Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-util/wxglade/files/, dev-util/wxglade/

On 18/02/17 20:03, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, L, 18.02.2017 kell 19:47, kirjutas Michał Górny: >> commit: 7207a292b2591dde5cbd336470bed3c11617a8e1 >> Commit: Michał Górny gentoo org> >> CommitDate: Sat Feb 18 19:47:25 2017 + >> URL:https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: net-wireless/gr-air-modes/

On 20/02/17 18:09, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > * ERROR: net-wireless/gr-air-modes-::gentoo failed (depend phase): > * PYTHON_COMPAT not declared. > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:43:10PM +, Michał Górny wrote: >> commit: 5458c6d9da6bbb3b4009a4ff9d9ab17737d07849 >> Author: Michał Gó

Re: [gentoo-dev] Printer drivers and net-print

On 20/02/17 21:47, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Hey all, > > 1) Putting printer drivers into "net-print" is silly. > > Something that converts format a to device-specific format b has absolutely > nothing to do with network. > So, a new category "sys-print", emphasizing that it's hardware drivers,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Printer drivers and net-print

On 21/02/17 08:53, Lars Wendler wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:47:17 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> 1) Putting printer drivers into "net-print" is silly. >> >> Something that converts format a to device-specific format b has >> absolutely nothing to do with network. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Printer drivers and net-print

On 22/02/17 02:48, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, M. J. Everitt <mailto:m.j.ever...@iee.org>> wrote: > > On 21/02/17 08:53, Lars Wendler wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:47:17 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] new package category: net-vpn

On 16/03/17 23:02, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hey folks, > > While VPNs weren't stylish back when most categories were added to our > portage tree, they now are hot potatoes. Most VPN-related programs > currently live in net-misc, which isn't quite right. > > If nobody voices reasonable objections

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] sys-devel/autoconf: Convert from eblits into an eclass, #586424

On 23/03/17 21:42, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > If we were to stop thinking and follow the rule by the letter: What are > we waiting for to file bugs for every package having ${FILESDIR} > somewhere in global scope then ? > After all, those are the council approved versions and EAPIs cannot > change.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On 27/03/17 11:10, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > >> 3] Meaning of the three values "stable", "testing", "unstable" for >> repoman >> >> * stable: When a profile of arch is tested, then repoman checks >> consistency for >> "arch" and for "~arch" separately. >> Which profiles of the arch are tested is sti

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

On 18/04/17 10:44, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, T, 18.04.2017 kell 11:16, kirjutas Jörg Schaible: >> Hi Tomas, >> >> Tomas Mozes wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible < >>> joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com> wrote: >>> Hi, according the logs, gcc 4.5

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] distutils-r1.eclass: Warn if *-nspkg.pth files are installed

On 05/05/17 22:14, Michał Górny wrote: > Add a check for *-nspkg.pth files indicating implicit setuptools > namespace hack. While they kept namespaces somewhat working without > requiring explicit support in ebuilds, they were unreliable. They > frequently required additional hacks (distutils_insta

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 17.0 profile update

On 12/05/17 16:54, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 05/12/2017 05:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Matthias Maier wrote: >>> I will post an RFC for a profile update (and a news item) for 17.0 >> We used to count from 1999 (namely, 10.0 introducing the counting >> appeared

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

binsSfjd9wdyD.bin Description: PGP/MIME version identification encrypted.asc Description: OpenPGP encrypted message

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 21/05/17 20:32, Kent Fredric wrote: > But I'd also like a pony. > I'm hoping for a unicorn still ... [apologies, resending as hit the wrong button in the Compose button..] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 22/05/17 05:12, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 05/22/2017 03:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: >> On 18/05/17 02:38, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> Since proxy-maint refuses to be removed from packages (especially >>> since they >>> were unconditionally added to all packages with a non-gentoo-dev >>> maintainer in >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 22/05/17 21:05, Matthias Maier wrote: >> Were this an actual office, this would be better solved with a "ok, >> we've clearly been working too hard this week, everyone stop, ITS PUB >> O-CLOCK!" > This is most definitely true for almost everything going on for the last > days in Gentoo. Just *da

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update to news item 2014-10-26-gcc_4_7_introduced_new_c++11_abi/2014-10-26-gcc_4_7_introduced_new_c++11_abi.en.txt

