01.08.2013 21:50, Pacho Ramos пишет:
> El jue, 01-08-2013 a las 14:05 +0400, Sergey Popov escribió:
> [...]
>> Some cluster things in lvm does not work in mine setup with shared
>> builds. Only USE="static static-libs" is only working combination.
>> Something related with cluster file locking libr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/08/13 04:17 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 30/07/13 04:42 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> cryptsetup upstream installed minimal Gentoo setup and tested our
>> handling of 'static' and was disappointed finding them broken
>
>> https://bugs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/07/13 04:42 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> cryptsetup upstream installed minimal Gentoo setup and tested our
> handling of 'static' and was disappointed finding them broken
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438998 - RESO/TEST -
> c
Picked random mail from this thread.
So, I've seen many people raising intrest in keeping IUSE="static" in
cryptsetup and lvm2 but I haven't really seen anyone working on it yet,
except _AxS_ committed one patch but that isn't enough.
Take eg. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472692#c4
Mike Gilbert posted on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:32:10 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Steven J. Long posted...
>>> you only really need an initramfs if [...]
>>
>> Or, unfortunately, for root on mult-device btrfs, since the usual
>> kernel
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> It's funny how you always discuss those two options and consistently fail to
> mention
> the one option that allows people who never needed an initramfs before to
> continue
> without one, and still use udev in line with upstream requiremen
Steven J. Long posted on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:31:08 +0100 as excerpted:
> As Rich said, lvm doesn't link outside rootfs so it's not an issue: you
> only really need an initramfs if rootfs is on lvm/encrypted/raid, or you
> need udev to get through localmount.
Or, unfortunately, for root on mult-de
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> How the /usr in other partition ended finally then? I though that, since
> there are a lot of things in / that rely in others in /usr, people were
> supposed to either use initramfs or busybox to get /usr mounted
As Rich said, lvm doesn't link outside rootfs so it's not an iss
On 01/08/13 04:48, William Hubbs wrote:
> I would rather not carry distro-specific patches forever to support
> something like this, so please forward your patches upstream.
The code is in a public git, it is even not written by me, anybody can
forward it to upstream...
lu
On 01/08/13 23:53, Michał Górny wrote:
> That would be a lot of effort if upstream doesn't accept it and we end
> up patching it all the way...
kmod isn't complex and probably could be made even a bit more compact,
considering also the pace of its development and the kind of changes in
the last mo
Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 23:03:11
Luca Barbato napisał(a):
> On 01/08/13 19:46, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 01-08-2013 a las 18:11 +0200, Luca Barbato escribió:
> >> On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> So esystemd and ekmod now?
> >>
> >> You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a
On 01/08/13 19:54, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> still, first the patch goes upstream and after upstream review and
> commit to git it goes in tree otherwise we opt to the fallback and
> disable udev from lvm2/cryptsetup when USE=static is enabled (like
> cryptsetup upstream suggested to me) gentoo-spe
On 01/08/13 19:46, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 01-08-2013 a las 18:11 +0200, Luca Barbato escribió:
>> On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> So esystemd and ekmod now?
>>
>> You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a jumble of bad and
>> interesting ideas not so soundly implemented, I do n
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 07:36:12PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 13:32:28
> Rich Freeman napisał(a):
>
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 17:17:35
> > > Luca Barbato napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> On 01/08/13 17:04, William
On 01/08/13 19:11, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote:
So esystemd and ekmod now?
You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a jumble of bad and
interesting ideas not so soundly implemented, I do not have much time or
will to play with that thing.
kmod on the other han
El jue, 01-08-2013 a las 14:05 +0400, Sergey Popov escribió:
[...]
> Some cluster things in lvm does not work in mine setup with shared
> builds. Only USE="static static-libs" is only working combination.
> Something related with cluster file locking library - it does not load
> if it is build shar
El jue, 01-08-2013 a las 18:11 +0200, Luca Barbato escribió:
> On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote:
> > So esystemd and ekmod now?
>
> You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a jumble of bad and
> interesting ideas not so soundly implemented, I do not have much time or
> will to play with th
Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 13:32:28
Rich Freeman napisał(a):
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 17:17:35
> > Luca Barbato napisał(a):
> >
> >> On 01/08/13 17:04, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> > There is a hack in our udev and kmod ebuilds that makes it
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 17:17:35
> Luca Barbato napisał(a):
>
>> On 01/08/13 17:04, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > There is a hack in our udev and kmod ebuilds that makes it possible to
>> > build the static libraries, but I think we should remov
On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote:
> So esystemd and ekmod now?
You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a jumble of bad and
interesting ideas not so soundly implemented, I do not have much time or
will to play with that thing.
kmod on the other hand had a pressing issue and getting it fix
Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 17:17:35
Luca Barbato napisał(a):
> On 01/08/13 17:04, William Hubbs wrote:
> > There is a hack in our udev and kmod ebuilds that makes it possible to
> > build the static libraries, but I think we should remove that hack since
> > upstream bans building them.
>
> linkin
On 01/08/13 17:04, William Hubbs wrote:
> There is a hack in our udev and kmod ebuilds that makes it possible to
> build the static libraries, but I think we should remove that hack since
> upstream bans building them.
linking statically makes the problem apparent, I guess isn't that wise
hiding i
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 06:01:50AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > If we want to continue supporting this, it will probably require custom
> > patches to udev, and kmod. Then we will have to make sure none of that
> > breaks systemd.
>
> See
01.08.2013 01:01, Pacho Ramos пишет:
> El mié, 31-07-2013 a las 19:42 +, Robin H. Johnson escribió:
>> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
>> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
>> static builds.
>>
>
> But, what is requir
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> If we want to continue supporting this, it will probably require custom
> patches to udev, and kmod. Then we will have to make sure none of that
> breaks systemd.
Seems like the simpler solution is to just have a dep on -static
lvm/cryptset
El mié, 31-07-2013 a las 22:32 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Honestly, I don't think maintainers should be asked to justify
> > features unless they're actually causing some kind of conflict.
> >
> > If Robin wants to support USE
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:32:56PM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Honestly, I don't think maintainers should be asked to justify
> > features unless they're actually causing some kind of conflict.
> >
> > If Robin wants to support US
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:22:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 01/08/13 04:03, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
> >> go and look at fixing them, because I'd pref
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Honestly, I don't think maintainers should be asked to justify
> features unless they're actually causing some kind of conflict.
>
> If Robin wants to support USE=static for lvm2, he can do so. If it
> somehow caused problems with other pac
On 01/08/13 04:03, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
>> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
>> static builds.
>
> Robin,
>
> I'm cu
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
>> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
>> static builds.
>
> I'm
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
> static builds.
Robin,
I'm curious what the use case for keeping them as static bu
El mié, 31-07-2013 a las 19:42 +, Robin H. Johnson escribió:
> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
> static builds.
>
But, what is requiring it?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?i
As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
static builds.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:07:39PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 30-07-2013 a las 11:42 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> > On 29/07
El mar, 30-07-2013 a las 11:42 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 29/07/13 23:57, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > As discussed at:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478476
> >
> > Upstream is dropping static libs from udev and, then, sys-apps/udev is
> > currently reverting that c
On 29/07/13 23:57, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
As discussed at:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478476
Upstream is dropping static libs from udev and, then, sys-apps/udev is
currently reverting that commit downstream (even if upstream says some
problems could appear in the future as nobody
36 matches
Mail list logo
