Pacho requested that to be able to warn users in GNOME packages that do
not work anymore without systemd.
---
gx86/eclass/systemd.eclass | 17 +
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/systemd.eclass b/gx86/eclass/systemd.eclass
index 166c7be..a2750d7 100644
---
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:18:13 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Pacho requested that to be able to warn users in GNOME packages that
> do not work anymore without systemd.
>
> +# @FUNCTION: systemd_is_booted
> +# @DESCRIPTION:
> +# Check whether the system was booted using systemd.
Can we have a short
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:18:13 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> +# @FUNCTION: systemd_is_booted
> +systemd_update_catalog() {
Looks like a typo :]
--
Sergei
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 11:36:12
Sergei Trofimovich napisał(a):
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:18:13 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>
> > +# @FUNCTION: systemd_is_booted
> > +systemd_update_catalog() {
>
> Looks like a typo :]
Thanks for noticing. Does anyone else feel that eclassdoc is utterly
ir
В Вс, 21/07/2013 в 10:23 +0200, Pacho Ramos пишет:
> Will remove the herd if nobody joins in a week.
I talked to hollow and we think it's worth to remove this herd.
Actually only openvz and vserver packages are in this herd and they are
maintained completely independently for a long time... I'll
Hello,
Please revbump an ebuild after changing its USE dependencies.
Using net-p2p/transmission as an example, it used to depend on
dev-qt/qtgui:4=[dbus]
however, qtgui lost the dbus useflag, so the dependency was changed to
dev-qt/qtgui:4=[dbus(+)]
without revbumping the transmi
tl;dr
Summary
Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h
have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources kernel.
Team members and arch teams (understandably) are unable to keep up with the
1-2 weekly kernel releases, and therefore will
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please revbump an ebuild after changing its USE dependencies.
>
> Using net-p2p/transmission as an example, it used to depend on
> dev-qt/qtgui:4=[dbus]
> however, qtgui lost the dbus useflag, so the dependency was changed
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
> Pacho requested that to be able to warn users in GNOME packages that
> do not work anymore without systemd.
Why is the host where the package is built required to run systemd?
Wouldn't a warning at runtime better suit the purpose?
Ulrich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/07/13 10:17 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Pacho requested that to be able to warn users in GNOME packages
>> that do not work anymore without systemd.
>
> Why is the host where the package is b
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 16:17 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Pacho requested that to be able to warn users in GNOME packages that
> > do not work anymore without systemd.
>
> Why is the host where the package is built required to run systemd?
> W
On 24/07/13 10:33 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 16:17 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>>> Pacho requested that to be able to warn users in GNOME packages that
>>> do not work anymore without systemd.
>>
>> Why is the host wh
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please revbump an ebuild after changing its USE dependencies.
> >
> > Using net-p2p/transmission as an example, it used to depend on
> > dev-qt/qtgui:4=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/07/13 10:33 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>
> Runtime warnings would require non-trivial patching of the
> packages in question, so it's not a realistic alternative.
>
It should be done anyways, though, unless the runtime errors
themselves
On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> Actually, Portage normally handles this situation gracefully by using
>> the dependencies from the portage tree instead of vdb. However, in the
>> case of a slot-operator dep, it always uses
Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 16:17:47
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Pacho requested that to be able to warn users in GNOME packages that
> > do not work anymore without systemd.
>
> Why is the host where the package is built required to run system
On 24/07/13 01:37 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Mike Pagano wrote:
>> Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h
>> have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources
>> kernel.
>> Team members and arch teams (understandably) are unable to keep up
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Alex Xu wrote:
> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages
> and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
++
Stable should mean something, and those who understand the tradeoffs
can accept unstable packages where needed (far more ea
Mike Pagano wrote:
> Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h
> have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources
> kernel.
> Team members and arch teams (understandably) are unable to keep up with the
> 1-2 weekly kernel releases, and th
Alex Xu wrote:
> > Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel
> > right away?
>
> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages
> and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
..
> Although stable kernels *have* been tested by many people before
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please revbump an ebuild after changing its USE dependencies.
>>
>> Using net-p2p/transmission as an example, it used to depend on
>> dev-qt/qtgui:4=[dbus]
>> howe
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages
> > and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
>
> ++
While good in theory, it seems that newer v-s are actually more
"reasonably safe" than any g-s.
