On Monday 30 Mar 2015 01:32:21 Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 03:30:07PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
>
> > With TPM, full-disk encryption, and a verified boot path, you could
> > actually protect against that scenario (they'd have to tear apart the
> > TPM chip and try to access the no
On Monday 30 Mar 2015 01:52:14 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > Be careful what you wish for. I have my doubts that TPM chips would
> >
> > boot linux with Microsoft offering "volume discounts" to OEMS. Call me
> > cynical.
>
> TPM chips don't con
On Sunday 29 March 2015 17:58:46 Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:43:42 waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Mick wrote:
> > > I've also ended up with qt blockers, that I do not seem capable to
> > > overcome yet. KDE wants qt 4.8.5 installed which is blocking qt
> > > 4.8.6. How did you go about
On 30.03.2015 00:51, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I like Gentoo, you all know, but things like that scare me off a bit.
>
> This is Gentoo, it's all about choice. Sometimes there's a downside,
> like a very long package.use to define to Portage exactly what your
> choice really is.
I don't really kno
On Sunday 29 March 2015 20:12:45 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ... I think Michael posted the correct cause up-thread:
>
> "If you're on stable, you'll need to keyword qt-4.8.6 in its entirety.
> You can't mix and match versions, and 4.8.6 is the only one that
> supports multilib."
Something needs clar
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 00:10, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>> Am 29.03.2015 um 20:16 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>>
I have to do that for 195 ebuilds here and really wonder if that is
correct in the end
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a horrible solution, you are right. The problem is that
On Monday 30 Mar 2015 09:58:37 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> On 30.03.2015 00:51, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> I like Gentoo, you all know, but things like that scare me off a bit.
> >
> > This is Gentoo, it's all about choice. Sometimes there's a downside,
> > like a very long package.use to define
On 30/03/2015 11:23, Mick wrote:
> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary, unless you
> want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist for, whether you
> use
> them or not. I mean that for Skype you have no alternative at present, but
> if
> you don't use Sk
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Mick wrote:
> On Monday 30 Mar 2015 01:52:14 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> > Be careful what you wish for. I have my doubts that TPM chips would
>> >
>> > boot linux with Microsoft offering "volume discounts" to O
On 30.03.2015 11:39, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 11:23, Mick wrote:
>> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary, unless you
>> want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist for, whether you
>> use
>> them or not. I mean that for Skype you have no alter
On 30/03/2015 12:02, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> On 30.03.2015 11:39, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 30/03/2015 11:23, Mick wrote:
>>> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary, unless you
>>> want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist for, whether you
>>> use
>
Given that the emul-linux-x86 package sets are now deprecated and we can now
with USE="abi_x86_32" emerge our own 32bit libraries where needed, is it now
easier to move from a no-multilib to a multilib environment, or will it still
require a complete reinstall?
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:02:23 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> >> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary,
> >> unless you want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist
> >> for, whether you use them or not. I mean that for Skype you have no
> >> alternative
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Dang. I had to add about 90 packages to my package.use and some more to
> the keyword file.
>
> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file just
> grew my a huge amount.
You package.use has grown by one filesystem block
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:14:29 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> OK, then so why do I have to edit files to tell the system to USE this
>> and that after the system tells me it needs that ... ?
>>
>> Why isn't this taken care of within portage itself?
>>
>> I don't *want* to decide 32bit or not ... (
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:20:23 +0100, Mick wrote:
> Given that the emul-linux-x86 package sets are now deprecated and we can now
> with USE="abi_x86_32" emerge our own 32bit libraries where needed, is it now
> easier to move from a no-multilib to a multilib environment, or will it still
> require
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>
> OK, then so why do I have to edit files to tell the system to USE this
> and that after the system tells me it needs that ... ?
>
> Why isn't this taken care of within portage itself?
>
> I don't *want* to decide 32bit or not ... (I
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> Dang. I had to add about 90 packages to my package.use and some more to
>> the keyword file.
