Ryan Hill posted on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:10:07 -0600 as excerpted:
[On switching the gentoo tree to git.]
> Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land?
At one point, yes, but AFAIK, that was actually resolved some time ago
(a year, two?) now.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred.
On 06/11/2014 12:10 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> But, for the most part we just need to get the back-end re-written to
>> work with a git repo. Actually migrating the tree itself to git is
>> largely a solved problem.
>
> Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land?
>
That's completel
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:09:26 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >
> > Why are you saying that git is inefficient with large projects? It
> > was developed with efficiency in mind in the first place. And
> > kernel guys will likely disagree wit
v2: Restrict by arch
--
Title: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
Author: Ryan Hill
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2014-06-10
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-4.8.3
Display-If-Keyword: amd64
Display-If-Keyword: arm
Display-If-Keyword: mips
Display-If-
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:22:11 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
> > -fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
> > an error on hppa? Maybe give
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:48:53 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 06/10/14 10:35, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
> >> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
> >>
> >> Ryan Hill wrote:
> >>> Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc its
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> Since v1.9.0 we can clone from a shallow repository.
Wow, awesome! Thank you, git developers, you rock (and sorry I'm too
lazy to tell you in your own mailing list :) )!
On 06/10/2014 03:52 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 08/06/14 18:06, hasufell wrote:
>> I am not sure if that is a joke. You can pretty much ask most major
>> gentoo projects. The ones where I was involved more deeply definitely
>> suffer from that problem, including sunrise and games team. Science tea
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Another part: Git wasn't ready.
> The first migration attempt failed after consuming nearly 100GB of RAM!
> When it did work it took obscene amounts of time, and the result was
> unusably large (e.g. initial checkout would take 16GB RAM on th
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> The first migration attempt failed after consuming nearly 100GB of RAM!
> When it did work it took obscene amounts of time, and the result was
> unusably large (e.g. initial checkout would take 16GB RAM on the server,
> thus not allowing a fe
On 06/11/2014 01:39 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 23:08:15 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0500
>> Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
[2]: Overview of bugs that involve OpenRC, most for the package
itself. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicks
On 06/10/2014 11:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
[lots of whining removed ;) ]
>
> I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
> probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
> internals, because I see of no other reason why Git is still not
> used despite efforts o
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:58 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> interesting read:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/189776
>
> Does any1 know what fb currently uses or if any of these issues have
> been resolved?
>
Not sure, but I did a git status on the actual gentoo-x86 converted
re
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:58:36 +
hasufell wrote:
> Andrew Savchenko:
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:49:15 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> >> On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >>> I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
> >>> probably some infrastructure elements
Andrew Savchenko:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:49:15 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>> On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>> I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
>>> probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
>>> internals, because I see of no othe
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:39:30 +0400
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 23:08:15 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0500
> > Daniel Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > > [2]: Overview of bugs that involve OpenRC, most for the package
> > > > itself. https://bugs.gentoo
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 23:08:15 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0500
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> > > [2]: Overview of bugs that involve OpenRC, most for the package
> > > itself. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=openrc
>
> > I think working on OpenRC woul
Rich Freeman wrote:
> likely bikeshedding
..
> Or we can just accept that those using overlays will have them
> break from time to time.
Maybe there's an in-between. It's very reasonable to ask from an
overlay maintainer that they run overlint now and then. If overlint
can be taught to report when
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> Why are you saying that git is inefficient with large projects? It
> was developed with efficiency in mind in the first place. And
> kernel guys will likely disagree with "git is not great with crazy
> big projects" statement.
The kern
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:49:15 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
> > probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
> > internals, because I see of no other reason why Git is s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
> probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
> internals, because I see of no other reason why Git is still not
> used des
Hello,
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:45:26 + hasufell wrote:
> Thomas Kahle:
> > then they stay in the overlay
> > because people feel it is not worth the effort to fix the QA
> > issues which in turn would be necessary before moving them to the
> > main tree.
> >
>
> Probably because no one mentor
On 06/10/14 10:35, Magnus Granberg wrote:
tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an error
On 06/10/14 08:22, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r1 a whirl.
Setting -fstac
tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
>
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
> > -fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
> > an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r
On 10.6.2014 5.31, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 18:16:02 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
>> Beginning with GCC 4.8.3, Stack Smashing Protection (SSP) will be
>> enabled by default.[..]
>
> .. on supported architectures.
>
>
> Right?
>
I would rather make news items architecture spec
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
> -fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
> an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r1 a whirl.
Setting -fstack-protector on HPPA does this:
warnin
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:57:32 +0200
Thomas Kahle wrote:
> I was mentored on the QA issues and have come to 'this attitude'
> myself. Take sci-mathematics/singular: Upstream is genuinely not
> interested in supporting distriutions or their petty QA unless
> you can prove them that there is a probl
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
>
> My personal attitude: It is just not worth the effort to rewrite
> their build systems for the ~10 users out there. I have better
> things to do with my time and I think that these packages can
> live forever in the overlay and that is comp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
For what it's worth, I strongly oppose using GitHub or any other SaaSS
that is not licensed using AGPL or under similar terms.
My suggestion is Phabricator, which additionally beats GitHub on
functionality by having proper code review support. I wil
On Monday 09 June 2014 21:45:26 hasufell wrote:
> Probably because no one mentored them on how to fix these QA issues.
> Otherwise... if that's attitude, then that's just sad and has to be
> fixed by those who run that overlay (review, contribution guidelines).
>
> And I still think that the top 1
On 09.06.2014 23:45, hasufell wrote:
> Thomas Kahle:
>> then they stay in the overlay
>> because people feel it is not worth the effort to fix the QA
>> issues which in turn would be necessary before moving them to the
>> main tree.
>>
>
> Probably because no one mentored them on how to fix these
32 matches
Mail list logo
