On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 23:24 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> GNOME is part of the GNU project, so we should be safe unless they
> decide against portability. OpenSuSe and Mageia are other distributions,
> so they are not upstream for us.
With my GNOME hat on:
GNOME does not take any marching orders fr
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 23:54 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
> >> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advoca
Richard Yao posted on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:20:13 -0400 as excerpted:
> The only thing that might require a merge is systemd and it is not in
> @system. If we offered users the ability to choose rc systems, we would
> still be supporting baselayout-1's rc system. If we start now, we should
> bring t
On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
>> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advocating is
>> trying to follow upstream for individual packages.
On 07/17/2012 09:28 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 21:17, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
>>> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basically starts happening
>>> on its own
On 17 July 2012 21:17, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
>> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basically starts happening
>> on its own automatically if we DON'T do much. This is because
On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basically starts happening
> on its own automatically if we DON'T do much. This is because
> upstream is the one pushing it.
Which upstre
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:37:03PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> > I'm sure most people can't
> > even explain the difference between them.
> >
>
> /sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
Not quite, check out t
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 20:37 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> > I'm sure most people can't
> > even explain the difference between them.
> >
>
> /sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
Or you can try this experiment
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 20:37 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> > I'm sure most people can't
> > even explain the difference between them.
> >
>
> /sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
Except when it isn't the case, f
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I have yet to see any convincing reason to do this other than "RedHat is
> doing it". This change will not make Gentoo a better distribution and it
> is simply not worth the pain. Some people appear to think that this is
> an urgent issue and I
On 07/17/2012 08:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
Lastly, don't tell me to read systemd's case for why we should break
people's systems. I have read it and I find it flawed. There is
absolutely no need for us to make this change.
>>>
>>> Without elaboration on why you find their case fl
On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> I'm sure most people can't
> even explain the difference between them.
>
/sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:19:48PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 07:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > This is basically not relevant since we do not support HURD.
>
> It is relevant because it guarantees that the GNU stuff in @system will
> continue working. That allows us to narrow our
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:13:06PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> This is not quite correct. The initramfs is required because of [1].
>>>
>>>
>>> William
>>>
>> Where is [1]?
> [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:13:06PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>
> William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > This is not quite correct. The initramfs is required because of [1].
> >
> >
> > William
> >
>
> Where is [1]?
[1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
We have a way around t
On 07/17/2012 07:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:20:13PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
>> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
>> initramfs on people happily using /usr without it.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:41:26PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> In any case, it sounds like for now some devs are continuing to adjust
> ebuilds to keep a separate /usr working as well as possible, though it
> apparently breaks in some edge cases right now without an initramfs,
> as you've already
William Hubbs wrote:
>
> This is not quite correct. The initramfs is required because of [1].
>
>
> William
>
Where is [1]?
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advocating is
> trying to follow upstream for individual packages.
As I've been saying for a while, doing a full me
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:20:13PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
> initramfs on people happily using /usr without it.
This is not quite correct. The initramfs is req
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I have also been told that the /usr merge is necessary because upstream
> will force it on us. Interestingly, most of @system on Gentoo Linux is
> GNU software, which would need to stop supporting things in / in order
> for that to happen.
I d
Dear Everyone,
An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
initramfs on people happily using /usr without it.
Interestingly, the /usr merge changes made to genkernel permit us to
mount /etc from a genkernel-bui
On 07/17/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Do we really need to include them in main.cf?
Yes, as long as we want the docs under /usr/share/doc/${PF}/ - the
Gentoo norm. Alternative might be not to install the readme|html files
via the doc USE flag.
Not that I mind, but this is getting off
On 17.07.2012 16:49, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
After changing these for years, I finally realized that the defaults are
correct:
# postconf -d readme_directory html_directory
readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.8.9/readme
html_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.8.9/html
Do we r
On 07/17/12 07:21, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 02:00 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> It may be a small issue, but since the potential pain is quite large,
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
>
>> since postfix config file changes are usually
>> pretty hard to review for merges.
>
> Hmm, that's a failu
Nathan Zachary posted on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:29:52 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:21:07 +0300 Eray Aslan wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/2012 02:00 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> > It may be a small issue, but since the potential pain is quite large,
>>
>> Yes, that's the idea.
>>
> Consider
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:21:07 +0300
Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 02:00 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > It may be a small issue, but since the potential pain is quite
> > large,
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
>
Considering Postfix is an MTA that is commonly used in production
environments, it is
On 07/17/2012 02:00 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> It may be a small issue, but since the potential pain is quite large,
Yes, that's the idea.
> since postfix config file changes are usually
> pretty hard to review for merges.
Hmm, that's a failure on our part. >=postfix-2.9 ebuilds is better in
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> Well, the sysadmin runs dispatch-conf, a new daemon_directory setting
> comes up and he goes WTF? I am trying to avoid that WTF moment.
>
> There was a few complaints in gentoo-user ML and a bug report when it
> was introduced to ~arch. It se
On 07/17/2012 01:34 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> Imho, no need a news for it.
> emerge -DuN world;revdep-rebuild;dispatch-conf is what you normally do.
Well, the sysadmin runs dispatch-conf, a new daemon_directory setting
comes up and he goes WTF? I am trying to avoid that WTF moment.
There was
On Tuesday 17 July 2012 13:19:25 Eray Aslan wrote:
> I'd like to commit the following news item on 2012-07-21. Any comments?
Imho, no need a news for it.
emerge -DuN world;revdep-rebuild;dispatch-conf is what you normally do.
--
Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Security L
I'd like to commit the following news item on 2012-07-21. Any comments?
--
Eray Aslan
Title: Upgrading to postfix-2.9
Author: Eray Aslan
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2012-07-17
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: =mail-mta/postfix-2.9 are installed under
/usr/libexec/
On 12 July 2012 21:51, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/07/12 07:41 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 12 July 2012 17:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Ben de Groot
>>> wrote:
Actually, there is another workable so
34 matches
Mail list logo