>>
>> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file just
>> grew my a huge amount.
> You package.use has g
On 30/03/2015 12:42, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:14:29 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>>> OK, then so why do I have to edit files to tell the system to USE this
>>> and that after the system tells me it needs that ... ?
>>>
>>> Why isn't this taken care of within portage itsel
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:14:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 12:42, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>> You want skype. Skype is 32bit. So far, we're good. You put an entry in
>>> package.use to enable abi_x86_32 for skype.
>>
>> Except..at that point you would have already failed.
>
> That
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:59:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file
> >> just grew my a huge amount.
> > You package.use has grown by one filesystem block at most, how m
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
> > allow one single ebuild to automagically change the behaviour of
> > multiple other ebuilds. The correct way to bring about changes in
> > behaviour is to ad
On Monday 30 March 2015 13:40:12 Neil Bothwick wrote:
[Re package.use]
> I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings for
> each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed - for
> example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to
> comment eve
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>
>> > Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
>> > allow one single ebuild to automagically change the behaviour of
>> > multiple other ebuilds.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:59:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file
just grew my a huge amount.
>>> You package.use has grown by one filesys
On 03/29/2015 05:46 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> $ ebuild $(equery w xjobs) prepare
>
Ok, you got me!
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:42:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings
> > for each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed -
> > for example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to
> > comment every entry in the
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:04:47 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > The news item also showed how to make it a global choice, avoiding the
> > need to multiple per-package directories.
>
> I'm not sure that's a solution to the problem at all (which is why I
> didn't do it on my machines eith
On Monday 30 March 2015 15:34:55 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> At least we will now be spared the messages from [...] perl-cleaner about
> binary packages that won't change no matter how many time we reinstall
> them.
That certainly is an improvement, yes. I was always unsure how safe I was in
ignoring
Hello folks,
I use this link for browsing ebuilds online[1]. It is escecially useful
when non_gentoo folks are discussion how to compile from sources;
particularly complex/compound compilations and or difficult codes
(except java). I find myself always referring to online ebuilds when
in discussio
On 2015-03-06, Grant Edwards wrote:
> What is a good acroread replacement?
>
> I'm not sure what changed, but as of a few weeks ago I can no longer
> install acroread on my AMD64 system (something to do with x86
> emulation librarys being blocked by something in the Xorg server).
I've been livin
On 30/03/2015 15:04, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>
Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
allow one single ebuild to automagically c
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:49:07 + (UTC), James wrote:
> I use this link for browsing ebuilds online[1]. It is escecially useful
> when non_gentoo folks are discussion how to compile from sources;
> particularly complex/compound compilations and or difficult codes
> (except java). I find myself al
On Monday, March 30, 2015 9:09:14 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 15:04, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> >>
> Portage does not override your choices, and
On 2015-03-30, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 15:04, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>>
> Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
> a
On 2015-03-30, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 9:09:14 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's time we asked the multilib devs how they intended to deal
>> with these questions you raise.
>
> I don't have a problem with the way it is, but I think something like
> the followin
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:53:18 +0200 "Stefan G. Weichinger"
wrote:
>
> I have to do that for 195 ebuilds here and really wonder if that is
> correct in the end
Have you tried to unmerge all the emulation packages before
updating the system, as advised by the news?
I did it before the full u
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:46:54 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> >>> The news item also showed how to make it a global choice, avoiding
> >>> the need to multiple per-package directories.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that's a solution to the problem at all (which is why I
> >> didn't do it on my machin
On 2015-03-30, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:46:54 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> The reason is that somebody wanted their system to be "consistent." I
>> don't think that's a particulary good reason, but that's the nice
>> thing aboug Gentoo. Everybody gets to decide what
Neil Bothwick digimed.co.uk> writes:
> > [1] https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/
> > What I cannot seem to find is this sort of organization, filtered
> > by architecture. It's be really keen to see one just for arm and
> > arm64.
