On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Carlos Silva wrote:
> > > > If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
> > > > key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
> > > > put it under /usr/src/linux.
> > >
> > > Do you know if this i
Carlos Silva wrote:
> > > If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
> > > key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
> > > put it under /usr/src/linux.
> >
> > Do you know if this is a sane default?
> >
> > Where do most users of signed modules s
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Carlos Silva wrote:
> > If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
> > key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
> > put it under /usr/src/linux.
>
> Do you know if this is a sane default?
>
Carlos Silva wrote:
> If one wants to create a key himself, it's also possible to use this
> key, he just has to name it signing_key.priv and siging_key.x509 and
> put it under /usr/src/linux.
Do you know if this is a sane default?
Where do most users of signed modules store keys so far?
//Pete
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> # This looks messy, but it is needed to handle multiple variables
> # being passed in the BUILD_* stuff where the variables also have
> - # spaces that must be preserved. If don't do this, then the stuff
> + # spaces that must be pre
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Silva
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] patch linux-mod.eclass to add support for
module signing
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:25:38 -0100
@@ -663,7 +696,7 @@
# This looks messy, but it is needed to handle multiple variables
# bei
Hi guys,
I normally hang out on irc on #gentoo-kernel and a bunch of other #gentoo-*
channels. I stumble across the discussion of bug 447352 [1] that was
reported by a user that was enforcing module signatures on the kernel. This
made me to this patch (I talked to Mike before doing this).
Signed
Hi,
On 6/03/2013 18:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
Hi,
Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across
several categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make
maintaining easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
So, two questions:
1) Do you agree with adding new categor
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:05:51 +0400
Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> > On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> >> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite
> >> soon.
> >
> > Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
>
> Thanks. Do i have to
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
>
> Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
Thanks. Do i have to do anything more that add it to
profiles/categories and mkdir?
> --
> Dieg
On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On 06/03/2013 16:19, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I have no problem with the new category. We recently created a new
> category for the Qt packages which has around 20 packages in it, so I
> am not sure why Diego wants more than 100 packages for the new
> category.
I wasn't too happy about that either
On 6 March 2013 15:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
>> On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
>>> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
>>> in the works. I don't think a c
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
>> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
>> in the works. I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
>> some point in
On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
> in the works. I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
> some point in time popularity wanes and it needs
---
gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 30 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
index 934f32d..36b20dc 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
@@ -3
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass | 14 ++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
index c29b5df..66fb5a6 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
@@ -190,5 +
The new function can be used to create per-variant copies of source
trees. Code based on python_copy_sources from python-r1.
---
gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass | 21 +
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass b/gx86/eclass/multibuild.eclass
in
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
> packages. If we're talking ~100 I'm fine with it.
Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at
On 06/03/2013 13:04, George Shapovalov wrote:
> I am afraid, there is no "fix" in the form of "lets not add any". Every
> commits summary message has at least 3x more added packages vs removed ones.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
packages. If we're talking ~100
2013/3/6 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Not that you have to explain it, but that leads me to wonder if (a)
> there are other Gentoo devs who would maintain this stuff if you
> become disinterested
Yep, Pinkbyte is also co-maintaining, and in case of so
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 10:33:58 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
> mistakes.
Um, what are you talking about, too many categories?
I am afraid, there is no "fix" in the form of "lets not add any". Every
commits summary message
On 6 March 2013 15:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Hi,
> Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several
> categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining
> easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
> So, two questions:
> 1) Do you agree with adding ne
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> How many more are you expecting?
Six components are ready to be packaged in the nearest future, four
are being developed, and there are plans for, well, like a dozen more.
Also, keeping stuff in one category allows splitting several huge
ebuilds like leechcraft-azo
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
>
> It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
> as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.
It's not *just* the number of packages. I, for one,
On 06/03/2013 10:15, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
> as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.
>
The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
mistakes.
How many more are you expecting? (and
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò
>
> On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> > 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
>
> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
as we have many categories with 20 or even less
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
>
> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
Yes, definitely.
--
Georg Rudoy
LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org
On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
29 matches
Mail list logo
