively illegal

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Establishing Gentoo patch policy to keep our patches consistent and clean

On Apr 6, 2013 2:36 PM, "Alexandre Rostovtsev" wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 20:08 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > 2. Patches have to apply to the top directory of the source tree with > > 'patch -p1'. If patches are applied to sub-directories, necessary '-p' > > argument shall be passed to 'epa

Re: [gentoo-dev] libpng 1.6 upgrade and subslotting (and misuse of subslotting when there is also normal slotting)

On 04/05/2013 04:44 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > libpng 1.6 is in portage, but temporarily without KEYWORDS, pending on > testign and this conversion, help would be much appericiated with > converting the tree to use automatic rebuilds for the upgrade > > Because there is binary-only SLOT="1.2" of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global useflags zeroconf and avahi

On 04/01/2013 10:47 PM, Alex Xu wrote: > Kill zeroconf and use "dnssd", "upnp", "ssdp". Problem solved? I very much like the approach in principle, though. Digging briefly into Wikipedia[1], UPnP has several components: * AutoIP (IPv4LL) * SSDP (So, a separate "ssdp" USE flag may not be necessary

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt : SOLVED

On 04/01/2013 01:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 1 April 2013 16:32, Philip Webb wrote: >> 130401 Markos Chandras wrote: >>> On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb wrote: I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem. Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: sys-apps/texinfo vs @system

On 03/31/2013 06:19 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013, Duncan wrote: > >> Or maybe your intent was to either kill these deps or put them >> behind USE=doc as well? > > USE=doc doesn't look right for this, as it's normally used for large > sized documentation. Something like US

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt

On 03/29/2013 08:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 29/03/13 13:38, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> On 29/03/2013 12:29, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> One you can control, the another you can't. So still not FUD. >> >> You do not really control it any more than the kernel. The fact that me >> and you can

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo GPG key policies

On 03/14/2013 11:18 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:32:30PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: >>> As to how to accomplish this, it's either a throwaway sig, or poking the >>> agent protocol directly. >> The only trouble with that is if the ag

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo GPG key policies

On 03/14/2013 09:01 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 05:14:15PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >> If that means doing an additional signature every time something is >> going to be committed, that sounds like an overkill. If we were to do >> something radical, I'd rather be in favo

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/25/2013 12:48 PM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Matthew Thode > wrote: >> On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: >>> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right >>> now, but I believe that if I bring it up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/25/2013 06:03 AM, Duncan wrote: > Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted: > I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows focused. >> >> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused > > ... But samba is... Actually, no. That's why I've been so

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: >> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right >> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed >> here, so...) >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/24/2013 10:46 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >>>> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/24/2013 10:40 PM, Duncan wrote: > Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted: > >>> I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are >>> not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both version

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right >> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed >> here, so...) >>

[gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

(I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed here, so...) So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to enable kerberos system-wide on my server. No joy, as net-fs/nfs-utils has an

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with > > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or > > ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: > On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would >> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) >> server profiles. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] About using a CONFIGURATION (or SETUP) file under /usr/share/doc for configuration information

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/06/2013 05:36 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> >> On Jan 6, 2013 8:32 PM, "Zac Medico" > <mailto:zmed...@gentoo.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/06/2013 01:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] About using a CONFIGURATION (or SETUP) file under /usr/share/doc for configuration information

On Jan 6, 2013 8:32 PM, "Zac Medico" wrote: > > On 01/06/2013 01:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:34:59 -0600 > > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > >> On 10:26 Sat 22 Dec , Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> Hello > >>> > >>> After seeing: > >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo and Root CAs

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > Michael Mol gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman gentoo.org> wrote: >> > Speaking of which, say what you will about Mozilla's broken criteria >> > for root in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> The certificates that Gentoo distributes have at least been vouched >> for by somebody who is a part of our community, which is more than can >> be said for most of the upstream certifi

Gentoo and Github (Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...) )

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 16:42 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >>> On 27 December 2012 00:39, Kent Fredric wrote: >>> > Can we short cut the whole quiz

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 16:42 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> On 27 December 2012 00:39, Kent Fredric wrote: >> > Can we short cut the whole quiz process and have some "Inbound" repository >> > until we're full git, which people can fork/commit/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is /var/cache the right place for repositories?

