On 12/27/2012 03:40 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
>>
>> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
>> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
>> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
>>
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
>
> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
>
OK here's one way how we could pull option a) through.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 03:14:37PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Something I don't like about this whole debate is that it tends to
> come off as "I've never run an initramfs and darn it I want to keep it
> that way." Gentoo has always been a cutting-edge/innovative distro.
> We have prefix, harden
On Thursday 27 December 2012 13:49:50 Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think moving everything into /usr is a good idea. However:
i don't think it's hard to support both. the majority of packages just want
to relocate shared libs into / from /usr and that's easy with one line:
gen_usr_ldscript -
On Wednesday 26 December 2012 23:01:46 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:48:23PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > On 24/12/2012 20:08, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > i.e. saying "we should get rid of gen_usr_ldscript and use
> > > --libdir=/lib" makes absolutely no sense. it's jus
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:41:08 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files
> > require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it
> > we would have to actually break the update pat
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:56:47 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:37:37 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
> > that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of
> > profiles EAPI.
>
> So what EAPI wo
On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files
> require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it
> we would have to actually break the update path for older portage
> versions completely.
So, adding new prof
Quoting Pacho Ramos (2012-12-27 12:20:11)
> Steev contacted me few hours ago to tell me he won't maintain dbacl
> anymore and, then, it's now up for grabs.
>
> Thanks for taking care of it
If nobody is interested I can take it.
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
signature.asc
Description: signature
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 15:14 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Go bring up the suggestion that the kernel should support direct
>> booting on lkml
>
> And be pointed at EFI_STUB functionality. Next?
I was referring to booting from a legac
On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 15:14 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Go bring up the suggestion that the kernel should support direct
> booting on lkml
And be pointed at EFI_STUB functionality. Next?
Regards,
Tony V.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:49:50PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Understood. However, the whole request to not have to support a
>> separate /usr without an initramfs was brought up by the udev team.
>> If udev doesn't have the need, then th
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:37:37 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
> that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of
> profiles EAPI.
So what EAPI would be used to parse use.stable.mask?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:49:50PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > As I and others have said on this list a thousdand times, moving
> > everything to /usr never had anything to do with systemd and udev. This
> > is a completely separate t
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> As I and others have said on this list a thousdand times, moving
> everything to /usr never had anything to do with systemd and udev. This
> is a completely separate topic.
Understood. However, the whole request to not have to support a
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:35:55PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:09AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:09AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>> >> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:09AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the
> >> council has not mandated that we support
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 07:55:38AM +, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the
> > council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an
> > initramfs, I am re-considering th
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
>
> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
>
> b) adding new profiles (with current EAPIs) and reques
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:42:27 +
"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" wrote:
> In less than two weeks, on Tuesday January the 8th, the council will meet
> again.
> Now is the time to prepare & raise items that you feel should be put to a
> vote.
>
> Please reply to this e-mail with any suggested agend
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> There's no reason we /can't/ have a comparable process for CVS to
> eliminate needless slopping of files around in pastebins/emails, both
> of which are time consuming and not designed for doing exactly that.
>...
>(lots of descriptions of fan
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the
>> council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an
>> initramfs, I am re-considering this.
>
> So
Steev contacted me few hours ago to tell me he won't maintain dbacl
anymore and, then, it's now up for grabs.
Thanks for taking care of it
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
24 matches
Mail list logo
