Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted:
> [Udev-systemd has] essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs
> from non-systemd users would be closed with WONTFIX.
Agreed, to this point.
> Actually, for political reasons, I hope that eudev does submit a bunch
> bug
On 15/12/12 06:16, Peter Stuge wrote:
Richard Yao wrote:
Where is development now?
We have rewritten the build system and restored support for older
kernels and verified compatibility as far back as Linux 2.6.31. We have
tagged 1_beta1 and eudev is in the portage tree. A few lingering
d
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 05:16:48AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote
> I hope that eudev wants to do the respectable thing for any fork, ie.
> work hard to minimize the amount of wasted effort in both projects by
> sharing much code and bugfixes.
That would be nice if systemd/udev upstream was agreeable
Richard Yao wrote:
> Where is development now?
>
> We have rewritten the build system and restored support for older
> kernels and verified compatibility as far back as Linux 2.6.31. We have
> tagged 1_beta1 and eudev is in the portage tree. A few lingering
> dependency issues exist, but we
On 12/14/2012 10:52 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> Dear Everyone,
>
> I am pleased to announce the Gentoo eudev project. Many of you already
> know about the eudev project from early publicity that we had before
> things were ready. Despite that, I hope to take advantage of the
> official announce
Dear Everyone,
I am pleased to announce the Gentoo eudev project. Many of you already
know about the eudev project from early publicity that we had before
things were ready. Despite that, I hope to take advantage of the
official announcement to explain what we are doing, why we are doing i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/12/12 06:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:09:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 14/12/12 03:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> I'm guessing that the result of the council meeting meant that
>>> things are progressing, right? I
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:09:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/12/12 03:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > I'm guessing that the result of the council meeting meant that
> > things are progressing, right? If so, in what way?
>
> Sounds like you should join us in #gentoo-udev to discuss, or join
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:00:56PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > Greg, can you write back to this message with specific examples of what
> > > would need to be customized so that separate /usr would work right
> > > without an initramfs? I have tried to explain multiple times that this
> > >
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:02:40 -0800
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > >> Handling separate /usr support ==
Greg KH posted on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:04:03 -0800 as excerpted:
> n Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:28:00PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> > On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > > udev was never the problem of having a separate /us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Everyone, given we already went through a major bikeshed a month ago,
let's not do it again...?
On 14/12/12 04:00 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>
> [ Snip! ]
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlDLlfAACgkQ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/12/12 03:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> Eudev's project announcement is coming soon, should answer your
>> questions.
>
> Ok, when is "soon"?
It's being drafted as we speak, s
Firstly I use your longlasting 3.2 kernel currently though perhaps not
for long as I'm switching distro to avoid systemd and thank you for
the LTS work, however that won't stop me speaking my mind.
_
> > Greg, can you write back t
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:15:05 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:08:24 + Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>
>> > I'd like to point out that my proposal implies that the *current*
>> > arches become the stable arches, and new sub-arches would be the
>> > testing ones. The
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:28:00PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wro
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >> Handling separate /usr support ==
> >> After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeti
El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 21:51 -0600, William Hubbs escribió:
[...]
> > > I'm wondering if packages assigned to maintainer-needed should be
> > > looked at and removed since no one cares about them after they have
> > > sat there for a certain amount of time?
> >
> > They are, aren't they? treecl
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >> Handling separate /usr support ==
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> Handling separate /usr support ==
>> After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay
>> of one mon
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Handling separate /usr support
> ==
> After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay of one
> month due to a new fork of udev was requested. We need an update on
> what's happened.
>
>
> "WH" == William Hubbs writes:
WH> For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going to
WH> keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for them.
gcc-2.95 is still the current version for some non-mainstream dist+
architecture tuples. The ability to test whether
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:25:59 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> We also have 720 packages listed as maintainer-needed[1] meaning
> nobody is actually taking care of them.
> And this number is pretty scary.
> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
Why is the number 72
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:08:24 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 14 December 2012 14:59, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >> We already have plenty of understaffed arches, I don't think it is
> >> wise to throw more responsibilities to them. Unless of course all
> >> developers are allowed to touch these
On 14 December 2012 14:59, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> We already have plenty of understaffed arches, I don't think it is
>> wise to throw more responsibilities to them. Unless of course all
>> developers are allowed to touch these *stable* profiles which
>> personally I don't like because arches wil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:39:56 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Remind me and the list again pls, why is this necessary rather than
> just using use.stable.mask and EAPI5 ebuilds in the regular profiles?
> This shouldn't break the tree with a non-EAPI
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:36:49 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 14 December 2012 14:29, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:38:24 +
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> >
> >> On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> > On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> >> On Thu,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Remind me and the list again pls, why is this necessary rather than
just using use.stable.mask and EAPI5 ebuilds in the regular profiles?
This shouldn't break the tree with a non-EAPI5 portage as the files
would just be ignored, as would the EAPI5 eb
On 14 December 2012 14:29, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:38:24 +
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico wrote:
>> > On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
>> >> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:38:24 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
> >> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 10:51 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.9
On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
>> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico:
> Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just
On 14 December 2012 07:56, George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2012 21:25:59 Markos Chandras wrote:
>> We also have 720 packages listed as maintainer-needed[1] meaning
>> nobody is actually taking care of them.
>> And this number is pretty scary.
> Scary how?
> With over 15000 packa
On 14 December 2012 07:36, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> Hi Folks!
> There are a few packages that I'm no longer interested in maintaining:
>
> media-gfx/mandelbulber (co maintained-by media-gfx, needs bump and some
> opencl love)
> net-irc/irssi-xmpp (stablereq pending #440864)
> net-misc/identicurse (
On 14 December 2012 06:21, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> William Hubbs schrieb:
For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for
them.
>>>
>>> iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some emb
35 matches
Mail list logo
