Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Dale
Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dale wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Micha?? Górny schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because a

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 Dale wrote: > Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 > > Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > > >> * Micha?? Górny schrieb: > >> > >>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? > >> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? > > Be

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Dale
Mike Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dale wrote: Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigeltwrote: * Micha?? Górnyschrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because a

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dale wrote: > Michał Górny wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 >> Enrico Weigelt  wrote: >> >>> * Micha?? Górny  schrieb: >>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? >>> >>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? >> >> Be

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Dale
Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Micha?? Górny schrieb: Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put more work jus

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Steven J Long wrote: > The shifting nature of the arguments and the solutions makes me more > uncomfortable that this hasn't been thought through even with the amount of > feedback, and more importantly proper consideration to that feedback, > required for a GLEP,

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Steven J Long
Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:56:11 -0600 > Dale wrote: >> How much time does it take when the initramfs fails? > > The same when rootfs fails? Only the fact that initramfs is less likely > to break than rootfs, Seems to me for the average desktop user (who all this is aimed at, a

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

2012-01-17 Thread Steven J Long
Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 > Enrico Weigelt wrote: > >> * Micha?? Górny schrieb: >> >> > Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? >> >> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? > > Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We shoul

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Cyprien Nicolas
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: On 1/17/12 6:35 PM, Zac Medico wrote: I think what want already exists: http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/info_vars Am I right? Not really. Even the example SYSTEM is not listed there, and as said before we can't put every possible, n

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mar, 17-01-2012 a las 18:23 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió: > On 1/16/12 12:36 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > I agree but, why not *also* make portage warn people when they are > > exporting some "known to break" variables in their make.conf? > > That'd require coming up with such list of "kno

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:41:47 +0100 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > Not really. Even the example SYSTEM is not listed there, and as said > before we can't put every possible, now and in the future, bad > variable name there. Wouldn't the environment file reveal these bad variables? emerge output h

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/17/12 6:35 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/16/2012 02:54 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> People frequently break their systems by exporting weird variables like >> SYSTEM from /etc/make.conf (USE variable "grouping"). >> >> Example here:

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Zac Medico
On 01/16/2012 02:54 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > People frequently break their systems by exporting weird variables like > SYSTEM from /etc/make.conf (USE variable "grouping"). > > Example here: > > What do you think about adding list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding list of variables exported by make.conf to emerge --info

2012-01-17 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/16/12 12:36 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > I agree but, why not *also* make portage warn people when they are > exporting some "known to break" variables in their make.conf? That'd require coming up with such list of "known bad" variable names, and generally I don't think blacklisting is very effec

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-util/chromium-tools

2012-01-17 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
# Determined by the maintaining team to be no longer useful. # Removal in 30 days (02/16/2012). dev-util/chromium-tools signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature