Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=-ipv6 in the hardened profile

On 02/08/2011 02:56 PM, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Hi, > current hardened profile sets USE=-ipv6, but I wasn't able to find any > reason for that in the ChangeLogs. With the upcoming v6 frenzy, I was > wondering if we can remove that default. > > With kind regards, > Jan > I don't know of any reason and

[gentoo-dev] Re: Policy for conflicting USE flags

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:29:11 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > EAPI 4 introduced the REQUIRED_USE variable, which allows to impose > restrictions on the allowed USE flag combinations for an ebuild. > > On the other hand, according to the devmanual, our policy on > conflicting USE flags is as follows:

[gentoo-dev] Re: glibc-2.13 news item?

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:52:55 +0100 "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > It seems that with glibc-2.13 there are some serious compatibility > issues. There are good warnings on the planet > (http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html), but not every ~arch user > reads the planet, so how about creating news

[gentoo-dev] Policy for conflicting USE flags

EAPI 4 introduced the REQUIRED_USE variable, which allows to impose restrictions on the allowed USE flag combinations for an ebuild. On the other hand, according to the devmanual, our policy on conflicting USE flags is as follows: |

[gentoo-dev] USE=-ipv6 in the hardened profile

Hi, current hardened profile sets USE=-ipv6, but I wasn't able to find any reason for that in the ChangeLogs. With the upcoming v6 frenzy, I was wondering if we can remove that default. With kind regards, Jan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: updates for bzr.eclass

> "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes: >> but please mv(1) old repos rather than rm(1)ing them; UM> Is the following better? UM> That looks p

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On 12:37 Tue 08 Feb , Rich Freeman wrote: > On Feb 8, 2011 11:44 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" wrote: > > (With exceptions for security issues.) > > Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that > they have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's > lag sta

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On Tuesday 08 February 2011 18:57:20 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 08-02-2011 18:46:32 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they > > > have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag > > > stabilization by a co

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On 08-02-2011 18:46:32 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they > > have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag > > stabilization by a considerable timeframe. > > Yep. GLSA is something that seems to hap

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

> Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they > have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag > stabilization by a considerable timeframe. Yep. GLSA is something that seems to happen roughly one year after no affected package is in tree anymore

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On Feb 8, 2011 11:44 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" wrote: > > (With exceptions for security issues.) Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag stabilization by a considerable timeframe. I get the impress

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On 13:22 Tue 08 Feb , Fabian Groffen wrote: > With Gentoo you should update on fairly regular intervals, and have > the time inbetween as short as possible, but 2 or 3 weeks appears to > be fine. I myself have a cronjob that syncs every night, and mails me > the output of emerge -Dupv world

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > I see what you are saying. However, the 6 months testing is far from > what I have in mind. I could see there being room for something in-between, but I share the concerns of others that rolling releases are part of what makes Gentoo, well,

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

Markos, A few thoughts inlined. On 2011.02.08 12:03, Markos Chandras wrote: My main point was that as you move from an old dated set of packages to newer packages which by definition are less well tested, stability decreases. Users pick somewhere between the two extremes that they are happy

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

tl;dr - can we add more automated tests to auto-generated stages? On 2/8/11 1:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > Hmmm, odd. I experience amd64 (stable) as being pretty stable on my > servers. Last breakage which really got me upset was php, but > that's already some time ago. Makes sense. Most of

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On 08-02-2011 12:03:48 +, Markos Chandras wrote: > I see what you are saying. However, the 6 months testing is far from > what I have in mind. My only intention is to bring a more stable > experience to our users. Or, stop claiming that our stable tree rocks > and Gentoo is perfect for servers

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:43:33AM +, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2011.02.07 20:50, Markos Chandras wrote: > [snip] > > > My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a > > snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to > > stabilize, test the whole tree ( at le

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On 2011.02.07 20:50, Markos Chandras wrote: [snip] > My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a > snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to > stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) for a couple > of weeks and then replace the existing

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.13 news item?

Might be useful also because of some other new features, e.g. memcpy copying backwards (no joke). On Tuesday 08 February 2011 09:52:55 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > It seems that with glibc-2.13 there are some serious compatibility > issues. There are good warnings on the planet > (http://psykil.l

[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.13 news item?

It seems that with glibc-2.13 there are some serious compatibility issues. There are good warnings on the planet (http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html), but not every ~arch user reads the planet, so how about creating news item with detailed instructions how to ensure smooth glibc-2.13 update

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On 2/8/11 9:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:02:36PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> There are machines available for various arches at >> . I have >> at least a few chromium-related chroots on miranda, an

Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:02:36PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 2/7/11 9:50 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a > > snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to > > stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least co