On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
> you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and
> more work to delay things to be implemented.
I still haven't seen a clear description of exactly w
On 21/06/12 08:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:43:36 +0200
> Justin wrote:
>> On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
>>> Richard Yao wrote:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of p
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
> > you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and
> > more work to delay things
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:24:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:11:33 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
> > On 06/20/2012 07:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Please read the rationale. Again. The whole thing. Three times.
> >
> > Please read my suggestions. Again. The whole thing. Thre
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:29:49 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:24:33 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:11:33 +0200
> > hasufell wrote:
> > > On 06/20/2012 07:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Please read the rationale. Again. The whole thing. Three times
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:30:24 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:29:49 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:24:33 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:11:33 +0200
> > > hasufell wrote:
> > > > On 06/20/2012 07:07 PM, Michał Górny wro
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer
> EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't
> know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need also a
> GLEP and a PMS diff, also the
On 06/21/2012 10:37 AM, Ben de Groot (yngwin) wrote:
yngwin 12/06/21 07:37:15
Modified: lightdm-1.2.2-r2.ebuild ChangeLog
Log:
Re-tidy. Restore glib slot. Drop unnecessary gobject-introspection minimal
version (there is nothing lower in tree). Restore useful comments.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:42:36 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > > You just volunteered to write portage patches. Cheers.
> >
> > Both were already implemented in Paludis, if you're looking for a
> > reference implementation to try it out. There are also examples of
> > use of SDEPEND in the old kdebui
Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:16:23 -0400 as excerpted:
> 3. How does getting a x86 system to boot differ from getting a MIPS
> system or ARM system to boot? Does it only work because the vendors made
> it work or is x86 fundamentally harder?
I can answer this one. x86 is harder at t
Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao wrote:
>>> POSIX Shell compliance
>>
>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and can't
>> easily be made
On 21 June 2012 15:39, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 10:37 AM, Ben de Groot (yngwin) wrote:
>>
>> yngwin 12/06/21 07:37:15
>>
>> Modified: lightdm-1.2.2-r2.ebuild ChangeLog
>> Log:
>> Re-tidy. Restore glib slot. Drop unnecessary gobject-introspection
>> minimal vers
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:41:23 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:42:36 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > You just volunteered to write portage patches. Cheers.
> > >
> > > Both were already implemented in Paludis, if you're looking for a
> > > reference implementation to try
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:54:19 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > And since when was "Implemented in Portage" a requirement for an
> > EAPI feature?
>
> Remember EAPI4 and features which had reference implementation not
> in portage?
Actually, yes, since that was "most of them". Nearly all of them got
On 06/21/2012 11:42 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
Please don't fix things that aren't broken.
ditto :)
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao wrote:
POSIX Shell compliance
>>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon b
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> > Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
>> > you asked for what he sent some days ago
On 06/21/2012 04:08 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:16:23 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> 3. How does getting a x86 system to boot differ from getting a MIPS
>> system or ARM system to boot? Does it only work because the vendors made
>> it work or is x86 fundamentally harder
On 21 June 2012 05:33, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
[...]
>> POSIX Shell compliance
>> There has been a great deal of work done to give the user full control
>> of what is on his system and there is more that w
On 06/21/12 15:25, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago,
>>> you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you requ
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:15:02 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer
> > EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me)
> > don't know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need
> > also a GLEP and a PMS diff
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> There is this vague idea that you can just propose something; get
> consensus on the ML, everyone goes to implement it, and then it works
> just as designed. That is usually called the 'waterfall' model and its
> really hard to do correctly.
>
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 17:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Then there are ebuilds that don't call eautoreconf, in the first
> > place. Should we require that all of them inherit autotools now,
> just
> > for the unlikely case that user patches could be applied?
>
> If the aim is to provide a
Dear all,
according to "git blame", this is the distribution of authorship across the
current git master of the pms tex source.
2 Pierre-Yves Aillet
5 Fernando J. Pereda
6 Mark Loeser
7 Richard Brown
8 Thomas Anderson
25 NotCommittedYet (???)
27 Bo Ørsted An
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
> done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really
> thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work...
