# Patrice Clement (08 Feb 2016)
# iojs and nodejs merged and formed the new major version nodejs 4.0. iojs will
# not be maintained after 3.3.x and all users are suggested to move to nodejs 4
# (or newer) as quick as possible to avoid any security-related issues.
# Masked for removal in 30 days. S
Ohey,
I've opened a bug at:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
For existing installs this has zero impact.
For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev.
The rationale behind this is:
* eudev
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ohey,
>
> I've opened a bug at:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
> For existing installs this has zero impact.
> For stage3 this would mean that eu
On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:48:22 +0200
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
[...]
> However one concern with the virtual - if it is not interchangeable
> (same library naming and ABI), then you have to rebuild things against
> the other provider, and hopefully that can be set up to be more
> automatic somehow; as t
On 2/8/16 4:25 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>> Ohey,
>>
>> I've opened a bug at:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>>
>> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
>> For existing installs this has
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 06:12:05 -0500 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 2/8/16 4:25 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >
> >> Ohey,
> >>
> >> I've opened a bug at:
> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
> >>
> >> The idea here is to chang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/08/2016 01:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ohey,
>
> I've opened a bug at:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of
> virtual/udev. For existing installs this has zero impact
On 02/08/2016 01:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, which distros are shipping with eudev by default?
>
>From [1]:
"""
1. AUSTRUMI switched to eudev in March 2013 (see package list for the
2.6.8 release).
2. Parted Magic switched to eudev in August 2013.
3. Quirky (experimental
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/08/2016 04:32 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 01:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Out of curiosity, which distros are shipping with eudev by
>> default?
>>
> From [1]:
>
> """ 1. AUSTRUMI switched to eudev in March 2013 (see pack
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ohey,
>
> I've opened a bug at:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
> For existing installs this has zero impact.
> For stage3 this would mean that eu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/08/2016 04:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
>
>> Ohey,
>>
>> I've opened a bug at:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>>
>> The idea here is to change the order of the pro
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 06:12:05 -0500 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 2/8/16 4:25 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
>>> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>>
Ohey,
I've opened a bug at:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
On 9 February 2016 at 01:46, Michał Górny wrote:
> 1. It is a conflict-induced fork. As such, it will never be merged
> upstream and it will never be supported upstream. In fact, it is
> continually forces to follow upstream changes and adapt to them. eudev
> is more likely to break because of the
Saturday 30 Jan 2016 11:45:48, Alex Brandt wrote :
> Hey Guys,
>
> I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
> ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
> issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
> job to re-assign bugs to e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/16 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
>
>> Ohey,
>>
>> I've opened a bug at:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>>
>> The idea here is to change the order of the provi
On 2/8/16, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
> For existing installs this has zero impact.
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev.
Might I suggest a slightly different approach. I don't really have a
strong
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/08/2016 10:25 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
>
>> Ohey,
>>
>> I've opened a bug at:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>>
>> The idea here is to change the order of the pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/16 11:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> However, I think we're actually missing the bigger issue here.
> Why is this virtual even in @system to begin with? When I set up
> a chroot or some kinds of containers I don't need udev, or
> sysvinit (or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:01:33 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/02/16 11:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > However, I think we're actually missing the bigger issue here.
> > Why is this virtual
As one of the maintainers of sys-fs/udev, I am very conflicted about
this.
I tend to agree with Kent that we need to be absolutely sure before we
switch the default that eudev will maintain feature parity with udev,
now and in the future, e.g. when a new release of udev hits, a new
release of eude
El lun, 08-02-2016 a las 12:12 -0600, William Hubbs escribió:
> As one of the maintainers of sys-fs/udev, I am very conflicted about
> this.
>
> I tend to agree with Kent that we need to be absolutely sure before
> we
> switch the default that eudev will maintain feature parity with udev,
> now an
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:01:25 +0100
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Jason Zaman wrote:
> > Which looks easier and nicer to you?
> >
> > NGINX_MODULES_HTTP="access auth_basic autoindex browser charset
> > fancyindex fastcgi geo gzip limit_req limit_zone map memcached proxy
On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 04:13:38 -0800
Daniel Campbell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/07/2016 03:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 11:38:27 +0100 "M.B." wrote:
> >
> >> Hello folks.
