On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:32:49 -0400
Matt Turner wrote:
> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
> library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not
> really that the X11 library
On Friday, September 16, 2011 12:27:19 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:13:15 +0200
>
> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I think systemd is nice for desktops/laptops. But on servers it seems
> > to be overkill to me and as I umount filesystems as part of my
> > backup-scripts, having som
Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:43 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 17:03:07 Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 09:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
>>> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
I like a DEPEND way. But in this way many packages will need to be modified and
missing dependencies likely appear. I developed an util to detect missing
dependencies
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=autodep
Best,
Alexander Bersenev
On 16.09.2011, at 10:49, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15
On 09/15/2011 09:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
>> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
>> library itself #includes files provided by the proto p
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> The first is more correct, I think, but it's also much more annoying.
> Mesa winds up having x11-proto/inputproto in DEPEND for some long
> forgotten reason, for instance.
>
> Why is it annoying?
Because the proto will have to be added as a d
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
> library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not
> really that the X11 library d
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
> library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not
> really that the X11 library de
Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not
really that the X11 library depends on this at run-time, so the
protocol packages aren't sp
Joost Roeleveld posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:33:18 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:31:45 PM Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> >
>> > Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list
>> > about the upcoming change wh
On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > >
I'll take dev-util/global
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Due arfrever retirement the following packages need a new maintainer:
>
> dev-util/global
> net-irc/kvirc
> net-libs/neon
> net-libs/serf
> net-misc/cadaver
>
>
> Thanks for taking them
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Will the ebuild automatically add all the different modules into the
> /etc/dracut.conf ?
> Please note, I am asking these questions to put my mind at ease and
> hopefully
> be able to explain all this back to the people on gentoo-user.
>
2011-09-16 01:54:44 Brian Harring napisał(a):
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > 2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Could you point me to at least a si
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
> > > in useflags? My qui
2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
> > in useflags? My quick check shows that all PMs handle them well, quse
> > and euse as well.
>
> Hrm, it's rather d
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:13:15 +0200
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> I think systemd is nice for desktops/laptops. But on servers it seems
> to be overkill to me and as I umount filesystems as part of my
> backup-scripts, having something force-mount them in the background
> is going to kill those scripts
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > See below on the existing udev retry queue that is hiding many of the
> > issues from you. This hidden issues are also negatively affecting boot
> > times (failures and retries take time).
> I don't actually mind too much about th
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 03:56:19 PM William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:27:06AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions
> > > about this. Where will this default initramfs
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 01:34:50 PM Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 01:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > But, with udev then failing, will there be the /dev-entries to mount the
> > different partitions to fix the environment?
>
> I the preferred approach is to enable CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y a
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 08:31:51 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:03:53PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > > On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > > Thank you for your response, however,
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:27:35 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > > It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb
> > > support.
> > > It installs /usr/shar
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:54:38 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > It is my understanding all the options need to be specified every time
> > dracut
> > is run to create an initramfs. If this becomes mandatory, will this be
> > added
> > t
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 01:45:23PM -0700, "Paweee Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 9/15/11 1:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
> > Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
> >> get caught with non-booting systems.
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 17:03:07 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to add "x32" everywhere.
> > > instead, reusing "amd64". only downsid
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 07:41:57 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:33:01PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as
> > we are not
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:27:06AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about this.
> > Where will this default initramfs actually need to be placed?
>
> It should be similar to how sys-apps/v8
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
> It is my understanding all the options need to be specified every time
> dracut
> is run to create an initramfs. If this becomes mandatory, will this be
> added
> to the "make" script of the kernel-sources and as such, make this more
> s
On 9/15/11 1:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
>> get caught with non-booting systems.
>
> Guess we could try to detect a few common cases and die in pkg_setup()
> when
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 02:29:20 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer
> > > of
> > > complexity a lot of us users are not rea
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:14:20 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200 Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
> > get caught with non-booting systems.
