Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

On 16/01/13 08:52, Michael Palimaka wrote: On 16/01/2013 10:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this wou

[gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

On 16/01/2013 10:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles

Re: Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: >> > Unless sudo has some config setting that allows access only when >> > logged in via console it isn't really a solution. >> > >> > Rich >> > > > man sudoers -> /requiretty > >> >> I manage 'thousands' of desktops at Google and we generall

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg

On 1/15/13 4:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:34:42 -0800 > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: >> I'm trying to make Chromium be more compatible with more versions of >> ffmpeg: >> >> (although no

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On 1/15/13 3:36 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would > be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) > server profiles. > > The easiest way to do this would be to > * just not copy the server p

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

16.01.2013 03:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Hi, > > several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would > be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) > server profiles. > > The easiest way to do this would be to > * just not copy t

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

Rich Freeman wrote: > Not that anybody is taking requests, but it would be really handy > if serial ports were deterministically labeled. Does /dev/serial/* solve the problem? //Peter

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes WAS: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: ChangeLog toolchain.eclass

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:20:53 +0100 Michael Weber wrote: > Hi folks, > > this commit changes the set of USE flags on the just stabled gcc-4.6, > running a huge number into an rebuild of an freshly updated package. > (emerge --newuse recaclulates from "go disabled" to "go missing") Eh? I thought

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On 16/01/13 01:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles f

[gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and * have the deprecatio

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: > And it's not udev that could rename the interface (hint, it wouldn't), > it's the kernel, it _never_ guarantees the same interface "name" every > time you boot. You might just be getting lucky, but really, PCI busses > can be enumerated in differe

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:47:19 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:38:17 -0300 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:15 +0100 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300 > > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 15/01/13 04:16 AM, Michael Weber wrote: > > Hi, > > > > "This can have serious security implications" [1] > > > > For whom? > > I think the idea there is that a user expects eth0 and eth1 to stay > the same, writes iptables r

[gentoo-dev] packages up for grabs

Hi, The following packages are up for grabs app-cdr/daa2iso app-cdr/gaffitter app-laptop/prey app-misc/recoll app-backup/fsarchiver media-libs/liblqr net-news/canto sys-apps/pyrenamer I will drop them to maintainer-needed in ~10 days -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:38:17 -0300 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:15 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:

Re: Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:19:37 +0200 Maxim Kammerer wrote: > This is a major problem, there are other questionable choices that > raise the question whether developers are familiar with how things are > done on Unix: > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58787 > I have to confess that de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > We're halfway there; > > emerge --sync > > So how about adding: > > emerge --upgrade > > ? I was thinking the same thing! Cheers, Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:15 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300 > > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:

Re: [gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

13.01.2013 02:49, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >Please review attached automatically generated stabilizatiocandidates >for January. > > # mpagano kernel-misc sys-kernel/linux-docs-3.6. I'll do this for the just committed version linux-docs-3.6.11. What I will do for now on is change our stabiliza

Re: Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > You could try to argue that many eyes will look at a central piece of > code but in fact less implementations will likely mean less eyes and > just assumption that a guy who got JS through as a config language has > everything covered. Stil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

Rich Freeman wrote: > Anybody who runs debian knows that the only two commands you really > need to know are apt-get --update and apt-get --upgrade. We really > need to keep things just that simple. We're halfway there; emerge --sync So how about adding: emerge --upgrade ? //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

On 14:49 Sat 12 Jan , "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > Please review attached automatically generated stabilization candidates > for January. > > I don't want to annoy people with automatically filed bugs, and at the > same time I also received lots of positive feedback about the effort to > keep

Re: [gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I think the best way to proceed is to listen to that feedback and > continue the effort, while also keeping an updated list of exclusions > for packagers/herds that are actively stabilized by maintainers. I filed dev-python/paramiko-1

Re: [gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

On 12 January 2013 22:49, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > Please review attached automatically generated stabilization candidates > for January. > > I don't want to annoy people with automatically filed bugs, and at the > same time I also received lots of positive feedback about the effort to > keep

Re: Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

> > Unless sudo has some config setting that allows access only when > > logged in via console it isn't really a solution. > > > > Rich > > man sudoers -> /requiretty > > I manage 'thousands' of desktops at Google and we generally like > polkit. I never meant it is rubbish as such but I saw i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH eutils] Introduce run_in_build_dir() used in a few ebuilds.