> >>
> >> While hacking away on a new ebuild I came across t
On 9 February 2016 at 10:41, Michał Górny wrote:
> Well, the real issue here is that people are using USE_EXPAND as some
> kind of 'here, upstream give us some grouped options, let's
> thoughtlessly expose them all in some fancy USE_EXPAND without thinking
> about usability of the solution!'
>
> O
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:34:12 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> And I'm guessing you can't just make people install ebuilds for each
> module people want instead? ( And maybe have a single USE flag on the
> main nginx that turning on installs a bunch of good default things
> that people appear to always
On 9 February 2016 at 11:44, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> nginx is monolithic, if a package per module is what you meant.
Yeah. That's what I was afraid of. Given what you're doing there,
there's practically no other way.
Other than to tell Gentoo users that you're giving them the "Maximal
power to
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:34:12 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> nginx_modules_http_geoip? ( dev-libs/geoip )
> nginx_modules_http_gunzip? ( sys-libs/zlib )
> nginx_modules_http_gzip? ( sys-libs/zlib )
> nginx_modules_http_gzip_static? ( sys-libs/zlib )
> nginx_modu
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:34:12 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> nginx_modules_http_lua? ( !luajit? ( dev-lang/lua:0= ) luajit?
> ( dev-lang/luajit:2= ) )
This should of course also be changed to the global 'lua' useflag.
Currently, you're even mixing NGINX_MODULES and normal USE flags here
for m
On 9 February 2016 at 11:59, Luis Ressel wrote:
> Thanks for citing this, I think it demonstrates mgorny's point rather
> nicely; we have global USE flags for many of those modules:
>
> * nginx_modules_http_perl -> perl
> * nginx_modules_http_auth_pam -> pam
> * nginx_modules_http_auth_ldap -> lda
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:22:51 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> The only way you could make that scheme better is having an early
> stage in NGINX that shows which module are going to be built /based
> on/ the USE flag combinations, and then something with savedconfig
> could potentially bar building cer
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> On 08/02/16 11:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> It seems like this should just be another step in the handbook -
>> pick your desired device manager.
>>
>> This just seems more like the Gentoo way, and it completely
>> sidesteps all the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/08/2016 08:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On 2/8/16, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of
>> virtual/udev. For existing installs this has zero impact. For
>> stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled
Michał Górny posted on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:46:06 +0100 as excerpted:
> 4. eudev is underdocumented, and the maintainer admits that 'he sucks at
> documenting'. In fact, did anyone even bother to note how far eudev
> diverges from upstream udev to this point?
IMO that's the most important of the f
On 2/8/16 7:46 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 08:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On 2/8/16, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of
>>> virtual/udev. For existing installs this has zero impact. For
>>> stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulle
On 2/8/16 7:47 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Michał Górny posted on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:46:06 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> 4. eudev is underdocumented, and the maintainer admits that 'he sucks at
>> documenting'. In fact, did anyone even bother to note how far eudev
>> diverges from upstream udev to this point?
On 02/08/2016 07:07 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Sure, but if you've already picked which one you want as your default
> at install time, then you won't have one pulled in as a default. If a
> package does pull in the virtual and you didn't want it installed at
> boot, chances are the package won't
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work
> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use.
>
> some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i've
> spoken with the various distros --- slack
On 2/8/16 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>
>> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work
>> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use.
>>
>> some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i
On 02/08/2016 11:59 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:34:12 +1300
> Kent Fredric wrote:
>
>> nginx_modules_http_geoip? ( dev-libs/geoip )
>> nginx_modules_http_gunzip? ( sys-libs/zlib )
>> nginx_modules_http_gzip? ( sys-libs/zlib )
>> nginx_modules_http
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 08:15:42PM -0500, Alex McWhirter wrote
> As far as upstream support for eudev goes, consider that we are
> currently breaking out udev for use with openrc. There may still be
> loose support for this now, but when udev is not longer able to be
> separated from systemd it's
40 matches
Mail list logo