No, but paved the way
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 09:24 +0200, justin wrote:
> Won't it be a good thing, if you instead of showing all of us, that
> you
> can tell where people fail to present something in the right way, help
> and guide them to write the necessary things like PMS patches, GLEPs
> etc., so that we can proceed
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:04:41 -0500
Homer Parker wrote:
> Damnit, let the user shoot themself in the foot but let them
> learn from it. Remember back in the day when you had no clue? You
> learned from it. You can only protect them so much. If they want to
> use custom patches then they need
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:11:27 -0500
Homer Parker wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
> > done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really
> > thought through or understood. As you
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:14:49 -0500
Homer Parker wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 09:24 +0200, justin wrote:
> > Won't it be a good thing, if you instead of showing all of us, that
> > you
> > can tell where people fail to present something in the right way,
> > help and guide them to write the neces
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:42:11 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> > And users might
> > still have older gobject-introspection installed, with nothing
> > forcing the upgrade now.
>
> Regular maintenance should take care of that. We are not in the
> habit of specifying minimal versions for all dependencie
> > Dear all,
> > according to "git blame", this is the distribution of authorship
> > across the current git master of the pms tex source.
>
> Not that I particularly mind either way, but your stats are way off due
> to reformatting. If you just use "git blame", someone who changes a \t
> to a \e
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:46:39 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> > Not that I particularly mind either way, but your stats are way off
> > due to reformatting. If you just use "git blame", someone who
> > changes a \t to a \em in a paragraph gets measured as writing that
> > line and every line in
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:11:27 -0500
> Homer Parker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
> > > done as a series of random changes to
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:25 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:04:41 -0500
> Homer Parker wrote:
> > Damnit, let the user shoot themself in the foot but let them
> > learn from it. Remember back in the day when you had no clue? You
> > learned from it. You can only protect
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500
Homer Parker wrote:
> > And what did Gentoo get out of it?
> >
> > What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing
> > things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of
> > those changes were or why they were done. The end re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/06/12 05:33 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 04:08 AM, Duncan wrote:
>> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:16:23 -0400 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> 3. How does getting a x86 system to boot differ from getting a
>>> MIPS system or ARM s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/21/2012 11:00 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about
>> floppy drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa
>> devices, pci devices and pci express drives, etcetera, because
>>
On 2012.06.21 16:05, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 11:00 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about
> >> floppy drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa
> >> devices, pci devices and pci express drives, etcetera, because
> >>
Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form.
Just a couple of minor points/nitpicks:
1) If an installed package has both IUSE_RUNTIME and REQUIRED_USE,
should REQUIRED_USE be re-verified:
a) for every dep resolution
b) when the package is involved
Roy Bamford wrote:
> > > I take it the above statement is based on the kernel being
> > > directly placed within the BIOS/firmware/nvram on the board,
This is sometimes called Linux-as-bootloader (LAB/lab for short) in
the coreboot project.
> > > such that you couldn't boot anything else but tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/06/12 03:05 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form.
>
> Just a couple of minor points/nitpicks:
>
> [ Snip! ]
>
> 2) It's not forbidden for package A to dep
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:05:46 +0100
David Leverton wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form.
>
> Just a couple of minor points/nitpicks:
>
> 1) If an installed package has both IUSE_RUNTIME and REQUIRED_USE,
> should REQUIRED_USE
Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:05:46 +0100
David Leverton wrote:
1) If an installed package has both IUSE_RUNTIME and REQUIRED_USE,
should REQUIRED_USE be re-verified:
a) for every dep resolution
b) when the package is involved in the resolution for some other
reason (not necessari
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500
> Homer Parker wrote:
> > > And what did Gentoo get out of it?
> > >
> > > What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing
> > > things until things worked, and ending up not knowing
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:26:26 +0100
David Leverton wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:05:46 +0100
> > David Leverton wrote:
> >> 1) If an installed package has both IUSE_RUNTIME and REQUIRED_USE,
> >> should REQUIRED_USE be re-verified:
> >>
> >> a) for every dep resolution
>
Just a short note as it seems some confusion arises lately:
Ciaran McCreesh is not a Gentoo dev and his words don't represent
the position of Gentoo development team.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Michał Górny wrote:
No, of course not. Otherwise, every package manager run would
practically require it to re-validate all packages in the tree
(possibly not only installed ones).
