Mike Gilbert posted on Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:49:42 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Michael Orlitzky
> wrote:
>> On 08/24/2016 07:37 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> I imagine _someone_ out there wants it, otherwise we wouldn't be
>>> discussing it.
>>
>> The thread started
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Robin H. Johnson
wrote:
> Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today
> it comprises 320 packages, of which 61 of those have more than one
> maintainer. The packages with more than one maintainer I'm only
> concerned about if the other ma
On 2016-08-24 23:59, William Hubbs wrote:
> Since OpenRC is used outside of Gentoo, a warning like this would have
> to be:
>
> * /etc/init.d/test uses runscript and must be converted to openrc-run
> * For more details see the OpenRC NEWS file
>
> because we don't know where or if the file will b
Hi All,
sorry, if this has been asked or explained before, but google and the
gentoo wiki couldn't find any answers.
I just got my first bug found by the tinderbox and would like to reproduce
the environment (chroot) that the bug was found in. There is some nice info
about it in the bug, but I wa
On 2016-08-24 22:23, Consus wrote:
> On 09:42 Wed 24 Aug, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 08/24/2016 09:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > > * no benefit put forth so far, other than that it's the same file that
> > > systemd uses, which is true but not beneficial as far as I can tell
> >
> > It's
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:41:42PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2016-08-24 19:07, William Hubbs wrote:
> > I do not plan to drop runscript at this point, that will happen when
> > openrc-1.0 is released, which will be a while yet.
>
> ...and that's the reason why I don't think this needs
# Michael Palimaka (24 Aug 2016)
# No longer produced by upstream and no longer used by anything.
# Masked for removal in 30 days.
kde-apps/libkdeedu
Am Mittwoch, 24. August 2016, 16:05:05 schrieb Lars Wendler:
>
> Oh, and to all new team members:
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.
>
That won't help anyone with upgrading.
Large p
On 09:42 Wed 24 Aug, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 09:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > * no benefit put forth so far, other than that it's the same file that
> > systemd uses, which is true but not beneficial as far as I can tell
>
> It's a de facto standard. Being different for the sa
On 2016-08-24 19:07, William Hubbs wrote:
> I do not plan to drop runscript at this point, that will happen when
> openrc-1.0 is released, which will be a while yet.
...and that's the reason why I don't think this needs a newsitem.
There's _no_ problem and no _immediate_ user interaction is requir
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:11:38PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:17:58PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > net-misc/dhcpcd (upstream?)
>
> I maintain dhcpcd; I'm not sure why it is on this list.
> In fact, there is a stablereq still pending on 6.11.1-r1.
>
> Upstream i
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:05:05PM +0200, Lars Wendler wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:08:30 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> >On 8/23/16 8:03 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> >> I have some kind of interest for these packages:
> >
> >Lars, maybe once we get some names we should get a meeting of
> >b
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:32:05PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:43 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > I thought about dropping the version number from the
> > display-if-installed line, but that doesn't make sense because it means
> > that everyone, including all new ins
On 08/24/2016 09:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> * no benefit put forth so far, other than that it's the same file that
> systemd uses, which is true but not beneficial as far as I can tell
It's a de facto standard. Being different for the sake of being
different is not a virtue in cases li
On 08/24/2016 12:22 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> Seems like something we could automate in pkg_posinst of the openrc
> ebuild, but probably also deserves a news item.
>
Or in the systemd ebuild =P
I'll drop this, I've made my peace:
* adding another configuration file is inconsistent with every
On 08/24/2016 09:06 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 11:49 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> You're right that the orignal purpose of the change has been debunked.
>>
>> So, starting over: one real benefit would be cross-compatibility with
>> systemd. It's one less thing people would need to
On 08/24/2016 11:49 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> You're right that the orignal purpose of the change has been debunked.
>
> So, starting over: one real benefit would be cross-compatibility with
> systemd. It's one less thing people would need to reconfigure when
> migrating to/from openrc.
>
I s
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 07:37 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
>> I imagine _someone_ out there wants it, otherwise we wouldn't be
>> discussing it.
>
> The thread started out proposing it as a solution to a docker problem
> that, it turns out, isn't a
On 08/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Lars Wendler
> wrote:
>> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
>> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.
>
> What's the time frame for lifting that
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not be
> a bad outcome from this email either ;-).
I am considering joining, if only to have some input and greater
transparency on decision making.
For example, I have no
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.
What's the time frame for lifting that restriction?