On 04/06/17 16:55, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Kensington suggested updating the news item on the new c++11 abi for > gcc. Since this news item now appears for all new installations of gcc > it can be annoying. I'm proposing to change it as below, but I have one > concern. It is

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

On 14/06/17 17:11, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for > container-related utilities. > > Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or > app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] toolchain-funcs.eclass / toolchain-glibc.eclass - gcc-6 bugfixes and updates

On 16/06/17 09:27, Matthias Maier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017, at 18:15 CDT, Matthias Maier wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> this is a series of patches against the toolchian-funcs and toolchain-glibc >> eclasses, most notably >> > Pushed. > > Best, > Matthias > .. That was quick ... I swore there

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: ruby21-only packages

On 23/06/17 08:45, Hans de Graaff wrote: > # Hans de Graaff (23 Jun 2017) > # Mask ruby21-only packages for removal in 30 days > > # ruby21-only, no maintainer > www-apps/redmine Really? I find it hard to believe that a common package like redmine is ruby-21 only?! http://www.redmine.org/projects

Re: [gentoo-dev] lua upgrade plan

On 02/07/17 21:12, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > By the way, it will also brake some proprietary games, that distributes via > steam, humble, gog and so on. > > Some of them depends on shared lua and doesn't bundle it (instead, their > installer calls apt (since they're doing games for ubunt

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization candidates, July 2017

On 10/07/17 09:41, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > Hey folks, > > If you'd like to help Gentoo stable be more up to date, please read on. > > See > > for potential stabilization candidates (over 1000 of them). > > These are auto

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On 10/07/17 12:43, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 10-07-2017 a las 13:12 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: >> On 07/10/2017 01:04 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> Any issues on trying to go further into implementing this warning? >> Not an issue per se, but it should be pointed out that python 3.5 on

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On 10/07/17 20:53, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> For what it's worth, Jack Morgan was recently getting his sparc and >> ia64 systems back up, but then decided to retire instead when he saw >> all of the discussions about dropping the architectures he

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 04:22, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Step back for a minute, and relax. There is a reason you're getting > blowback. You're asking for changes that would affect everybody else. > This is similar in principle to what Lennart Poettering did, and you're > getting the same reaction he got. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On 12/07/17 16:42, William Hubbs wrote: > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns > about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly. > > Here is the newsitem covering this change. > > William > Very sensible .. I seem to recall something about sys

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 17:07, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. > mailto:wlt...@o-sinc.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +1000 > Sam Jorna mailto:wra...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > > $ emerge -C apg > > * This action can remove important p

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On 13/07/17 12:09, Rich Freeman wrote: > Presumably you'd only want to remount it if it was mounted ro to > start, since it sounds like openrc will be diverging from systemd > behavior here. > > While it seems like a good idea I'm not sure how big an improvement it > is in the larger scheme. We're

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: sys-boot/plymouth needs major fixes/maintainer

On 05/08/17 03:16, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 08/05/2017 12:37 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >> On R, 2017-08-04 at 14:23 +, Lucas Ramage wrote: >>> I am looking into this for openrc. I copied it over to my personal >>> overlay. >> Ok, how about I mark myself as maintainer then and add you as co >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

On 13/08/17 11:11, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/12/2017 10:52 PM, Duncan wrote: >> How so? Are you arguing that deciding to system-wide switch to/from >> pulseaudio, systemd, or gstreamer is nonsense? >> > The meaning of any one USE flag varies widely across packages. I could > never say "I wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] [FRC] News item: Changing USE flags for >=app-backup/bacula

On 15/08/17 18:49, tom...@gentoo.org wrote: > I think we can find a proper formulation for the use flag description in > metadata.xml, e.g.: > > director - Installs the backup director additional to the default file daemon. > storage-daemon - Installs the storage daemon additional to the default fi

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.26 and changes with SunRPC, libtirpc, ntirpc, libnsl (NIS and friends), ...

On 18/09/17 10:56, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > So glibc-2.26 is already out for some time, but we still haven't keyworded it > yet. Why? > > * I want to use the opportunity to make the long-delayed switchover from > glibc-internal SunRPC (long deprecated and outdated) to external > implementatio

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.26 and changes with SunRPC, libtirpc, ntirpc, libnsl (NIS and friends), ...

