Hello!
Would it make sense to move these ebuilds to a dedicated overlay?
I can think of one IPS that uses both Gentoo and Horde [1] (though I'm
not sure which version and if in combination). A imagine that a
dedicated overlay could be both a service to people who still rely on
horde and at the s
Duncan wrote:
> Ian Stakenvicius posted on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:53:16 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> Although, we could always make emerge do an automatic --sync if, say,
>> /path/to/portage/profiles doesn't exist. :)
>
> Ugh, no. Some (many?) of us have a separate portage tree partition, and
> occas
Duncan wrote:
> Dale posted on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:35:40 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>> Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Agreed, tho ACTUALLY having the documentation available, AND LINKING to
> it in the handbook ("For an in-depth discussion, read..."), would be a
> good thing.
>
>> Well, way back when I fi
Ian Stakenvicius posted on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:53:16 -0400 as excerpted:
> Although, we could always make emerge do an automatic --sync if, say,
> /path/to/portage/profiles doesn't exist. :)
Ugh, no. Some (many?) of us have a separate portage tree partition, and
occasionally accidentally do an
Dale posted on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:35:40 -0500 as excerpted:
> Joshua Saddler wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200 Pacho Ramos
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
>>> separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo
On 03/28/12 21:28, Tim Harder wrote:
> On 2012-03-28 Wed 17:31, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
>>> this is not the license used by the BSD project:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
>>> In particular, the FreeBSD l
On 2012-03-28 Wed 17:31, Richard Yao wrote:
> > Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
> > this is not the license used by the BSD project:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
> > In particular, the FreeBSD license removes the third clause and app
Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> * Aaron W. Swenson schrieb am 27.03.12 um 21:59 Uhr:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 03/27/2012 03:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs
>> /var/cache/{ebuilds,distfiles,eclasses,profiles}
>>
>> Or we
Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to
>> create a separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my
>> first Gentoo systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of
>> f
On 03/28/12 20:27, Richard Yao wrote:
> Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
> this is not the license used by the BSD project:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
>
> In particular, the FreeBSD license removes the third clause and appends
> "
Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
this is not the license used by the BSD project:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
In particular, the FreeBSD license removes the third clause and appends
"The views and conclusions contained in the software
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to
> create a separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my
> first Gentoo systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of
> fragmentation, much slower "emerge
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:04:46PM +0200, Piotr Szymaniak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:24:56PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > Fwiw, I've also long despised the layout of the distfiles directory
> > being a flat hierarchy, it makes the directory a festering pit of
> > hellspawn over time on a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 28/03/12 03:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Christoph Mende
> wrote:
>>
>> I believe it's /var/lib/. Here's what FHS says: /var/cache
>> is intended for cached data from applications. Such data is
>> locally genera
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:43 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> So, we're all getting way off topic and discussing reorganizing the
> whole enchilada.
>
> How about we all agree or disagree on the primary point: The Portage
> tree doesn't belong in /usr.
>
> I believe that it does belong under /var/
On 03/28/2012 11:43 AM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
The Portage PMS on it's next release would just do a 'mkdir
/var/cache/gentoo-repos/portage/&& sync&& rm -rf /usr/portage&&
echo "Portage has moved"' on its next 'emerge --sync' while still
looking in both locations for packages.
(After looking a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/28/2012 02:53 PM, Christoph Mende wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Aaron W. Swenson
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I know this has come
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Christoph Mende wrote:
>
> I believe it's /var/lib/. Here's what FHS says:
> /var/cache is intended for cached data from applications. Such data is
> locally generated as a result of time-consuming I/O or calculation.
> The application must be able to regenerate or
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 11:37 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> > On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
>> specific objections were.
>>
>> IMO the portage director
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
> specific objections were.
>
> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
> chatting with another de
On 03/28/2012 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
>>
>
> Yeah
Up for removal in 4 weeks:
# Alex Legler (28 Nov 2010)
# Not maintained, multiple security issues.
# Use the split horde ebuilds instead.
www-apps/horde-webmail
www-apps/horde-groupware
# Alex Legler (28 Mar 2012)
# Leftover packages from a packaging attempt of Horde-4
# These can be readded wh
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Piotr Szymaniak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:24:56PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> Fwiw, I've also long despised the layout of the distfiles directory
>> being a flat hierarchy, it makes the directory a festering pit of
>> hellspawn over time on any filesyst
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are hi
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are hi
On 03/27/12 15:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 03:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs
wrote: /var/cache/repositories/gen
On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
>>
>
> Yeah, r
* Aaron W. Swenson schrieb am 27.03.12 um 21:59 Uhr:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 03/27/2012 03:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >>> On 28 Mar
On 28 March 2012 20:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only
possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
>>
>
> Ye
On 03/28/12 10:42, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/28/12 10:24, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>>
>>> Just use categories from repos?
>>>
>>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
>>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
>>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/zlib-3.4.tar.bz2
>>> /usr/portage
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:42:26 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> The general sentiment that I have seen from Gentoo developers on IRC
> is that overlays are bad and that they are meant for things that will
> eventually be merged into the main tree.
What they should really be saying is that Portage is bad
On 28 March 2012 23:04, Piotr Szymaniak wrote:
> Just use categories from repos?
>
> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/zlib-3.4.tar.bz2
> /usr/portage/distfiles/zomg-soft/zomgawesomesoft-5.3.1.tar.
On 03/28/12 10:24, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>
>> Just use categories from repos?
>>
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/zlib-3.4.tar.bz2
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/zomg-soft/zomgawesomesoft-5.3.1.tar.
>
> Just use categories from repos?
>
> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/zlib-3.4.tar.bz2
> /usr/portage/distfiles/zomg-soft/zomgawesomesoft-5.3.1.tar.xz
> (from zomg repo with custom zomg-soft cat
OK to lastrite sys-auth/tcb? There are following problems with it:
- it requires non-trivial patching to be compatible with glibc that
doesn't have Openwall patches; the next version of tcb (1.1) would need
to be updated to work with Gentoo
- there are other bugs too (#371167, #408647)
And now w
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
> Just use categories from repos?
I've always thought splitting distfiles by category would make a huge
amount of sense.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:24:56PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> Fwiw, I've also long despised the layout of the distfiles directory
> being a flat hierarchy, it makes the directory a festering pit of
> hellspawn over time on any filesystem that doesn't have dirindex. (
> I've seriously had "ls" ta
Brian Dolbec posted on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:00:02 -0700 as excerpted:
> Layman currently uses /var/lib/layman/overlay-name. It would be best I
> feel to place them in one common location. I also feel the main tree
> should be stored as the same name as it's repo_name value.
>
> If it is done in
On 28 March 2012 20:46, Alex Alexander wrote:
> For example, my /usr/portage/ on this system looks like this:
>
> portage/
> tree/
> profiles/ -> tree/profiles/
> distfiles/
> packages/
> layman/
>
> it is a big improvement over the current
> distfiles-and-packag
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:05:54PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
> specific objections were.
>
> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all.
> I was chatting with another developer who uses
> /var/cache/po
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
> since everyone has an SSD now.
>
Yeah, right. Since I must be the only one out there th
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 08:25 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
> > specific objections were.
> >
> > IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all.
> > I was chat
44 matches
Mail list logo
