Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:56:45 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 10/25/2016 10:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > 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 newsit

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > [snip] > > > > To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling > > it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was > > supposed to mean) was t

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 10/26/2016 01:49 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 10/25/2016 13:15, 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 a

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 10/25/2016 10:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > 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, > > W

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > [snip] > > To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling > it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was > supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they > either tried to be too s

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

Rich Freeman wrote: > We give you the tools when you install your system, and we give you > the tools when it is time for renovations... On that note - thank you very much to everyone who contributes to Gentoo! <3 //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > This is not unlike the kerfufle that occurred when systemD was introduced > not so long ago. To use it folks had to make major changes to their systems > that took several months to iron out the kinks. Additionally, some of the > folks

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

2016-10-28 3:32 GMT+02:00 Ian Stakenvicius : > On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL= is not > > good? I realize that s are not required when doing a mkfs, but > > if the admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind >> of bootstrapping stage1. I'm just saying we should separate that need >> from the issue of fully specifyin

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 27/10/16 09:23 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL= is not > good? I realize that s are not required when doing a mkfs, but > if the admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter, why should > it be "deprecated"? I don't think anyo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind > of bootstrapping stage1. I'm just saying we should separate that need > from the issue of fully specifying dependencies, at least in an ideal > world where we're uncon

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > Seriously though, it makes more sense to have a conservative default > (udev-settle). Especially since OpenRC is not well-equipped to deal > with event-based device management. > > It seems to me that the problem is one of somebody not car

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > With a DCO, it greatly complicates things. Would my right to keep my > contributions in an overlay be infringed upon? What would change if we > switch to this? > The DCO doesn't change your rights at all, or change the status of the copy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/27/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >> I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux >> kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted >> otherwise. >> > > Stepping back, I'd just like to c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> So, it is probably simpler to avoid controversy by just incorporating > it by reference under their original name, which is certainly the > intention of the Linux Foundation in promoting it. +1 :-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:13:48 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: >> > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> >> >> Personally I'd rather see us go the other way, ensure udev settle

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux > kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted > otherwise. > Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion on this that is lik

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > So, what goes in @stage1? What's the bare minimum needed for a Gentoo package > kernel? > That is actually largely defined today already, but it isn't used by anything but catalyst as far as I'm aware. Just look at packages.build in your p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Matthias Maier wrote: >> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source >> tree which is distributed under the GPL-2 > I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There > is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under >> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the >> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not ju

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: >> > >> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, >> >> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under > trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the > "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC > LICENSE." The former has far more trad

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the > >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider > >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, > > So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" That's one objection of min

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which is distributed >> under the GPL-2, instead of the non-free version ("chan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source > tree which is distributed under the GPL-2 I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this. Not everything in the linux repository falls under GPL

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 09:21:06 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are > > defined, how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? > > Defining all dependencies means th

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:22 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I do think that this is one of the areas where hasufell's concept of >> making the 3rd-party workflow the main workflow could have helped. >> Right now the people with commit righ

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Neither were network device names. But now they are! As long as you > predict to which USB port the dongle will be plugged ;-). > It would be nice if standards like USB incorporated some kind of GUID. I ended up having to write a udev rule

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under trademark law than copyright law. Th

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:42:53 +0200 Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard > > napisał(a): > > >On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike G

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:22 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> > >> I think this reflects reality. You can submit all the patches you > >> want via bugzilla but it isn't lik

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard > napisał(a): > >On 10/25/2016 13:15, 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> This is from the last policy draft: > >> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml > > > Why redraft the alr

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> >> I think this reflects reality. You can submit all the patches you >> want via bugzilla but it isn't like we punish developers for not >> getting around to accepting them, unles

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are defined, > how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? Defining all > dependencies means the graph is completely cyclic. Well, we'll need to define some kind

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Please review the following draft: > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC > > > > Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo project provides a specific set of > off

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 11:14:53 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote > > > >> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > >> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated > >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:13:48 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > >> Personally I'd rather see us go the other way, ensure udev settles > >> before localmount runs, and maybe ewarn if /dev/disk/b

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 26/10/16 11:43 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > > On 26/10/16 04:49 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrot

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman: >> >> Actually, that isn't allowed, and was the very issue that kicked off >> the entire matter. You can't just take somebody else's code and >> change the copyright to "Gen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Mart Raudsepp > wrote: > > > > > > Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or > > CLAs > > are those that want to be able to re-license the code without > > getting > > p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

On 10/26/2016 11:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > This is why I think "@system" oversimplifies all of this. IMO we > should just specify all dependencies for everything (and those could > include some virtuals for convenience, like the C toolchain), and then > have different sets or virtuals for co

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or CLAs > are those that want to be able to re-license the code without getting > permissions from everyone (some of whom might not be possible to > contact at a future date) or

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Personally I'd rather see us go the other way, ensure udev settles >> before localmount runs, and maybe ewarn if /dev/disk/by-* is in fstab >> or something. Leave the migration away from these

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Please review the following draft: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC > Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo project provides a specific set of official channels of contribution in which all project members are required to p

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > 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 > >> N

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

Ühel kenal päeval, E, 24.10.2016 kell 19:07, kirjutas Rich Freeman: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner > wrote: > > > > In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright > > assignment statement. > > > > Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 26.10.2016 kell 14:58, kirjutas Kent Fredric: > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions

Ühel kenal päeval, E, 24.10.2016 kell 15:29, kirjutas Matt Turner: > A former co-worker of mine is now at Google and wants to contribute > ebuilds he wrote for ChromeOS to Gentoo. They add packages necessary > for Vulkan (new 3D graphics API). > > For instance: https://chromium.googlesource.com/ch

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:00:35 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > > >> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but > >> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned > >> neither in the Specification or

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: >> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but >> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned >> neither in the Specification or the Rationale. > Why not in the rationale? It is the most straightforw

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:55:13 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > > > I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current > > practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's > > meant mostly to clear the rules for pull

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current > practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's > meant mostly to clear the rules for pull requests. However, the rules > are generic enough to cover other contr

[gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

Hi, everyone. I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's meant mostly to clear the rules for pull requests. However, the rules are generic enough to cover other contribution media -- patches attached to bugs