Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:53:44 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > Hi all, > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389437 > > has prompted a discussion of whether or not we should use ifconfig > in openrc to configure networking on linux systems. > > I'm not asking that we consider removing net-tool

[gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.6 unmasking

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:22:17 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: > 4.6.2 is now in the tree. It will be unmasked next weekend. Yeah I'm a tease. Looks like we have enough issues that I want to do another patchset. We also have showstopper bugs in grub:0 and libmpeg2 that need looking at. As always, if yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 04:10:50PM -0600, Matt Thode wrote: > I think that we should be using the new tools by now, it's been in > development for the last ten years. There would have to be some sort of > migration path for people to use though. If you have iproute2 installed, and you do not ha

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

Matt Thode schrieb: > I think that we should be using the new tools by now, it's been in > development for the last ten years. There would have to be some sort of > migration path for people to use though. Those people can continue using the tools they like, what openrc calls is not visible to

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > William Hubbs schrieb: > > I realize there would be a trade-off if I stop supporting linux's > > ifconfig and route in openrc, but how much of a trade-off? Would the > > benefits of iproute2 outweigh the down side of no

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > William Hubbs schrieb: >> I realize there would be a trade-off if I stop supporting linux's >> ifconfig and route in openrc, but how much of a trade-off? Would the >> benefits of iproute2 outweigh the down side of not supporting if

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

William Hubbs schrieb: > I realize there would be a trade-off if I stop supporting linux's > ifconfig and route in openrc, but how much of a trade-off? Would the > benefits of iproute2 outweigh the down side of not supporting ifconfig > and route on linux? > > What does everyone think? +1 Do you

[gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux

Hi all, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389437 has prompted a discussion of whether or not we should use ifconfig in openrc to configure networking on linux systems. I'm not asking that we consider removing net-tools from systems, because there are tools there that we still need. In my vi

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: pythoncard and boa-constructor (part of wxGTK 2.6 removal)

# Samuli Suominen (11 Nov 2011) # Masked for removal in 30 days since wxpython-2.6 is going away wrt bug 330683 dev-python/pythoncard dev-util/boa-constructor

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

First thanks for the feedback about chromium, and sorry for the annoyances. I'm not sure how we can "fix" that though. I've batched my replies to several people in this e-mail. On 11/11/11 8:58 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x So the timeline is: 26 Oct

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On 11/11/2011 2:58 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Hi guys, > > In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x > > 1x rebuild for cups useflag > 1x update > 1x rebuild for cups useflag > > If you screw the ebuild up then always think if the change is worth > the stupid long recompile time. > Like it is not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

On Friday 11 November 2011 10:50:47 Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/10/2011 10:59 PM, Duncan wrote: > > But please do at least einfo the change, and what to do to get back to > > non-quiet by default if desired. Someone mentioned a news item. I'm not > > sure it warrants that, but certainly an einfo, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x >> >> 1x rebuild for cups useflag >> 1x update >> 1x rebuild for cups useflag > > > > Chromium moves fast and you're

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: have portage be quiet by default

On 11/10/2011 10:59 PM, Duncan wrote: > Zac Medico posted on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:11:38 -0800 as excerpted: > >> I think --quiet-build would be a reasonable default, but --quiet >> suppresses various warning messages that I think need to be enabled by >> default for newbies. > > What's the differe

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On 11/11/2011 07:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 10 November 2011 22:23:57 Zac Medico wrote: >> On 11/10/2011 07:17 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >>> On 11/10/2011 06:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 10 November 2011 21:11:38 Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/10/2011 05:56 PM, Mike Frys

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Friday 11 November 2011 10:05:56 Nathan Phillip Brink wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:38:24AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > On 11/11/11 06:38 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > > sys-devel/autoconf-archive - binki > > I'll take autoconf-archive, unless if someone else wants it. i was going

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:58:10 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > I simply mean that weekly builds were masked. I still do it like that with snapshots and in fact with the entire www-client/opera-next series. jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On Thursday 10 November 2011 22:23:57 Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/10/2011 07:17 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 11/10/2011 06:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Thursday 10 November 2011 21:11:38 Zac Medico wrote: > >>> On 11/10/2011 05:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 10 November 2011