>
> Guess we could try to detect a few common cases and die in p
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:00:14 Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
please dont top post
> Is it accepted for merge into kernel mainline for 3.2?
no. i was just being optimistic. i'm running 3.1-rc4 atm with a smallish
patch to make it work.
> Actualy this abi looks like n32 mips abi.
yeah, a l
On 09/15/2011 01:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>>> Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about
>>> this. Where will this default initramfs actually need to be
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to add "x32" everywhere.
> > instead, reusing "amd64". only downside is the existing USE=amd64
> > behavior, but we can address that b
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:31:45 PM Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list
> > about the upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to be
> > available prior to sta
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:03:53PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about
> > > this. Where will this default initram
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb support.
> > It installs /usr/share/v86d/initramfs and when you configure your
> > kernel, you set CONFIG_INITR
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
> get caught with non-booting systems.
Guess we could try to detect a few common cases and die in pkg_setup()
whenever the failure is imminent.
--
Best regards,
Micha
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to add "x32" everywhere.
> instead, reusing "amd64". only downside is the existing USE=amd64
> behavior, but we can address that by making MULTILIB_ABIS a
> USE_EXPAND (i think this came up before
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about
> > this. Where will this default initramfs actually need to be placed?
>
> It should be similar to how sys-apps/
Hi all!
Is it accepted for merge into kernel mainline for 3.2?
Actualy this abi looks like n32 mips abi.
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32 x86_64
x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have different keywords for
different mips abis (64bit and 32bit ones)
On
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:33:01PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we are
> not seeing any issues with our current systems.
See below on the existing ude
ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs. but i can
see how some people wont want all three all the time. so the question is how
we want to make this available to users at the release/profile level.
background: x32 is a new ABI that runs on 64bit x86_64 processors. see
On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list about
> the
> upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to be available prior to
> starting of udev.
systemd seems more and more just a support burden for n
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we
> are
> > not seeing any issues with our cu
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:35:21AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:53:50 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
> > "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
> > > I second the allowing dots in USE flag names. Definitely would be
> > > helpful for declaring
Michal Hrusecky posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:18:36 +0200 as excerpted:
>> How about using open-build-service in the name of the eclass(es)?
>
> I personally dislike long file names and obs is well known abbreviation
> (in my google search, second link is http://guild.opensuse.org and first
> htt
On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about this.
> Where will this default initramfs actually need to be placed?
It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb support.
It installs /usr/share/v86d/initramfs
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 08:07:35 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as
> > we are not seeing any issues with
On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we are
> not seeing any issues with our current systems.
Like it or not, it's the simplest possible sol
Hi Devs,
Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list about the
upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to be available prior to
starting of udev.
I would like to know what the position of the Gentoo developers is with
regarding this and how best to deal wit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Marijn - 9:35 15.09.11 wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 09/14/11 10:56, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > new versions of eclasses after hopefully fixing most of the
> > comments.
> >
>
> The download eclass speaks about ``openSUSE Build Service'
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:01:56 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:55:08 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting
> > > dots in useflags? My quick check shows th
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:55:08 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
> > in useflags? My quick check shows that all PMs handle them well,
> > quse and euse as well.
>
> Hrm, i
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting dots
> in useflags? My quick check shows that all PMs handle them well, quse
> and euse as well.
Hrm, it's rather disappointing that they're accepted everywhere. That
really sho
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:53:50 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:47:17 -0400
> "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
> > I second the allowing dots in USE flag names. Definitely would be
> > helpful for declaring version related USE flags.
>
> You know you won't be able to mention such fla
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Michal,
On 09/14/11 10:56, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> new versions of eclasses after hopefully fixing most of the
> comments.
>
The download eclass speaks about ``openSUSE Build Service'' while the
other calls it the ``Open Build Service''
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:32:37 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:15:59AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:19:35 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > however, why wont this work sanely in src_* or pkg_* funcs ? the
> > > env there is the one construct
60 matches
Mail list logo