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Diego Elio Pettenň wrote: > >>> /var/cache/packages/ PKGDIR > >> Maybe /var/spool/binpkgs ? > > This doesn't look right to me. /var/spool contains things like printer > queues or outgoing mail that are typically del

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is /var/cache the right place for repositories?

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > >> On 20.12.2012 19:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> The tree is a database. It belongs in /var/db/. > >> I don't see /var/db in the latest release of the Filesystem >> Hierarchy Standard: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Wordiness

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> > > My point is that you consistently write long essays that I, and > apparently most others, don't bother to read. I'm not sure if you're > aware of this. > > Someone sa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving our/portage stuff to var

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:31 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:58:11AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:25 AM, George Shapovalov wrote: >> > On Thursday 20 December 2012 09:11:39 Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >> > /var/cache/repositories/local<== the new

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving our/portage stuff to var

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Diego Elio Pettenň wrote: > >>> /var/cache/portage/distfiles >>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/gentoo >>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/{sunrise,kde,gnome,whatever,layman,grabs} >>> /var/db/portage/repositories

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving our/portage stuff to var

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 20/12/12 10:37 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >>> /var/cache/repositories/ /var/cache/repositories/gentoo <== the main portage tree /var/cache/repositories/local<== the >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] College Course in Gentoo Development

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2012.12.17 16:02, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >> On 12/17/2012 10:32 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > Give the talk on the list about attracting devs, I've should >> > probably mention that I'm teaching a College

Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 16 December 2012 16:57, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> Inspired by the number of packages being unmaintained -- why not use >> some of that bug bounty money to fix up the recruitment documentation > > Recruitment documentatiob? What does th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Using emerge-webrsync to simplify the handbook

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 11/28/2012 11:08 AM, Matthew Thode wrote: >> On 11/28/2012 09:05 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On 11/28/2012 09:17 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > We could slightly simplify the handboo

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote >> >> > Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this? >> >> See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?titl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Thomas Sachau posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:45:16 +0100 as excerpted: > >> Ben de Groot schrieb: >>> On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > - considering gentoo generally uses e-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Merging the devrel handbook into the devmanual

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:26:38 +0100 > Theo Chatzimichos wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Michael Palimaka >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > In bug #304435[1], hwoarang suggested merging the devrel handbook[2] into >> > the devmanua

Re: [gentoo-dev] Merging the devrel handbook into the devmanual

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:26:38 +0100 > Theo Chatzimichos wrote: > > +1 and btw move the devmanual in the wiki :D > > That would rather go against the original idea behind the devmanual, > which was that it was supposed to be high quality a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Dropping slotted boost

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò >> mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu>> wrote: >> >> On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote: >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Dropping slotted boost

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote: > > In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library, > > so there shouldn't be a conflict there. > > But there are shared libraries, and the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Dropping slotted boost

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote: > > > > I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean, > > I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled > > copy, b

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Dropping slotted boost

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700 > Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > > Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now > > thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is > > different from all others and no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] A news item covering PYTHON_TARGETS

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Michał Górny posted on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:45:01 +0100 as excerpted: > > > Title: PYTHON_TARGETS deployment > > [snip] > > > Lately, a new Python eclasses were deployed and the way of supporting > > multiple Python implementat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: CIA replacement

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > Responding to no one in particular, but to the sub-thread about IRC > bots: > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:32:26 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > >> On 02-10-2012 12:40:20 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> > The irker proxy was mentioned in this threa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 01/10/2012 17:51, Gregory M. Turner wrote: >> >> Anyhow, I get it: administering the vcs for a huge project such as >> Gentoo is very hard work. If I somehow gave some other impression, I'm >> sorry. Perhaps Rich and I insensitively

Re: [gentoo-dev] CIA replacement

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> I don't know to what depth this has been discussed in the past, but if >> you use git, you also get an HTTP transport, which has a useful >> feature: You could

Re: [gentoo-dev] CIA replacement

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins > wrote: >> Maybe someone with good cvs knowledge can contribute a hook for irker >> [1], so we can have #gentoo-commits flooding our irc clients again! :) > > Why exactly are we still

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to raise money for Gentoo

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Alec Warner wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Dale wrote: >>>> wbrana wrote: >>>>> Page www.g

