On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:40:23 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I suggest
> looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a lightweight
> server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead of udev, and
> some other mdev substitut
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/12/11 05:40, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I
> suggest looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a
> lightweight server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/12/11 02:44, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:52:42 +0100 Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>
>> Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about
>> pngcrush and what was discussed there. It is getting a little
>> bit of a habit t
+# Michael Sterrett (12 Oct 2011)
+# Upstream has moved to commercial development and
+# the latest version doesn't work with newer allegro.
+# Masked for removal on 2011
+# bug #369271
+games-roguelike/fargoal
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote
> You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in
> Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use,
> remerge busybox. You must be sure to be using busybox-1.92.2 or later
> for bug #83301
> Goodbye desktop users then.
>
> We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
> required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
always had sys-apps/hal and sys-apps/dbus in /etc/portage/package.mas
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:05:15PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> Are you aware of the simple linuxrc approach that I suggested here?
>
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml
Thanks for the pointer. I've got a spare box kicking around that I'll
try this on
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a
> Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in
> Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions.
We should note that RedHat is al
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 23:10 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 10:59 PM, Graham Murray wrote:
> > Zac Medico writes:
> >
> >> On 10/11/2011 10:28 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>> Francisco raised a possibly valid point in his original message: though
> >>> packages may not be currently used fo
On 10/12/2011 04:44 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:52:42 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about pngcrush
>> and what was discussed there. It is getting a little bit of a habit to
>> escalate minor problems to flames in Gentoo.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> That's probably why there's no mention in the docs other than the portage
> manpage. Now that we have swift back, he's applying some much needed
> attention to the docs tree and its coming back into shape. =:^)
I definitely a
On 10/12/2011 07:10 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That leads me to another concern. The defaults should be the safe
> options, and the options should be to make the actions less safe.
>
> In my thinking the most conservative options right now are either
> emerge -uDN world or emerge -uDN --with-bdeps
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> Goodbye desktop users then.
>>
>> We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
>> required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
> always ha
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:09:49 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> > Goodbye desktop users then.
> >
> > We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
> > required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> Goodbye desktop users then.
>>
>> We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
>> required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
> always ha
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
> to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to
impose their deep integration, tight coupling
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
>> to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
>
> Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS
On Sunday 02 October 2011 16:40:18 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
> ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch
> systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because
> of this.
yes
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:26:12 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a
> > Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in
> > Redhat's direction. Our community
On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
> > - The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now part of the toolchain
> > eclass, so
> >
> > doesn't need to be ran by users anymore
>
> Moreover, that should on
В Втр, 11/10/2011 в 19:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> > Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not).
> > Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17
> > Oct" and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where
> > QA should voice
On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
>> readability. Simple example:
>>
>> # bug #123456, foo, bar
>> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch
>> # bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah
>> epatch "${FILES
On Saturday 08 October 2011 18:57:23 James Cloos wrote:
> > "SV" == Sven Vermeulen writes:
> SV> - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds
> SV> from that version onwards should not be needed
>
> That is not generally true.
>
> I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:19:25 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
> >> readability. Simple example:
> >>
> >> # bug #123456, foo, bar
> >> epatch "${FILESDIR
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
>> > - The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now part of the toolchain
>> > eclass, so
>> >
>> > doesn't
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:38:47 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> >> Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
> >> > - The fix_libtool_files.sh command
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:19:25 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
>> > Michał Górny wrote:
>> >> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
>> >> readability. Simple exam
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote:
> If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \
admittedly, i hit this every once in a while, and with all the "|| die" being
implicit, it doesn't get caught right away. fortunately latest portage will
issue a QA war
2011/10/12 Mike Frysinger :
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote:
>> If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \
>
> admittedly, i hit this every once in a while, and with all the "|| die" being
> implicit, it doesn't get caught right away. fortunately
Hmm for the command-not-found, it should be fatal not just warning I suppose.
I was not even aware of this fancy portage feature :)
Tom
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:57:45 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2011/10/12 Mike Frysinger:
> > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote:
> >> If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \
> >
> > admittedly, i hit this every once in a while, and with all the "|| d
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post.
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it,
then it is obviously not common.
>> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or
>> announcement.
> well, it shouldn't
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 17:42:47 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post.
>
> If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it,
> then it is obviously not common.
you're mixing "common"
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
>
> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree
> with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph.
The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:09:24AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote
>
> > You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in
> > Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use,
> > remerge busybox
On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
>>
>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree
>> with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
>>>
>>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree
>>> with
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:27:41 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> >> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
> >
> > by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the
> > tree with a depend on versions that i'm now removing br
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:58:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> >>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
> >>
> >> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the
> >>
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:26:12 -0400 as excerpted:
> My concern with something like dropping udev is that it would make us
> different from every other desktop distro out there. I'm not aware of
> any distro packaging Gnome/KDE without udev. Not having Redhat's
> billions to me
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
> `apt-get upgrade`? If we hide the new defaults behind a target like
> --upgrade, rather than change the defaults globally, then it allows
> people's existing scripted and ha
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Thus, the point I'd make and that I believe you were making is not that
> Gentoo can't be different, or we'd obviously be doing a binary distro
> like everyone else, but that we pick the differences which we value
> enough to
Zac Medico posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:09:56 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 10/12/2011 07:10 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> The defaults should be [safe] and the options should [flexibly
>> allow less safety where judged necessary].
>>
>> In my thinking the most conservative options right now are either
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
> `apt-get upgrade`?
isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed`
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
>> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
>> `apt-get upgrade`?
>
> isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed`
Well, you'd
On 10/13/2011 03:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:58:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>>> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you c
On 10/13/2011 03:10 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>>> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you changed
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 23:26:28 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
> >> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
> >> `apt-get upgrade`?
> >
> > isn't that alre
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 14:50:27 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)
> This can be inconvenient since security issues fixed in those left over
> packages won't be applied properly.
`glsa-check -f affected`. i thought there was talk of an automatic @security
set at some point, but not s
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:26:28 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger
> wrote:
>> isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade
>> @installed`
>
> Well, you'd arguably at least need a -N in there.
Indeed.
> Also, this doesn't wor
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:20:23 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
> > How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
> > `apt-get upgrade`?
>
> isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade
> @installed` -mike
On Thursday 13 October 2011 01:33:07 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:20:23 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
> > > How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
> > > `apt-get upgrade`?
> >
> > isn't that alr
52 matches
Mail list logo