There are some key packages that base-sys
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:59:21 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> These things get left in forever. I once filed a bug report
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=569056 because the warning that
> English word lists in vim had been removed was still present *TWO YEARS*
> after the fact.
>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:32:05PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:43 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > I thought about dropping the version number from the
> > display-if-installed line, but that doesn't make sense because it means
> > that everyone, including all new inst
On 24/08/16 15:08, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> This reminds me a question I have for some time: is it documented in
> some place what are the steps to follow for updating old systems? I
> remember posts like:
> http://blog.siphos.be/2013/12/upgrading-old-gentoo-installations/
>
> but I don't know if that
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:08:30 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>On 8/23/16 8:03 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
>> I have some kind of interest for these packages:
>
>Lars, maybe once we get some names we should get a meeting of
>base-system together and coordinate our efforts. In particular, I
>mostly ha
El mié, 24-08-2016 a las 16:05 +0200, Lars Wendler escribió:
>
[...]
> Oh, and to all new team members:
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet,
> so
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old
> systems.
>
>
> Kind regards
> Lars
This reminds
Kent Fredric posted on Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:32:05 +1200 as excerpted:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:43 -0500 William Hubbs
> wrote:
>
>> I thought about dropping the version number from the
>> display-if-installed line, but that doesn't make sense because it means
>> that everyone, including all ne
This package is now up for grabs:
net-irc/rbot
--
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93 9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39
Attention! New gpg key! See
https://www.gentoofan.org/blog/index.php?/archives/9-New-gpg-keys.html
pgpfOxyZA4prL.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur v
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 07:37 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
>> I imagine _someone_ out there wants it, otherwise we wouldn't be
>> discussing it.
>
> The thread started out proposing it as a solution to a docker problem
> that, it turns out, isn't a
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:32:05PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:43 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > I thought about dropping the version number from the
> > display-if-installed line, but that doesn't make sense because it means
> > that everyone, including all new ins
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:17:58PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today
> it comprises 320 packages, of which 61 of those have more than one
> maintainer. The packages with more than one maintainer I'm only
> concerned about if the o
On 08/24/2016 07:37 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> I imagine _someone_ out there wants it, otherwise we wouldn't be
> discussing it.
The thread started out proposing it as a solution to a docker problem
that, it turns out, isn't a problem. Why are we still trying to fixing
something that isn't bro
On 08/24/2016 04:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 03:12 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>>
>> That seems like a fair compromise. Those who want /etc/hostname get to
>> use it, those who don't won't need to change anything.
>>
>
> Does anyone want it? This feels like a legacy backwards co
On 08/24/2016 03:12 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
> That seems like a fair compromise. Those who want /etc/hostname get to
> use it, those who don't won't need to change anything.
>
Does anyone want it? This feels like a legacy backwards compatibility
hack that we're adding after it's obsolete, t
I've sent a patch to this list which adds Ada support. I believe the Ada
stuff already in Gentoo should be removed and we can start again, fresh.
If we can get this patch in, then use the ada-overlay, then ebuilds can
start to be migrated from there to the main repo, it'll be much cleaner
than what
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Christian Kniep wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> as for the /etc/hostname when sharing /etc/ as a volume… This ain’t a
> problem as /etc/hostname is taken care of by the docker-engine (in previous
> versions they used it to discover other hosts).
>
Docker isn't the only co
On 08/24/2016 11:26 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
>
> Most Gnome team member are not willing to keep maintaining cinnamon
> ebuilds (specially since most of us are not even using it and, also, we
> already have enough load with Gnome ebuilds alone).
>
> We were wondering if maybe some other peo
Hello
Most Gnome team member are not willing to keep maintaining cinnamon
ebuilds (specially since most of us are not even using it and, also, we
already have enough load with Gnome ebuilds alone).
We were wondering if maybe some other people would be willing to
maintain them under a new Cinnamo
William Hubbs wrote:
>
> I am planning to change the logic in /etc/init.d/hostname so that if
> /etc/hostname exists, the first word out of that file will be used as
> the hostname rather than any setting in /etc/conf.d/hostname.
You could also make the content of the default /etc/conf.d/hostname
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:43 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> I thought about dropping the version number from the
> display-if-installed line, but that doesn't make sense because it means
> that everyone, including all new installs of OpenRC after this version,
> would have to read the newsitem.
>
On 08/23/2016 12:57 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:45:20PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Symlinking /proc into /etc/hostname is still useful because it not
>> only handles container hostnames (keep in mind that two containers
>> could share the same /etc), but it also covers
41 matches
Mail list logo