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to raise money for Gentoo

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Dale wrote: >> wbrana wrote: >>> Page www.gentoo.org asks for donations >>> "Donate to support our development efforts." >>> Gentoo could get more money if all *.gentoo.org would contain >>> advertisements. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to raise money for Gentoo

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM, wbrana wrote: > Page www.gentoo.org asks for donations > "Donate to support our development efforts." > Gentoo could get more money if all *.gentoo.org would contain advertisements. I run a technical website with around 6k visits per day, and my experience is that

Re: [gentoo-dev] ship app-arch/pbzip2 instead of app-arch/bzip2

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Christoph Junghans wrote: > 2012/9/26 Mike Gilbert : >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn >>> wrote: >>>> Michael Mol schrieb: >>&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] ship app-arch/pbzip2 instead of app-arch/bzip2

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michael Mol schrieb: >> A few months ago, I filed bug 423651 to ask that bzip2 on the install >> media be replaced with >> pbzip2. > > If I understand correctly, pbzip2 depends on bzip2. So wh

Re: [gentoo-dev] ship app-arch/pbzip2 instead of app-arch/bzip2

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Florian Philipp wrote: > Am 26.09.2012 22:43, schrieb Matt Turner: >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >>> A few months ago, I filed bug 423651 to ask that bzip2 on the install >>> media be replaced with >>>

[gentoo-dev] ship app-arch/pbzip2 instead of app-arch/bzip2

A few months ago, I filed bug 423651 to ask that bzip2 on the install media be replaced with pbzip2. It was closed a short while later, telling me that it'd involve changing what's kept in @system, and that had to be discussed here, rather than in a bug report. Here's a detailed description of ho

Re: [gentoo-dev] vala.eclass: change vala_src_prepare behavior when USE=-vala

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200 >> Pacho Ramos wrote: >> > That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes >> > unexpectedly: as current behavior is already be

Re: [gentoo-dev] vala.eclass: change vala_src_prepare behavior when USE=-vala

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius >> > wrote: >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > >> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how >> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going >> to help us. They fit just fine into bu

Re: [gentoo-dev] The lack of maintainer causing media-video/mediatomb to be lastrited next

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Use bugzilla's search for 'mediatomb' and you will find multiple counts of > build failures the media-video@ herd is simply not capable of handling due > to lack of resources (manpower) > > So if nobody steps up, I've CCd treecleaners at bu

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 17 September 2012 20:41, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800 >> Ben de Groot wrote: >>> Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using *DEPEND. The >>> case hasn't been made yet why we need to change

Re: [gentoo-dev] EJOBS variable for EAPI 5?

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 08:58 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > So essentially what you're saying here is that it might be worthwhile > > to look into parallelism as a whole and possibly come up with a > > solution that combines 'emerge -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier >> wrote: >> >>> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach >>> consensu

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Future EAPI] src_fetch() phase function to support VCS fetching

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > As Sid Hayn raised today on #gentoo-portage, it would be useful to > finally have portage able to fetch updates from VCS-es independently > of src_unpack(). This could be used, for example, on machines > temporarily connected to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] EJOBS variable for EAPI 5? (was: [RFC] Create a JOBS variable to replace -jX in MAKEOPTS)

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:12:44AM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:45:21 +0100 >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 >> > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> > > Coming back to this old topic [1]. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Michael Mol schrieb: >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>>> >>>> The primary benefit to the policy that dev'

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when >> bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and >> eventually removed from the tree. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber wrote: [snip] >> Developers have only a limited amount of time, and this will eat into >> it. The result is likely to not be new shiny ebuilds that use the new >> EAPIs, but rather old rusty ones that still use the old EAPI but also >> which conta

Re: [gentoo-dev] remove system set?

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> Bootstrapping is an inherently curious problem. Most systems are built >> upon the systems they themselves build, but getting to that >> self-hosting state always

Re: [gentoo-dev] remove system set?

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: [snip] >> >> It is only useful for situations where people want to do something >> unusual. Some would argue that this is the only situation where >> Gentoo is useful. If I wanted a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> The limited-visibility build feature discussed a week or so ago would >> go a long way in detecting unexpressed build dependencies. > > I can't say that is a

  1   2   >