On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:57:40AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> net-im/mcabber
> net-libs/loudmouth
Taking these.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>>>
>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying.
>>
>> My recommendati
On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>>
> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying.
>
> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the st
On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>
Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying.
My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage
tarballs.
When sys-apps/portage chang
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:53:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Though I do prefer /var/lib or /var/cache over /var/db, simply
>> because /var/lib is actually in FHS.
> Agreed, /var/db I guess is a Gentoo invention of some kind?
No, it exists in
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:34 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>
++
If a user wants to migrate it is pretty easy to do. Update the
setting and do an mv, or don't do an mv in which case it will just
regenerate. I think /var/db/pkg
On 07/09/2018 11:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Though I do prefer /var/lib or /var/cache over /var/db, simply because
>> /var/lib is actually in FHS.
> Agreed, /var/db I guess is a Gentoo invention of some kind?
well, for a gentoo-based PMS that might not be a bad thing.. but I'd say
cache is out
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:53:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
> > napisał:
> > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > sys-apps/porta
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
> napisał:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations
> > > have been c
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 22∶12 +0200, użytkownik Manuel Rüger
napisał:
> On 09.07.2018 10:40, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses
> > for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of
> > developers is
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
napisał:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations
> > have been changed to:
> >
> > DISTDIR="/var/cache/portage/distfiles"
> >
On 07/09/2018 01:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 01:00 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
using it f
On 09.07.2018 10:40, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses
> for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of
> developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a few
> developers are using some other
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations
> have been changed to:
>
> DISTDIR="/var/cache/portage/distfiles"
> PKGDIR="/var/cache/portage/packages"
> RPMDIR="/var/cache/portage/rpm"
>
> Plus reposit
On 07/09/2018 01:00 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
>>> using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the i
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
> > using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the issue with
> > making that global), though for t
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:21:36 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
>
> If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
I don't recall a tracker bug ever being created
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 12∶21 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
napisał:
> All,
>
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
>
> If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
> using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the issue with
> making that global), though for the most part it is more metadata
> caching. A key principle is that it ca
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:11 PM Johannes Huber wrote:
>
> Am 09.07.2018 um 20:05 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>
> >>> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> >>>
Am 09.07.2018 um 20:05 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
>>> /usr/portage by default?
>>
>>> If not, what is the status of us bei
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> > /usr/portage by default?
>
> > If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
>
> Please remind me, what was t
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:26 PM Alec Warner wrote:
>
> The former is probably 3 times easier than the latter.
> - Get testers to move their tree and report issues[0].
> - Change the stage3 defaults to be the new location.
> - Explicitly do nothing else.
>
> New installs will get the new location
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
> If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
Please remind me, what was the plan for the new location?
Somewhere under /var/db or /var/lib, II
On Monday, 9 July 2018 19:26:54 CEST Alec Warner wrote:
> [0] A number of people already point PORTDIR at some other location and
> appear to operate without major issues.
I do have it in /var/cache/portage/gentoo (alongside /var/cache/portage/
{distfiles,packages,local} and that works quite well.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:21 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
I suspect the answer is 'whenever' but that mostly depends on
implementation and what you want to accomplish.
Do you want:
- All hosts e
All,
is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
/usr/portage by default?
If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
Thanks,
William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 06/22/2018 03:10 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> now reordered for EAPI 7 first.
>
> Also, the downloaded cygwindist patches file now is renamed to
> gcc-cygwindist-.tar.gz rather than just .tar.gz.
>
> Thanks for the reviews,
pushed now, thanks!
/haubi/
On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 10:40 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail
> addresses
> for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of
> developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a
> few
> developers are
On July 9, 2018 4:40:22 AM EDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses
>for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of
>developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a few
>developers are using
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 09.07.2018 kell 10:40, kirjutas Michał Górny:
> Hi,
>
> We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail
> addresses
> for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of
> developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a
> few
> d
# Aaron W. Swenson (9 Jul 2018)
# Hasn’t been updated in years, upstream’s download source is blank, and depends
# on an outdated twisted-core (Bug 660668). Removal after 2018-08-08.
dev-python/pgasync
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 07/09/2018 10:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Therefore, I'd like to start enforcing (at the level of the hook
> verifying signatures) that all commits made to gentoo.git (and other
> repositories requiring dev signatures) are made using @gentoo.org e-mail
> address (for committer field).
Sounds
Hi,
We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses
for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority of
developers is using their @gentoo.org e-mail addresses. However, a few
developers are using some other addresses.
Using n...@gentoo.org e-mail addresses ge
On 07/08/2018 11:59 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> It used to make a special statement for a new stable Portage and
>> strongly recommended that it be emerged first. It should probably do the
>> same for openpgp-keys-gentoo-release.
> Sure, but it this case we have a chicken-and-egg problem, because I
>
35 matches
Mail list logo