> Stable should mean something
For users, sta
On 24/07/13 01:49 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Alex Xu wrote:
>>> Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel
>>> right away?
>>
>> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages
>> and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
> ..
>> Although stable
Alex Xu wrote:
> >>> Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel
> >>> right away?
> >>
> >> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages
> >> and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
> > ..
> >> Although stable kernels *have* been tested by
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Stable should mean something
>
> For users, stable means "older" in practice. Always did, always will.
If you don't like stable, then don't run stable. Don't change the
meaning of stable, however, for those who find i
El mié, 24-07-2013 a las 12:44 +0400, Peter Volkov escribió:
> В Вс, 21/07/2013 в 10:23 +0200, Pacho Ramos пишет:
> > Will remove the herd if nobody joins in a week.
>
> I talked to hollow and we think it's worth to remove this herd.
>
> Actually only openvz and vserver packages are in this herd
El mié, 24-07-2013 a las 11:34 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
> On 24/07/13 10:33 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> >
> > Runtime warnings would require non-trivial patching of the
> > packages in question, so it's not a realistic alternative.
> >
>
> It should be done anyways, though, unless
Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> Stable should mean something
> >
> > For users, stable means "older" in practice. Always did, always will.
>
> Don't change the meaning of stable, however, for those who find it useful.
This is a good point, but the original post suggested to me that
actually every new re
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>
> To be clear: I am not suggesting to change the meaning of stable,
> I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should
> perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. How to make that happen
> is less important, the idea to automat
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> Actually, Portage normally handles this situation gracefully by using
> >> the dependencies from the portage tree inst
Ben Kohler wrote:
> > I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should
> > perhaps be the default for Gentoo users.
>
> You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel
> releases, the very common breakage caused in stable "genkernel all", and
> other various
Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 13:23:15
Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>
> > On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >> Actually, Portage normally handles this situatio
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
> and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones. This is
> supposedly wrong, supposedly slow but allows us to be lazy.
It's not slow. It's just wrong, and inte
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 13:23:15
> Ryan Hill napisał(a):
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mi
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:40:48 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Actually per PMS you are required to revbump (and therefore require
> > upgrade on users' side) whenever you change the deps and don't
> > expect to add a new version soon enough. Otherwise your changes
> > don't get spread and users end up w
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:54:10 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the
> > > packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
> >
> > ++
>
> While good in theory, it seems that newer v-s are actually more
> "reasona
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:01:30 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should
> perhaps be the default for Gentoo users.
See my previous e-mail; if you're willing to go through with this
suggestion, then please back that up with sufficient reasoning. Th
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>> > I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should
>> > perhaps be the default for Gentoo users.
>>
>> You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel
>> releases, the very common bre
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:15:15 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ben Kohler wrote:
> > > I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should
> > > perhaps be the default for Gentoo users.
> >
> > You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new
> > kernel releases, the very c
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:40:38 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Also, not all fixes are equal. The ones that are the biggest concern
> are security fixes.
Why? Which is worse: a local denial of service attack when every user
on your box has sudo access anyway, or a random data corruption bug
that can't
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:16:59 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Alex Xu wrote:
> > >>> Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s
> > >>> kernel right away?
> > >>
> > >> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the
> > >> packages and found them to be reasonably saf
On 24 July 2013 21:59, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:16:59 +0200
> Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>> Alex Xu wrote:
>> > >>> Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s
>> > >>> kernel right away?
>> > >>
>> > >> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested th
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Also, not all fixes are equal. The ones that are the biggest concern
> are security fixes.
How do you _know_ which fixes are security fixes?
> If you tell me that the kernel has a new exploit
> 2x/week then I'll start to wonder when
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/24/2013 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
>> and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones. This is
>>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It just seems like we should be able to get by without a semiweekly
>> kernel upgrade on our "stable" branch.
>
> You want me to slow down and do releases in larger chunks then? Hah,
On 7/24/13 5:53 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
>>> and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> On 7/24/13 5:53 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> On 07/24/2013 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
>>> Michał Górny wrote:
Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
47 matches
Mail list logo