Package manager must ensure the flags are valid when package is
in the graph. I would think of IUSE_RUNTIME as a la
On 06/17/12 at 12:02AM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On 06/16/12 at 11:39AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > app-admin/ulogd
> > app-arch/pdv
> >
> >
> >
> > Feel free to get them
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'll take app-admin/ulogd.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Ruppert
> Role: Gent
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Homer Parker wrote:
>
> In the beginning there was a method...
>
> And now it needs revamped.. I see no problem with re-investigating the
> problem to make it better/easier/whatever.
>
++
I for one am happy to have had a working amd64 system for the
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Roy Bamford wrote:
>
>> So when you build a dud kernel and flash your BIOS with it, and we
>> all build the odd dud, your motherboard is bricked.
>
> Any firmware modification has potential to brick, and shouldn't be
> done unless you are comfo
On 06/21/2012 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Roy Bamford wrote:
>>
>>> So when you build a dud kernel and flash your BIOS with it, and we
>>> all build the odd dud, your motherboard is bricked.
>>
>> Any firmware modification has potential to
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao wrote:
>
POSIX Shell compliance
>>>
>>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavil
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 23:01 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Just a short note as it seems some confusion arises lately:
>
> Ciaran McCreesh is not a Gentoo dev and his words don't represent
> the position of Gentoo development team.
>
Amen.
--
Homer Parker
signature.asc
Description: T
Amen to that too, but can you post the actual comments that he said ?
2012/6/21 Homer Parker
> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 23:01 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Just a short note as it seems some confusion arises lately:
> >
> > Ciaran McCreesh is not a Gentoo dev and his words don't represent
> > th
On 06/21/2012 02:32 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> But in the current form, the spec doesn't allow passing
>> IUSE_RUNTIME flags to has_version() so we're on the safe side :P.
>
> True. Do we want to keep it that restrictive?
Shouldn't has_version allow any atom that would be
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Sylvain Alain wrote:
> Amen to that too, but can you post the actual comments that he said ?
>
>
>
> 2012/6/21 Homer Parker
>>
>> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 23:01 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > Just a short note as it seems some confusion arises lately:
>> >
>> > Ciar
Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:33:22 -0400 as excerpted:
> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about floppy
> drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa devices, pci
> devices and pci express drives, etcetera, because those live on buses,
> which the ke
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:30:24 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:29:49 +0200
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:24:33 +0100
>> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:11:33 +0200
>> > >
On 06/22/2012 01:02 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:33:22 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about floppy
>> drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa devices, pci
>> devices and pci express drives, etcetera
Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:38:17 -0400 as excerpted:
> Would you (or someone else) elaborate on the specific features of bash
> that people find attractive?
For me (not a gentoo dev), in simplest terms it's just that I don't like
having to keep track of what's a bashism and what's
On 06/22/2012 01:10 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 01:02 AM, Duncan wrote:
>> Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:33:22 -0400 as excerpted:
>>
>>> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about floppy
>>> drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa devices,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:38:17 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> > Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
> >
> >> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
> >>> wrote:
> >
>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:32:34 +0100
David Leverton wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > No, of course not. Otherwise, every package manager run would
> > practically require it to re-validate all packages in the tree
> > (possibly not only installed ones).
> >
> > Package manager must ensure the flags
On 22 June 2012 08:38, Richard Yao wrote:
> Would you (or someone else) elaborate on the specific features of bash
> that people find attractive?
For me, it is mostly [[ ]] tests, arrays and brace expansion.
The += operator is also very nice to have.
--
Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Ge
The Reg has a story on this from a blog post by Red Hat. It may be worth a
read:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/18/windows_8_linux_secure_boot/
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:01:15 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Just a short note as it seems some confusion arises lately:
>
> Ciaran McCreesh is not a Gentoo dev and his words don't represent
> the position of Gentoo development team.
Right. Doesn't that make me more important than you?
https://lwn.
On 06/21/2012 11:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:32:34 +0100
> David Leverton wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> But in the current form, the spec doesn't allow passing
>>> IUSE_RUNTIME flags to has_version() so we're on the safe side :P.
>>
>> True. Do we want to keep it th
67 matches
Mail list logo