On 18/09/17 16:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Montag, 18. September 2017, 14:28:37 CEST schrieb M. J. Everitt: >> >> >> Would a virtual help any? Probably overlooking a good number of factors, >> but wasn't mentioned yet ... >> > So far I don'

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES=splitdebug and debugedit

On 12/10/17 22:24, Francesco Riosa wrote: > hi, > > FEATURES=splitdebug at the moment require package dev-util/debugedit > which is a lagging behind upstream. > However package app-arch/rpm (from which debugedit is forked) always > install the same binary in ${ROOT}/usr/libexec/rpm/debugedit. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] GLEP 74: Full-tree verification using Manifest files

On 28/10/17 03:41, Dean Stephens wrote: > On 10/27/17 17:48, Hanno Böck wrote: >> Should a package manager reject a sync if it is too old? or not install >> packages if a sync hasn't happened for some time? What is considered >> "outdated"? I think that should be clarified how exactly it's supposed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: sys-process/parallel

On 28/10/17 22:02, Jonas Stein wrote: > Dear all, > > The following packages are up for grabs: > > sys-process/parallel > > after retirement of the proxied maintainer. > (https://bugs.gentoo.org/633090) > > https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-process/parallel > > The ebuild was defacto maintai

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC, PATCH] user.eclass: gracefully return when unprivileged.

On 20/11/17 03:25, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > From: Benda Xu > > enewgroup and enewuser does not apply when executed as a normal > user, e.g. under Gentoo Prefix. > --- > eclass/user.eclass | 8 > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/eclass/user.eclass b/eclass/user.ecla

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC, PATCH] user.eclass: gracefully return when unprivileged

On 20/11/17 03:38, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > From: Benda Xu > > Thanks MJ, how about "Unprivileged to execute"? Less bytes. > > enewgroup and enewuser does not apply when executed as a normal > user, e.g. under Gentoo Prefix. > --- > eclass/user.eclass | 8 > 1 file changed, 8 inse

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On 21/11/17 21:01, Manuel Rüger wrote: > Packages up for grabs: > > * app-crypt/yubikey-manager-qt > * sys-apps/etckeeper > * sys-auth/yubico-piv-tool > * dev-libs/libsodium > * app-editors/retext > * sys-apps/rkflashtool > * dev-embedded/esptool > * app-shells/thefuck > * app-crypt/paperkey > * de

Re: [gentoo-dev] NEWS item for games destabling

On 27/11/17 18:44, Christopher Head wrote: > For those of us who run mostly stable systems, there is one question I don’t > know a good answer to. > > If I add a specific version of a game to package.accept_keywords, I will get > that version forever. That’s not really what I want: I prefer to st

Re: [gentoo-dev] NEWS item for games destabling

On 27/11/17 20:34, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:15 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 27/11/17 18:44, Christopher Head wrote: >>> For those of us who run mostly stable systems, there is one question I >>> don’t know a good answer to. >>> >&

Re: [gentoo-dev] NEWS item for games destabling

On 27/11/17 20:44, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/27/2017 03:37 PM, Arve Barsnes wrote: >> Sounds kind of weird? If he has keyworded the game package, shouldn't it >> just never install that version if it depends on an unstable package? > That's right, but if there are two available ~arch versions

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > > There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business > school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015: > > [ Turns out toxic coworkers are more > than just an annoyance. A n

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

On 15/12/17 01:17, R0b0t1 wrote (excerpted): > I'm not trying to be confrontational, but asserting an opinion is > correct without explaining why that it is so isn't really conducive to > arriving at the truth. I understand not wanting to answer if I am > completely clueless, and would like to apol

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libunibreak/

On 16/12/17 17:45, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017, 13:21:47 CET schrieb Fabian Groffen: >> Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification >> for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be >> preferred, but a pointer to a l

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] skel.ebuild: Update comments for inherit, SLOT, KEYWORDS.

On 31/12/17 19:59, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> +1, but I'm not going to suggest what to replace it with. > How about one of these examples: > "eautoreconf function from autotools.eclass" > "tc-getCC function from toolchain-funcs.eclass" > > Ulrich I second eautoreconf (with mention of eapply_user an

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] preserve-libs.eclass: Split off preserve_old_lib from eutils.

