On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Under this interpretation, developers using this header to add other
> peoples work to tree is making our use of DCO pointless.
>
> Because DCO has to be the person who *authored* the commit, not the
> person who merely added it to tree.
Th
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:25:52 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> And I guess that even most ebuilds for new
> packages aren't written from scratch, but will be based on an existing
> ebuild or on some template like skel.ebuild.
You could probably argue that subsequently, every ebuild is essentially
a
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:45:56 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I don't think we need a git header for the purpose of saying that
> something looks good to somebody else. If you commit something and it
> doesn't work, we'll ask you to stop doing it. If you keep doing it
> we'll take away your commit a
On 25/10/16 18:27, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 06:07:51PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to
>>> move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vf
Nick Vinson writes:
> arguably gcc should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki
> might not be 100% correct
This is not true regarding libgcc* runtime libraries.
Benda
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 16:07 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 25/10/16 04:02 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
> please make also clear that UUID=... syntax will still work, one for all I
> don't like labels and will gladly continu to use this format:
> UUID=debd07a3-fbbc-4433-89db-29e6f91d25e4 /boot ext2 noauto,noatime 1 2
+1
Slightly revising the example given later on by simply showing one
example fo
On 25/10/16 05:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> Title: Inportant fstab update
>> Author: William Hubbs
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>> Posted: 2016-10-28
>> Revision: 1
>> News-Item-Format: 1.0
>>
>> If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* pa
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> Title: Inportant fstab update
> Author: William Hubbs
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2016-10-28
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
>
> If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to
> take any action for
2016-10-25 19:15 GMT+02:00 William Hubbs :
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
> > > If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to
> > take any action for this news item.
> > >
> > > I
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:02:26 +
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny
On 25/10/16 04:02 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 O
On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> > On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:32:22 +
> > > > Joakim Tj
On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:32:22 +
>>> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>>
Noticed todays 2016-10-25-llvm_3_9_with_llvm_targets news item an
On 25/10/16 03:08 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:32:22 +
>> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Noticed todays 2016-10-25-llvm_3_9_with_llvm_targets news item and read:
>>> ..
>>> In order to enable all targets, add
On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:11 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:32:22 +
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> >
> > Noticed todays 2016-10-25-llvm_3_9_with_llvm_targets news item and read:
> > ..
> > In order to enable all targets, add the following to your
> > /etc/portage/package.u
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:32:22 +
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Noticed todays 2016-10-25-llvm_3_9_with_llvm_targets news item and read:
> ..
> In order to enable all targets, add the following to your
> /etc/portage/package.use or equivalent file:
>
> sys-devel/llvm LLVM_TARGETS: *
> sys-devel
Noticed todays 2016-10-25-llvm_3_9_with_llvm_targets news item and read:
..
In order to enable all targets, add the following to your
/etc/portage/package.use or equivalent file:
sys-devel/llvm LLVM_TARGETS: *
sys-devel/clang LLVM_TARGETS: *
...
I would like to control such variables(LLVM_TAR
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 06:07:51PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to
> > move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles.
>
> "Inportant" typo in the title.
>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to
>> take any action for this news item.
>> >
>>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to
> take any action for this news item.
> >
> > If you are, it is very critical that you update fstab AS SO
On 25/10/16 01:10 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> If this is about the udev-settle issue for OpenRC, I would urge you to
> reconsider that.
>
+1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> I do have a question about the newsitem -- how do I make it display only
> for Linux users?
Once >=sys-apps/portage-2.3.2 is stable, you could use the new
Display-If-Profile wildcard syntax to display it only for
default/linux/*.
On 25/10/16 01:07 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to
>> move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles.
>
> "Inportant" typo in the title.
>
> Even before you pos
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to
take any action for this news item.
>
> If you are, it is very critical that you update fstab AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. Your system will become unbootable in the future if you
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to
> move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles.
"Inportant" typo in the title.
Even before you posted this, I was wondering why this is a problem now?
--
Jam
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to
> move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles.
