Re: [gentoo-dev] Need ARM/AArch64 test data for cpuid2cpuflags

On 22:56 Tue 17 Sep , Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 22:44 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I've recently (finally!) started adding tests to cpuid2cpuflags. Tests > > are based on mocked syscalls that return arch-specific data read from > > text files. So far

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On 9/16/19 10:17 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > + > +# @FUNCTION: go-module_pkg_postinst > +# @DESCRIPTION: > +# Display a warning about security updates for Go programs. > +go-module_pkg_postinst() { > + ewarn "${PN} is written in the Go programming language." > + ewarn "Since this language is

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:50 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 9/16/19 10:17 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > + > > +# @FUNCTION: go-module_pkg_postinst > > +# @DESCRIPTION: > > +# Display a warning about security updates for Go programs. > > +go-module_pkg_postinst() { > > + ewarn "${PN} is writt

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On 9/18/19 2:04 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > I'm actually pretty fine with this wording, upstream has said not to > dynamically link in these use cases. >   Respectfully, the fact that you're OK with it doesn't make it not BS. It reads like "there's no way we can fix this!" when really it means "we

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On 9/18/19 11:04 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:50 AM Michael Orlitzky > wrote: > > On 9/16/19 10:17 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > + > > +# @FUNCTION: go-module_pkg_postinst > > +# @DESCRIPTION: > > +# Display a warning about s

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:15 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 9/18/19 2:04 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > I'm actually pretty fine with this wording, upstream has said not to > > dynamically link in these use cases. > > > > Respectfully, the fact that you're OK with it doesn't make it not BS. It

Re: [gentoo-dev] Use acct-* for qmail users

> Also, please do not add packages with no maintainer listed in > metadata.xml. You can list yourself + proxy-maint at least. If you > don't want to maintain them, you'll need to find someone else to do > it. Done. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

Signed-off-by: William Hubbs --- eclass/go-module.eclass | 161 1 file changed, 161 insertions(+) create mode 100644 eclass/go-module.eclass diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass new file mode 100644 index 000..6f609e9454

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] introduce an eclass to handle go modules (round 5)

After some discussion with zmedico, this iteration uses EGO_VENDOR from the previous eclasses so that you don't have to make a vendor tarball. Thanks, William William Hubbs (1): go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules eclass/go-module.eclass | 161

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 15:26 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs > --- > eclass/go-module.eclass | 161 > 1 file changed, 161 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 eclass/go-module.eclass > > diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/ecla

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-admin/systemrescuecd-x86, sys-boot/systemrescuecd-x86-grub

# Michał Górny (2019-09-18) # Distributing an entire prebuilt distribution as a package turned out # to be a bad idea. All current upstream versions contain vulnerable # packages and lack correct license information. Upstream does not # provide a publicly accessible bug tracker, and does not rep

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:28:29PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 9/18/19 11:04 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:50 AM Michael Orlitzky > > wrote: > > > > On 9/16/19 10:17 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > + > > > +# @FUNCTION: go-mod

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:29:12PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 15:26 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs > > --- > > eclass/go-module.eclass | 161 > > 1 file changed, 161 insertions(+) > > create mode 10064

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On 9/18/19 5:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> I don't really understand why you're adding it to *this* eclass. Isn't >> it true for all Go packages? So I suppose golang-* eclasses are >> affected as well. > > You are correct, they are affected. No one, including myself, caught > that during the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

On 9/18/19 3:33 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > I think the problem I have with this conversation is that I am > discussing things that are technically possible (e.g. we can in fact > propagate security fixes to all go packages, same as dynamically linked > packages) with things we do not think we will

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sci-chemistry/azara

# Michał Górny (2019-09-19) # Last bumped in 2010. Homepage & SRC_URI gone, redistribution # is forbidden by license. # Removal in 30 days. Bug #680726. sci-chemistry/azara -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part