On 04/01/18 10:23, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mié, 03-01-2018 a las 17:13 +0100, Ulrich Müller escribió: >> Split off functions preserve_old_lib and preserve_old_lib_notify from >> eutils.eclass into a dedicated preserve-libs.eclass. These functions >> are rarely used and are independent of the rest o

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] preserve-libs.eclass: Split off preserve_old_lib from eutils.

On 04/01/18 11:21, David Seifert wrote: > On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 10:43 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 04/01/18 10:23, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> El mié, 03-01-2018 a las 17:13 +0100, Ulrich Müller escribió: >>>> Split off functions preserve_old_lib and pre

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] preserve-libs.eclass: Split off preserve_old_lib from eutils.

On 04/01/18 11:36, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 04/01/18 11:21, David Seifert wrote: >> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 10:43 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> On 04/01/18 10:23, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>>> El mié, 03-01-2018 a las 17:13 +0100, Ulrich Müller escribió: >>>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] introduce Prefix 17.0 profiles.

On 10/01/18 14:00, kuzetsa wrote: > On 01/09/2018 08:21 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >> On January 8, 2018 9:39:47 PM EST, Benda Xu wrote: >>> Hi kuzetsa, >>> >>> kuzetsa writes: >>> The term "beyond" feels wrong & confusing. (Not sure what to replace it with though) >>> How about this? >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

On 10/01/18 13:49, kuzetsa wrote: > On 01/10/2018 05:57 AM, David Seifert wrote: >> On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 08:55 +0100, Lars Wendler wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:48:56 +0300 Eray Aslan wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:20:56PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > * Posting to the lis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

On 10/01/18 14:55, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 10/01/18 08:55, Lars Wendler wrote: >> Seems we're turning into an elitist club or something... > Gentoo has already had the reputation of being an elitist club for > years. As such I'd like to see steps to remedy this status, rather than > taking

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

On 10/01/18 19:31, Alec Warner wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Michał Górny > wrote: > > W dniu śro, 10.01.2018 o godzinie 09∶11 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner > napisał: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

On 10/01/18 23:20, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: >> Being somwhat old and cynical, I'm seeing signs of history >> repeating itself. >> >> Does being 'struck off' the list in this way apply to devs, including >> Council and comrel members? >> > It would s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list

On 10/01/18 23:35, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > >> I think Roy's point is quite valid .. if you want to cut out users from >> contribution why are you even posting on -dev ML in the first place? > Probably because we d

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] introduce Prefix 17.0 profiles.

On 11/01/18 03:18, Benda Xu wrote: > Hi MJ, > > "M. J. Everitt" writes: > >> Not entirely as a #gentoo-nit-pick .. I'm slightly unclear on the >> different between 2.6.16+ and 2.6.32+ .. should this potentially be >> 2.16.16-32 perhaps [2.6.16~32 eve

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: GnuCash 2.7+ Breaking Change

On 16/01/18 21:56, Róbert Čerňanský wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:58:11 +0100 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> On 01/16/2018 03:45 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: >>> Given the situation, we have a choice: Remove GnuCash altogether, or >>> press ahead with recommending a version upstream consider

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification

On 25/01/18 11:01, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 01/25/2018 11:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >> The verification is implemented using app-portage/gemato. Currently, > ... "implemented in", as opposed to "using"? its implemented using > various cryptographic primitives, but gemato is the imple

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v3)

On 27/01/18 14:26, Michał Górny wrote [excerpted]: > The verification is implemented via using app-portage/gemato. Currently, > the whole repository is verified after syncing. > I would drop either 'via' or 'using' - they both are the same verb/meaning and one is hence redundant. Just my 2c as a na

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] glep-0074: Remove single filesystem limitation

On 08/02/18 17:09, Michał Górny wrote: > Remove the limitation that all files covered by the Manifest must reside > on a single filesystem. This breaks valid uses of overlayfs without > providing any real advantage. > > The removal is justified further in the updated rationale section. > --- > gle

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: baselayout 2.5 changes

On 08/02/18 22:13, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:55:02PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> However, there are plenty of examples of commands that normal users >> may run from sbin. Moving these commands often causes problems for >> packages that either hard code absolute paths, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: baselayout 2.5 changes

ing about it. > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:17:59PM +, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> >> On 08/02/18 22:13, William Hubbs wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:55:02PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>>> However, there are plenty of examples of commands that normal u