>
> I do have a question about the newsitem -- how do I make it display only
> for Linux users?
>
Presumably you'
All,
this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to
move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vfiles.
I do have a question about the newsitem -- how do I make it display only
for Linux users?
Thanks,
William
Title: Inportant fstab update
Author: William Hubbs
Conten
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:47:05 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> > That definition definitely excludes automake and autoconf (arguably gcc
> > should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki might not be
> > 100% correct).
>
> gcc provid
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>>> Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is not
>>> entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed
>>> ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>
> However, I don't think this is the criterion used to determine what
> should be in @system. The wiki defines the system set as the set that
> "contains the software packages required for a standard Gentoo Linux
> installation to run properl
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> If I write a QT gui that forks/exec x264 cli and want to sell it as the
> best H264 encoder on the market, then I have to comply with x264
> license since it won't do what I claim once x264 is removed.
The QT gui could be distributed und
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is not
>> entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed
>> ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be distributable at all.
> Honestly, I think the GPL linking ar
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> That definition definitely excludes automake and autoconf (arguably gcc
> should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki might not be
> 100% correct).
gcc provides libstdc++.so.6, which is a necessary runtime component on
most syste
On 10/25/2016 05:35 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> I forgot to mention that autotools.eclass brings in these dependencies
> as-needed, though, so I agree that they definitely are not required in
> the @system set.
Also keep in mind, they are already not part of @system, the question is
whether to r
On 25/10/16 11:34 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 25/10/16 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>> On 10/25/2016 07:11 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages?
>>
>> Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball
>> has no d
On 25/10/16 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 07:11 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages?
>
> Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball
> has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't g
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:15:09 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:17:08 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Also, calling eclass functions
Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball
has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't generate /
distribute a release tarball.
However, I don't think this is the criterion used to determine what
should be in @system. The wiki defines the system set as
Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages?
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 04:01 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:43:44 -0400
> > Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at profiles/base/packages, I see a b
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:11:48 -0700
Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages?
A lot. Once they're built, you dont need these anymore.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:17:08 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is
>> > not entirely clear to me if e.g. a bin
On 10/25/2016 04:01 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:43:44 -0400
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> Looking at profiles/base/packages, I see a bunch of lines that are
>> commented out. For example,
>>
>> *sys-apps/which
>> #*sys-devel/autoconf
>> #*sys-devel/automake
>> *sys
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:43:44 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Looking at profiles/base/packages, I see a bunch of lines that are
> commented out. For example,
>
> *sys-apps/which
> #*sys-devel/autoconf
> #*sys-devel/automake
> *sys-devel/binutils
> #*sys-devel/bison
> #*sys-devel/flex
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:17:08 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
> >
> > Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is
> > not entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed
> > ebuild calling GPL licensed ecl
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is not
> entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed
> ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be distributable at all.
Honestly, I think the GPL linki
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If they were under a non-compatible license like the CDDL then it
> would depend on whether the authors have the right to dual-license
> it under the GPL, or whether Gentoo is willing to accept
> CDDL-licensed ebuilds into the repository. Part of th
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
wrote:
> On 25/10/2016 01:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> As long as you have their permission to change the copyright notice.
>> You cannot currently commit anything with a different copyright notice
>> to gentoo.git, and you cannot legally change it
On 25/10/2016 01:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
> As long as you have their permission to change the copyright notice.
> You cannot currently commit anything with a different copyright notice
> to gentoo.git, and you cannot legally change it without permission.
How should that permission be documented?
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> This made me think of another scenario; let's say I have my own fork of
> Gentoo, maintained in an overlay complete with docs, etc, under an MIT
> or BSD license, but as a Gentoo developer, I must copyright under GPL.
> Could I do such dua
On 10/25/2016 01:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 7:07:41 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that header on
>>> your work is an assignment of copy
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The end date (which is the one that matters the most) is only
> updated when the file is changed. Legally somebody could use an
> earlier version of the file when its copyright expired, but they
> could only use the latest version when its later cop
52 matches
Mail list logo
