On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:07:01 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Do you prefer having everything hardcoded in PMS or can you accept
> outsourcing bigger code pieces into some sort of eclass (i am thinking
> about some external code base, which can be duplicated by the package
> manager with internal code
On 06/20/2012 06:46 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 17:35:00 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
>> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs pre
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>
On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people pu
Hi, I have about 11 years of experience with coreboot. I got
involved while developing a custom BIOS for an embedded system.
You may already have caught some presentation I or one of the other
developers have made about the project. There's a bunch of links
over at http://www.coreboot.org/Screensh
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 17:35:00 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't
> > have to call the respective src_* fu
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> >>> pkg
On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have
to cal
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> We would gain a faster boot process. We would also enable people to
> avoid paying money for keys that can be revoked without a refund.
>
While I have no doubt that a determined team could make a f
On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> In theory, the kernel could be modified to only execute signed binaries
>> and portage could be modified to produce signed binaries. The user could
>> build a system that required everything to be signed with the private
>> key of his choice. A hardene
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Core Boot is a Linux distribution. I do not think that we should boot
> Gentoo using their distribution any more than we boot Gentoo using RHEL.
Well, maybe it is a distro in the sense that genkern
On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but
their development process is slow and their approach seems to make the
boot process more complicated than it needs to be. Since
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but their
> development process is slow and their approach seems to make the boot process
> more complicated than it needs to be. Since Secure Boot will force us to
> flash our
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that UEFI Secure
Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is implemented in the UEFI
firmware and if we replace the firmware, Secure Boot issues disappear. With
that in mind, I believe we can solve the Secure Boot problem b
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:02:40 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't
> have to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass.
> unfortunately this adds point
Brian Harring schrieb:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200
>>> Thomas Sachau wrote:
Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok
with this, so i will propose to add th
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200
> > Thomas Sachau wrote:
> >> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok
> >> with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council age
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:54:07 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200
> > Thomas Sachau wrote:
> >> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is
> >> ok with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council
> >> agen
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok
>> with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council agenda
>> for EAPI-5 addition.
>
> Got a diff for PMS?
>
Last time you on
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok
> with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council agenda
> for EAPI-5 addition.
Got a diff for PMS?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP si
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
> Duncan schrieb:
>> Thomas Sachau posted on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:31:40 +0200 as excerpted:
>>
>>> Since i am not that sure about my ability to write formal specs, i am
>>> presenting my first draft for further review and suggestions for
>>> improvement.
>>
>> Just a format su
Luca Barbato schrieb:
> On 06/16/2012 12:31 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Since i am not that sure about my ability to write formal specs, i am
>> presenting my first draft for further review and suggestions for
>> improvement.
>
> Currently I'm experimenting with evil hack with qemu-static (hopeful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/16/2012 12:31 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Since i am not that sure about my ability to write formal specs, i am
> presenting my first draft for further review and suggestions for
> improvement.
Currently I'm experimenting with evil hack with qemu
On 06/17/2012 10:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form.
>
> Both attached and published as a gist:
>
> https://gist.github.com/2945569
>
> (please note that github doesn't render GLEP headers correctly)
>
As already stated I like th
On 06/17/2012 10:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A simple solution to a program long-unsolved. In GLEP form.
>
> Both attached and published as a gist:
>
> https://gist.github.com/2945569
>
> (please note that github doesn't render GLEP headers correctly)
>
This looks very nice, imo.
On 06/17/2012 05:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> But Python doesn't have one. Bindings built using other
> languages don't have that either.
That seems something interesting to tackle with the python community.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:43:47 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > > - being package-oriented rather than feature-oriented,
> >
> > No; use flags are our configuration space, and they turn on/off
> > sections of the given pkgs graph. Your proposal relies on the same
> > concept; bluntly, what you're p
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:04:48 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:31:59PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > 4. flags listed in ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` may be referred through USE
> >dependencies by other packages' ``DEPEND``, ``RDEPEND``
> >and ``PDEPEND`` variables.
>
> Unles
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:42:55 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Bleh; wish your attachment had been text/plain for inline
> commenting; pardon any mangling...
Sorry, forgot to change the type before sending.
> > 3. Defining dynamic SLOT groups
> > ---
> >
> > The list of
On 06/19/2012 10:10 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
Samuli Suominen writes:
On 06/17/2012 10:12 AM, Naohiro Aota (naota) wrote:
naota 12/06/17 07:12:19
Modified: ChangeLog
Log:
Add ~x86-fbsd. #419621
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha110/cvs/Linux x86_64)
Revision Ch
Samuli Suominen writes:
> On 06/17/2012 10:12 AM, Naohiro Aota (naota) wrote:
>
>> naota 12/06/17 07:12:19
>>
>>Modified: ChangeLog
>>Log:
>>Add ~x86-fbsd. #419621
>>
>>(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha110/cvs/Linux x86_64)
>>
>> Revision ChangesPath
>> 1.261
32 matches
Mail list logo