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-crypt/monkeysign

On 13/02/18 10:47, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 02/12/2018 08:59 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> # Kristian Fiskerstrand (11 Feb 2018) >> # Lastrite: app-crypt/monkeysign . Please use caff from >> # app-crypt/signing-party instead. Removal in 30 days. >> # Bug: #647352 >> app-crypt/monkeysign

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

On 13/02/18 20:57, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: >> Dean Stephens schrieb: >> Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: Portage rsync tree verification unstable

On 10/03/18 21:22, Zac Medico wrote: > Please review. This is needed in order to resolve > https://bugs.gentoo.org/650072. > 2) Once the 'rsync-verify' USE flag has been unmasked as described > in step 1, it can be enabled with a line like the folling in > /etc/portage/package.use: s/folling/follo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News Item v2: Portage rsync tree verification unstable

On 12/03/18 04:53, Duncan wrote: > Zac Medico posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:57:31 -0700 as excerpted: > >> I really don't want to spend a lot of time making revisions, and I think >> "unstable" communicates well enough in this case. > Very well then. With robbat2's already accepted first paragraph

Re: [gentoo-dev] things becoming better and better

On 19/03/18 18:48, Toralf Förster wrote: > honestly. > > > When I started with my tinderbox 2 or 3 years ago I had often a fair > amount of manual work to made to get an image up and running - moslty > tweaking USE flags to get blockers being solved. This yielded into a > growing list of fixed USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Begin a dev-libs/nodejs category?

On 21/03/18 01:27, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:29 -0400 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> There's a real technical problem hidden in there. Since npm >> (recursively!) bundles every dependency, nobody worries about >> compatibility in their JS packages. You'll quickly find yoursel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness

On 22/03/18 00:33, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Most contributions should happen via patches on b.g.o > Who was lamenting about the every-increasing bug queue on this Very list recently? And what about those 5+ year old bugs that are rotting for packages long last-rited from the tree ? sig

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness

On 27/03/18 17:39, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote: >> Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: It is about openness vs. isolation. >>> I'm pretty sure most developers, myself included, want to welcome >>> contri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Access to DRM render nodes from portage sandbox?

On 09/05/18 18:10, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dennis Schridde wrote: >>> Hello! >>> >>> I see sandbox violations similar to "ACCESS DENIED: open_wr: /dev/dri/ >>> renderD128" pop up for more and more packages, prob

Re: [gentoo-dev] Access to DRM render nodes from portage sandbox?

On 09/05/18 19:50, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2018 18:12:32 +0100 > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >>> It's worth noting that the default rules shipped with udev assign mode >>> 0666

Re: [gentoo-dev] Access to DRM render nodes from portage sandbox?

On 09/05/18 20:31, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 07:54:16PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> ^ That is relatively common knowledge .. my question was more steered >> towards whether Eudev is carrying this feature through as well (which >> likely as they might

Re: Implicit use of versionator.eclass in ebuilds and eclasses (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/)

On 19/05/18 01:01, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > On Freitag, 18. Mai 2018 23:53:06 CEST Michał Górny wrote: >> One of the reasons we do mailing list reviews of widely used eclasses is >> to let people tell you that you've left 'version_is_at_least' here. > I see the error of my ways. > > Meanwhile,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/4] xdg-utils.eclass: make EAPI 7 ready

On 21/06/18 03:38, Jason Zaman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:01:10PM -0500, Marty E. Plummer wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:33:53PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:21:09 -0500 >>> "Marty E. Plummer" wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:03:44PM +0800, Jaso

[gentoo-dev] Re: Hostile takeover of our github mirror. Don't use ebuild from there until new warning!

On 28/06/18 22:54, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: > El 28/06/18 a las 23:15, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) escribió: >> Hi! >> >> I just want to notify that an attacker has taken control of the Gentoo >> organization in Github and has among other things replaced the po

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 82 bugs

On 06/02/16 22:00, Alex Alexander wrote: > Our bug queue has 82 bugs! > > If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. > > To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 > > Thanks! > Only 82? that's not, like, 4k ... :) http://tinyurl.com/maintainer-wanted .