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Friday 11 November 2011 06:38:00 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > sys-devel/autoconf-archive i'd been updating this for years ... didn't realize someone else had taken it over ;). i'll move it to base-system herd. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:38:24AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > OK, to clarify i'm just re-listing which packages ppl have spoken up for: > > > On 11/11/11 06:38 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > > > app-misc/dsgui > > app-misc/klavaro > > dev-cpp/yaml-cpp - neurogeek > > dev-libs/softhsm - mschi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:44:07 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:45:29 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Maybe you could consider some of the releases major and other minor, > > and just keep a mask for those minor. Much like we did with Opera > > some time ago. > > I have no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:45:29 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > Maybe you could consider some of the releases major and other minor, > and just keep a mask for those minor. Much like we did with Opera some > time ago. I have no idea what you mean. It didn't look like that when I was doing it :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 OK, to clarify i'm just re-listing which packages ppl have spoken up for: On 11/11/11 06:38 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > app-misc/dsgui > app-misc/klavaro > dev-cpp/yaml-cpp - neurogeek > dev-libs/softhsm - mschiff > dev-ruby/dnsruby - mschiff > n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

2011/11/11 Tomáš Chvátal : > Hello guys, > > As my only Gentoo installation is libreoffice test virtual I am not > able to really care about these. > > So these packages are up for grabs if anyone finds them interesting: > > app-misc/dsgui > app-misc/klavaro > dev-cpp/yaml-cpp > dev-libs/softhsm >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

* Tomáš Chvátal schrieb am 11.11.11 um 12:38 Uhr: > Hello guys, > > As my only Gentoo installation is libreoffice test virtual I am not > able to really care about these. > > So these packages are up for grabs if anyone finds them interesting: > and those two as well as opendnssec depends on th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote: > One thing that is less obvious is that there are essentially two > flavors of unstable chromium- dev and beta.  Currently beta is 17.*, > dev is 16.*.  If you don't want blee

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

* Tomáš Chvátal schrieb am 11.11.11 um 12:38 Uhr: > Hello guys, > > As my only Gentoo installation is libreoffice test virtual I am not > able to really care about these. > > So these packages are up for grabs if anyone finds them interesting: I will take this one: > net-dns/opendnssec -Marc

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

Hello guys, As my only Gentoo installation is libreoffice test virtual I am not able to really care about these. So these packages are up for grabs if anyone finds them interesting: app-misc/dsgui app-misc/klavaro dev-cpp/yaml-cpp dev-libs/softhsm dev-ruby/dnsruby net-dns/opendnssec net-libs/dsl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:48:15AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote: > 2011/11/11 Brian Harring : > The build issue was with -cups so useflag was removed and hard > dependency enabled, fine with me. > But why the fuck the bump was issued next day still hard-depending on > it and in day after that this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

2011/11/11 Brian Harring : > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x >> >> 1x rebuild for cups useflag >> 1x update >> 1x rebuild for cups useflag > > > > Chromium moves fast and you're obviously running unstable k

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote: > Hi guys, > > In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x > > 1x rebuild for cups useflag > 1x update > 1x rebuild for cups useflag Chromium moves fast and you're obviously running unstable keywording. Meaning you're *intentional

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

2011/11/11 Alec Warner : > >> Like it is not enough there is version bump every few days... >> Just alter only live ebuild and branch of it with each release and do >> not alter the releases unless really critical bug is there. People are >> patient and they can wait for bugfixes. > > I actually li

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:22:34 -0800 Alec Warner wrote: > > Like it is not enough there is version bump every few days... > > Just alter only live ebuild and branch of it with each release and > > do not alter the releases unless really critical bug is there. > > People are patient and they can wai

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stop altering of current release ebuilds and propagate the changes slowly

2011/11/10 Tomáš Chvátal : > Hi guys, > > In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x > > 1x rebuild for cups useflag > 1x update > 1x rebuild for cups useflag > > If you screw the ebuild up then always think if the change is worth > the stupid long recompile time. I tentatively agree in terms of USe