On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:42:50 -0700 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Lucas Ramage
> wrote:
> > What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist.
>
> The documentation should be updated to say that with OpenRC 0.28 that
> you'll have to remount efivars as
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:44 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns
>> > about users bricking systems by writing to
I am working on it! Thanks!
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Lucas Ramage
> wrote:
> > What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist.
>
> The documentation should be updated to say that with OpenRC 0.28 that
> you'll
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Lucas Ramage wrote:
> What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist.
The documentation should be updated to say that with OpenRC 0.28 that
you'll have to remount efivars as RW before you can install the
bootloader (e.g., grub-install)
The
What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:44 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William H
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:44 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns
>> > about users bricking systems by writing to
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns
> > about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly.
> >
> > Here is the newsitem c
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns
> about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly.
>
> Here is the newsitem covering this change.
>
> William
>
This will break boot loader installe
El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 12:38 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. escribió:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:23:43 +0100
> "M. J. Everitt" wrote:
>
> > On 12/07/17 17:07, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> > > mailto:wlt...@o-sinc.com>> wrote:
> > > That
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On śro, 2017-07-12 at 10:12 -0700, Daniel Charles wrote:
>> Hello gentoo-dev's
>>
>> Checking on how gentoo is locating ebuild for these 3 packages I found
>> that they're using different folders and overriding driver's name
>>
>> x11-libs/li
On śro, 2017-07-12 at 10:12 -0700, Daniel Charles wrote:
> Hello gentoo-dev's
>
> Checking on how gentoo is locating ebuild for these 3 packages I found
> that they're using different folders and overriding driver's name
>
> x11-libs/libva
> x11-libs/libva-intel-driver (overriding package name: i
Hello gentoo-dev's
Checking on how gentoo is locating ebuild for these 3 packages I found
that they're using different folders and overriding driver's name
x11-libs/libva
x11-libs/libva-intel-driver (overriding package name: intel-vaapi-driver)
media-video/libva-utils
Since the project moved to
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:23:43 +0100
"M. J. Everitt" wrote:
> On 12/07/17 17:07, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> > mailto:wlt...@o-sinc.com>> wrote:
> > That is my point. That message is always there. The chance that
> > it is ignored is very
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:07:00 -0500
Gordon Pettey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
>
> > That is my point. That message is always there. The chance that it
> > is ignored is very high.
> >
> >
> Stop signs on the road are also always there. If you get arr
On 12/07/17 17:07, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> mailto:wlt...@o-sinc.com>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +1000
> Sam Jorna mailto:wra...@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>
> > $ emerge -C apg
> > * This action can remove important p
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +1000
> Sam Jorna wrote:
>
> > $ emerge -C apg
> > * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer,
> > use
> > * `emerge -pv --depclean ` to check for reverse dependencies
> > befo
On 12/07/17 16:42, William Hubbs wrote:
> OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns
> about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly.
>
> Here is the newsitem covering this change.
>
> William
>
Very sensible .. I seem to recall something about sys
OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns
about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly.
Here is the newsitem covering this change.
William
Title: Mounting efivars read only
Author: William Hubbs
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2017-07-15
Rev
For everyone talking about -c vs -C. For the record, I never brought up
removing packages in my sets discussion. That was an argument others
were making against sets.
It was 2 others seen below who mentioned the use of -C/--unmerge. For
anyone telling me, I should be using -c vs -C. Why did you no
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +1000
Sam Jorna wrote:
> On 13/07/17 00:19, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > It is YOUR comments that are funny, and going in a circular argument
> > just to be argumentative and bringing nothing useful to the
> > discussion. Which should be over now that bugs are fi
On 13/07/17 00:19, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> It is YOUR comments that are funny, and going in a circular argument
> just to be argumentative and bringing nothing useful to the discussion.
> Which should be over now that bugs are filed
I'm not trying to be argumentative or antagonistic, I
El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 09:13 -0500, William Hubbs escribió:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example
> > > against build testing-based st
10.07.2017 20:22, Agostino Sarubbo пишет:
> Hi all.
>
> every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I always
> see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status.
> Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put more
> effort in amd64 and less
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:40:11 +1000
"Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
> If my concern in removing a package was whether it was a dependency,
> it would make more sense to use --depclean in the first place. If I'm
> using --unmerge, it's because I want the package unmerged regardless.
But you can't reme
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example
> > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it
> > should never reach the
Hi.
It is sad to say, but i have no time for compiz anymore.
Personally, I do not use it anymore for around six months(i have
migrated from KDE with compiz as WM to pure fluxbox on both of my
workstations).
And, to be honest, there is no progress in desktop-effects overlay
either[1].
As i am the
On 2017-07-12 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable
>> package because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in
>> most cases this will end with a rushed stabilization once a
>> security bug was fixed in the package) or move a p
On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example
> against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it
> should never reach the arch teams in the first place.
This might be the crux of things, as long as au
On 07/12/2017 07:26 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:> That presumes that
the maintainer is the one calling for the
> stabilization, and it is not an automated procedure simply due to 30
> days in ~arch. In this particular case, look for the number of bug
> reports filed in Gentoo for the issue.
Al
29 matches
Mail list logo