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 09/02/16 23:38, Alex McWhirter wrote: > On 02/09/2016 05:39 PM, Duncan wrote: >> I'd agree, except that the way we're running udev is strongly discouraged >> and generally not supported by upstream, with a statement that it /will/ >> break in the future, it's simply a matter of time. >> >> Wh

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 12:55, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you >>> wouldn't disable it either. Portage would just pull it in where it is >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 14:32, Kent Fredric wrote: >> and has no support of per-category files (that I know of). > # /etc/portage/package.use/dev-qt > dev-qt/* qt3support > > ^ Legal, works > > Portage does, auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of working with a package.use folder not file ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 14:46, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 03:43, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of >> working with a package.use folder not file ... > > auto-unmask consistently adds items to the file with the highest > di

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15/02/16 02:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15/02/16 05:28, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate >> 'udev' > > i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened. i > don't think it chan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 17/02/16 13:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: >>> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of >>> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. >> He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd >> cod

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 25/02/16 08:59, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 25 February 2016 at 21:02, Consus wrote: >> Well, we do have one >> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/dev-lang/perl >> >> I bet folks want to check out what's new in their local copy of >> Portage tree. > > > With a custom, portage or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grab

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 16/03/16 19:48, Christian Ruppert wrote: > app-forensics/lynis > dev-libs/log4cplus > dev-vcs/colorsvn > dev-vcs/git-deploy > dev-vcs/topgit > sci-electronics/fritzing > sys-auth/libnss-cache > media-video/nvidia-settings > > Feel free. If you ne

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] general-concepts/herds-and-projects: update per GLEP 67 #572144 #549490

On 04/04/16 05:57, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 04/04/2016 12:34 AM, Göktürk Yüksek wrote: >> +sufficient for adding or removing a developer. Note that >> different +projects have different requirements and procedures for >> recruiting +developers, which may require prior arrangements to be >> made befor

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: upgrading to Plasma 5

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 03/04/16 18:34, Michael Palimaka wrote: > Hi, > > KDE team intends to stabilise Plasma 5 shortly, so please review the > accompanying news items. > > Regards, > > Michael > > Title: KDE Plasma 5 Upgrade > Author: Michael Palimaka > Content-Type:

[gentoo-dev] GPG key

For those having a minor panic, I've just imported my home email GPG key to my work PC .. so that's the reason I've sent out an erroneous email. Rest assured the key is -right- and thanks to K_F I have two properly functional Thunderbird/Enigmail installs working with kwalletcli from pinkbyte's ove

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share presently, with some bodgery-workarounds I did pre the udev notification about initramfs's which I have never got around to implementing (although I'm pretty

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 06/04/16 17:06, Richard Yao wrote: > > That does not address the problems of supporting this configuration in a > rolling release. > > Formats in /etc can fall out of sync with software in /usr. If boot > options change, the stuff in /etc/init.d is not updated. If you add > software, the update

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: upgrading to Plasma 5

On 07/04/16 01:45, Jonathan Callen wrote: > On 04/06/2016 07:46 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > > In the event you're not explicitly using a desktop or KDE desktop > > profile, can you provide a summary of the changes that should be > > made manually when switching the th

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 07/04/16 17:36, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:22:16 PM CEST, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Again, I don't see this as a reason not to make it optional, but I >> suspect that we will find bugs here from time to time which users who >> run with the split /usr will have to report/fi

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 02:42, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:39:07PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:18:01PM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote: >>> Personally I think that merging things into /usr is a major policy decision >>> that is likely to contravene upstream ins

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 03:36, Damien Levac wrote: > Anybody who have this kind of misconception about 'usr merge' should > read this: > > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ > > Signed, > > a user who got scared by this thread and documented myself before > freaking out to

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 15:20, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:06AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> 3) I still believe there is merit in distinguishing between binaries >> that can/should be run as root, and those that can/should not. Those >> that run as root 100% of

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its >> predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system? >> > The only mandatory component in

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > > The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the > Linux kernel. > > A linux system could consist of nothing but a kernel with > init=/usr/local/bin/hello-world. > > Most traditional linux distros are going to run policykit though. Of

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 20:53, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : >> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. >> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6 mth ago . >> When setti

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 23:50, Philip Webb wrote: > 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >>> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : >>> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. >>> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge mac

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 00:53, William Hubbs wrote: > > The original discussion was about the usr merge [1], which is taking the > binary parts of / and putting them in /usr, then inserting symlinks in / > to preserve backward compatibility. Yes, I'm pointing to a document on > fdo, but the systemd guys have n

  1   2   3   >