On Monday 14 January 2013 22:20:20 Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:09:51 -0500 as excerpted: > >>> + [[ ${BUILD_DIR} ]] || die "${FUNCNAME}: BUILD_DIR not set." > >> > >> really should use -n there > >> > >> Doesn't matter. > > > > the point wasn't "will it work". i

Re: [gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

On 15/01/2013 20:05, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> > sys-libs/freeipmi-1.2.3-r1 > +0.5 I'd really prefer to see 1.2.2 or 1.2.3 stable first, given the history with FreeIPMI, I don't aim for too many stable candidates... -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeye

Re: [gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 02:49:52PM -0800, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > # robbat2 > app-admin/diradm-2.9.7.1 +1 > # robbat2 > app-shells/localshell-1.3.4 +1 > # netmon > dev-libs/geoip-1.4.8-r2 +0.5 looking for another vote > # base-system > sys-apps/irqbalance-1.0.5 +1 > # base-system > sys-ap

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > Although the eclass doe

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is > > > likely to use more fine-tuned

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is > > likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags. > > --- > > gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 +

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is > likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags. > --- > gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like multilib.e

Re: Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: >> >> I still ascert that apps adding groups with NOPASSWD sudoers lines >> perhaps even commented out by default in all or some cases is far >> better than polkit for many reasons. Any c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> Bikeshedding, but I'm thinking that it would be better to provide a >> whole separate command for this rather than a quicker convenience >> option -- the command would, for instan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/01/13 09:39 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: >> Bikeshedding, but I'm thinking that it would be better to provide >> a whole separate command for this rather than a quicker >> convenience

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/01/13 09:39 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > BTW, what happened with -u? I still use it because I'm used to it, > but it seems to have gone away (i.e. I can't find it in the current > man page). It's there: " --update (-u) Up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Bikeshedding, but I'm thinking that it would be better to provide a > whole separate command for this rather than a quicker convenience > option -- the command would, for instance, also include @world as the > target by default. As for th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/01/13 09:16 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Rich Freeman > wrote: >> I'd make it easy-to-remember though - either a one-letter option, >> or something short. > > +1. Maybe just -U? > >> Some open questions: 1.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'd make it easy-to-remember though - either a one-letter option, or > something short. +1. Maybe just -U? > Some open questions: > 1. What is the correct use-flag behavior - -N, or --reinstall=changed-use? > 2. What is the correct --with-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > I wonder if it might be pertinent for future portage's to install an > alias command, "emerge-system-update" or similar, that would wrap the > standardly accepted emerge update command more or less everyone > already runs.. easier end-use

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/01/13 03:42 AM, Michael Weber wrote: > > e) Some distro/driver constellations (archlinux?) tend to name > their wireless lan eth*. [...] e) never happened to me. It has for me, but not for a *LONG* time -- iirc it was prior to 2.6.16 and I th

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/01/13 04:16 AM, Michael Weber wrote: > Hi, > > "This can have serious security implications" [1] > > For whom? I think the idea there is that a user expects eth0 and eth1 to stay the same, writes iptables rules on a per-interface basis to co

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable sys-devel/gcc USE flag changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/01/13 02:20 AM, Michael Weber wrote: > Hi folks, > > this commit changes the set of USE flags on the just stabled > gcc-4.6, running a huge number into an rebuild of an freshly > updated package. (emerge --newuse recaclulates from "go disabled

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 09:48 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:25:01AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: >> William Hubbs wrote: >>> I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering >>> to discuss whether we want the new names for new

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg

Hi, On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:34:42 -0800 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > I'm trying to make Chromium be more compatible with more versions of > ffmpeg: > > (although not stated there, that includes libav). I've

Re: [gentoo-dev] January stabilization candidates

13.01.2013 02:49, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > Please review attached automatically generated stabilization candidates > for January. > # pinkbyte > app-shells/ccsh-0.0.4-r3 > app-shells/rrs-1.70-r1 > dev-libs/jthread-1.3.1 Ok for them > # netmon > dev-libs/geoip-1.4.8-r2 Ok for it And thank

Re: Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > I still ascert that apps adding groups with NOPASSWD sudoers lines > perhaps even commented out by default in all or some cases is far > better than polkit for many reasons. Any counter argument can apply > to sudo too and rather easily. >

Re: Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

> > Debian having to patch KDE to use /etc for configs is simply wrong too. > > huh huh, do you know if they have a fix for > http://bugs.gentoo.org/438790 to stop KDE from destroying upstream > polkit files? I don't, I just know that on Debian the configs are in /etc and the bug you mention,

Debian patching KDE to use /etc for configuration (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names)

On 14/01/13 20:35, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Debian having to patch KDE to use /etc for configs is simply wrong too. huh huh, do you know if they have a fix for http://bugs.gentoo.org/438790 to stop KDE from destroying upstream polkit files?

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, "This can have serious security implications" [1] For whom? The often cited end user not running any network service, not even sshd? Without firewalls, routing or dhcp_d_? Some avahi-discovery woodoo stuff unaware of network topology at all? M

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi all, I respect both sides of the discussion, because: a) I once set up an old P3-700 with 5+1 eth cards in 6 different networks as (bridging)router and truly benefited from the ability to change a broken NIC - which happened quite often due scra