> That's the main portage tree, the name
I'm getting a bit bogged down trying to build an early release of the 3.18
kernel. Since I can't automatically go back before 3.18.9 now (using
portage anyway)...
Basically I trying to check if a suspend/resume issue I've got was
introduced after the 3.18 kernel was released (or was in the base re
Peter Humphrey prh.myzen.co.uk> writes:
> On Sunday 29 March 2015 20:12:45 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > grep -ir qt /etc/portage
grep qt /etc/portage/package.use | wc -l =11
dev-qt/qt-creator android autotools cmake python
dev-qt/qtguiqt3support
>=dev-qt/qtsql-4.8.5 qt3support
>
Bob Wya gmail.com> writes:
> I had a look at the kernel-2 eclass and my head started to hurt... Do
> I need to wade into the weeds or is there a "short-cut" I can take to
> go back to the earliest gentoo-sources 3.18 kernel build
Might this help [1] ?
I always keep at least 6 older kernels
On Monday, March 30, 2015 11:22:58 PM Bob Wya wrote:
> I'm getting a bit bogged down trying to build an early release of the 3.18
> kernel. Since I can't automatically go back before 3.18.9 now (using
> portage anyway)...
>
> Basically I trying to check if a suspend/resume issue I've got was
> int
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:05:46 + (UTC), James wrote:
> > That's the main portage tree, the name is a misnomer. Although called
> > gentoo-x86, it is really just portage, which does not have specific
> > ebuilds for different architectures. Architecture suitability is
> > governed by the KEYWORDS
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:22:58 +0100, Bob Wya wrote:
> I'm getting a bit bogged down trying to build an early release of the
> 3.18 kernel. Since I can't automatically go back before 3.18.9 now
> (using portage anyway)...
https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-kernel/gentoo-so
Hello Everyone,
New install, on a old server with raid 10 scsi... The normal installation
works fine,
the only thing is when we try to boot with xen, it gets to the prompt and
then reboots
by itself. The following message is what differs between normal gentoo and
xen kernel
Mar 31 06:32:18 test k
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:45:40PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> You can use git. I believe gentoo patches are only for config options so if
> you
> configure it with make oldconfig it *should* be the same as using gentoo-
> sources.
Actually no, gentoo-sources aren't vanilla kernel while
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:22:58 +0100, Bob Wya wrote:
> I'm getting a bit bogged down trying to build an early release of the 3.18
> kernel. Since I can't automatically go back before 3.18.9 now (using
> portage anyway)...
>
> Basically I trying to check if a suspend/resume issue I've got was
> intr
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:42:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings
>>> for each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed -
>>> for example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to
>>> com
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:16:08 AM Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:45:40PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > You can use git. I believe gentoo patches are only for config options so if
you
> > configure it with make oldconfig it *should* be the same as using gentoo-
Neil Bothwick digimed.co.uk> writes:
> > Yea, I get that. But I want it 100% filtered by arch.
> It's not quite what you are asking for, but packages.g.o lets you
> filter by arch, and view the contents of ebuilds.
Yea, I have seen that often when I google. Correct but is not comprehensive
but
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:07 AM, symack wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> New install, on a old server with raid 10 scsi... The normal installation
> works fine,
> the only thing is when we try to boot with xen, it gets to the prompt and
> then reboots
> by itself. The following message is what differ
On Sunday, March 29, 2015 12:23:00 PM lee wrote:
> Philip Webb writes:
> What's the last time you pressed Ctrl+Alt+Del and it actually worked?
> It's a legacy thing from times when freezes/crashes were common and when
> it did work and was useful.
>
> Nowadays, when you're pressing it, usually no
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:57:32 AM Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sunday, March 29, 2015 12:23:00 PM lee wrote:
> > Philip Webb writes:
> > What's the last time you pressed Ctrl+Alt+Del and it actually worked?
> > It's a legacy thing from times when freezes/crashes were common and when
> > it d
55 matches
Mail list logo
