Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: [...] > User perspective... For the sake of having a user with a different point of view, let me say that I firmly believe the new *kit daemons (along things like pulseaudio, systemd, GNOME 3, KDE 4) are the future, and Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Christopher Head
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 17 May 2011 01:13:15 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > User perspective... > > If it's at all possible to continue to have a consolekit/polkit-less > system, making them USE-based dependencies of kde, gnome, etc, > relying e

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 17 May 2011 03:20:40 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Futhermore I would like the baselayout package to create the groups > decided here, be it wheel (already there), plugdev, or more fine > grained storage/power ones. Just my .03 PLN -- I'd like to remind you that 'plugdev' group is also

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Remove USE="v4l2" and rename the consumers to plain USE="v4l"?

2011-05-16 Thread Duncan
Samuli Suominen posted on Tue, 17 May 2011 03:48:23 +0300 as excerpted: > First of all, it's disappointing how little the packages in the > linux-headers-2.6.38 tracker[1] intrest people. > > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/359595 Indeed. I finally decided to try to get the netbook's webcam running

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Duncan
Samuli Suominen posted on Tue, 17 May 2011 03:20:40 +0300 as excerpted: > On 05/17/2011 03:15 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> The above file would grant permission with or without active local >> ConsoleKit session to users in plugdev group to everything udisks >> handles. >> >> Notice that gettin

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Remove USE="v4l2" and rename the consumers to plain USE="v4l"?

2011-05-16 Thread Samuli Suominen
First of all, it's disappointing how little the packages in the linux-headers-2.6.38 tracker[1] intrest people. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/359595 Planning on masking some of the low hanging fruits from the tracker. And after the bugs are mostly (or all) dealt with, I suggest we remove USE="v4l2"

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 05/17/2011 03:15 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Let's start with generalized example so everyone gets the idea... > > Reference: man 8 pklocalauthority > > /etc/polkit-1/localauthority/10-vendor.d/example-udisks.pkla > > [Local users] > Identity=unix-group:plugdev > Action=org.freedesktop.udisk

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

2011-05-16 Thread Samuli Suominen
Let's start with generalized example so everyone gets the idea... Reference: man 8 pklocalauthority /etc/polkit-1/localauthority/10-vendor.d/example-udisks.pkla [Local users] Identity=unix-group:plugdev Action=org.freedesktop.udisks.* ResultAny=yes ResultInactive=yes ResultActive=yes The above

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Dane Smith
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/16/11 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100 > Markos Chandras wrote: >> This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on >> gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established >> policies

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:52:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100 > Markos Chandras wrote: > > This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on > > gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established > > policies which should go thro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100 Markos Chandras wrote: > This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on > gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established > policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels > like it worths pushing it so far.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:45:14PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera > > (klondike) wrote: > >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: > >> > Neither of those point

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Mark Loeser
Alec Warner said: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera > > (klondike) wrote: > >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: > >> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, whic

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Alec Warner
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera > (klondike) wrote: >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: >> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend >> > to quickly conver

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: > El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: > > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend > > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything > > conclusiv

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)
El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió: > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything > conclusive. To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer following the list) it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Kacper Kowalik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 W dniu 16.05.2011 15:41, Mark Loeser pisze: > "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said: >> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02 >> >> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild >> Log: >> old > > Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs. > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread RB
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 07:41, Mark Loeser wrote: > "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said: >> vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02 >> >>   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild >>   Log: >>   old > > Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs. It would also seem manifests weren't regenerated. Don

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

2011-05-16 Thread Mark Loeser
"Mike Frysinger (vapier)" said: > vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02 > > Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild > Log: > old Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/ It'd also be better to do this all as one commit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/nspr: nspr-4.8.8.ebuild ChangeLog

2011-05-16 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 5/16/11 11:15 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: > Why do you need such complex detection? Is it possibly similar to the scenario from , i.e. multilib portage and other non-standard configurations? If so, it may also be useful to re-use the detection logic in

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/nspr: nspr-4.8.8.ebuild ChangeLog

2011-05-16 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno lun, 16/05/2011 alle 13.15 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto: > It looks like good idea to unify them. Or you could use, you know, $(tc-arch) from toolchain-funcs.eclass? :)

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/nspr: nspr-4.8.8.ebuild ChangeLog

2011-05-16 Thread Peter Volkov
В Птн, 13/05/2011 в 21:13 +, Jory Pratt (anarchy) пишет: > plain: > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/nspr/ChangeLog?rev=1.161&content-type=text/plain > src_configure() { > cd "${S}"/build > > echo > "${T}"/test.c > $(tc-getCC) -c "${T}"/test.c -o "${