On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 03:14:45PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:58:28PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote:
> >
> > - Unbootable system with CONFIG_MCORE2 [6]
This turns out to be a gentoo-specific bug, not much upstream can do
about a broken compiler that some pro
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:58:28PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have recently started the stabilization of gentoo-sources-4.14.8.
>
> Very soon we received reports regarding broken e1000e driver [1] and moved
> to gentoo-sources-4.14.8-r1.
>
> Since then we keep receiving new pro
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:08:13PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> Forgive me, but I don't see why people have so much trouble with
> copyright wrt Gentoo. I've simply assumed anything I wrote for Gentoo
> would be attributed to me via git log information and/or metadata.xml
> and should I leave Ge
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
&g
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 Or
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
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/~ric
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >
> > So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo,
> > --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two.
> >
> > So I think the intent for thi
On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:44:43PM +0800, cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote:
> Don't be crazy - I know many developer groups which dislike merge
> commits. That nonlinear work flow is just a mess long term.
Really? What "mess" does it cause?
Are things harder to bisect? Harder to determine what ca
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:15:55PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED
> > AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it.
>
> Developers who "HAVEN'T
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > Hi Markos,
> >
> > I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
> > boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:27:18PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> El 29/03/14 05:13, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> > I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my
> > packages again unless
> > they are broken.
> Udev is broken:
> * They have
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:42:00AM +0700, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> On 01/14/14 12:37 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:15:37PM +0700, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> >>At the end of the day we have one codebase which is "engineered" and
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:15:37PM +0700, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> At the end of the day we have one codebase which is "engineered" and
> another which has "evolved".
I'll take an "evolved" codebase over "engineered" anyday.
You do realize that is exactly why Linux has succeeded, right? The
kerne
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:10:18PM +0400, Igor wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> Friday, January 10, 2014, 1:08:39 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Right here is the big problem: you're not looking at this from the
> > perspective of the average Gentoo developer. We don't care about market
> > share. We don't care w
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:46:43PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:30:42 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > ... Just read the commits to find out what is resolved, ...
> >
> > ... Because it's extra work that is pointless. ...
> >
> >
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:32:45 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700
> > > Greg KH wrote:
> > >
>
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:28:54PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:38:56 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > My sense is that Greg is using the term security bugs to refer to
> > implementation errors that could be exploited to obtain unintended
> > access to a system. Using this
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:40:00PM +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> On 08/08/13 11:38, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > i'm not volunteering but I never really got why our GNOME
> > maintainers insisted on staying with it instead of going with the
> > distribution after it was clear logind is a dead end on non-
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >
> > > Some kind of annotation with tags would make this kind of thing
> &g
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:09AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > Greg KH wrote:
> > > > See above for why it is not easy at all, and,
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know
> > some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway.
>
> I think this supports the argument that the be
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:09:11 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > Please
> > tell me exactly how you are going to evaluate which fixes I make are
> > security fixes, and you know which to pick and choose from.
&
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:53:35AM -0400, Mike Pagano wrote:
>
> All,
> Here is the vanilla-sources non stablizing policy news item.
> If all goes well, this will be committed to the tree on 08/07 UTC.
Thanks for writing this all up, much appreciated.
greg k-h
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Also, not all fixes are equal. The ones that are the biggest concern
> are security fixes.
How do you _know_ which fixes are security fixes?
> If you tell me that the kernel has a new exploit
> 2x/week then I'll start to wonder when
Almost all of this portion of the thread is off-topic for gentoo-dev, so
I'll leave it alone, and will be more than willing to take it up
somewhere else it is on-topic for, like linux-kernel, if you want to.
But, there is one thing I do want to ask/comment on, as it is relevant
to users of Gentoo:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:36:21PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>>> Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
> >>>> stuff!
&g
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>>>Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
> >>>>stuff
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:25:42PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:09:57 -0500
> Matthew Summers wrote:
> > If the patchset patches the kernel's core, it doesn't matter what
> > CONFIG_* option is set the core kernel code _has_now_been_changed_.
> > This is the crux of the argume
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Tom, you already know my opinion because we discussed it. I'm all
> for it. Just a reminder: there's always problems somewhere in the
> kernel which can be triggered by various options. The kernel is not
> one big take it or le
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
> > > stuff!
> > >
> > > A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or
> > > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
> >
> > What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in the upstre
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:41:49PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> This problem is not only visible for patches, but also in the config.
>
> Meet CONFIG_DEVTMPFS; forget to enable it, greet a failing boot. We're
> telling users to enable it in some places, in the handbook it's a single
> line you must
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:35:49PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> For me, this problem is critical. Devrel is working on formalizing a new
> policy, and we will announce news on this soon. In the meantime, to
> prevent further escalations, I will use my lead powers to request
> immediate bans whe
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:46:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> here's v2
These changes look good to me, and quite useful, thanks for doing this
work.
greg k-h
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
> You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including
> Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the
>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:12:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > No change intended. This is what happens when you send a thirty second
> > follow-up to a policy formed over two weeks, and then step away to eat...
>
> So, clarification now t
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined,
> which includes a mandatory requirement to sign a contributor license
> agreement and an option to also sign an assignment-like document based
> on the FSFe FLA,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:44:33PM -0100, Carlos Silva wrote
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not a C programmer, let alone a developer, so this may be a stupid
> > > question, but here goes... ha
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:44:12PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > Has anyone asked the upstream linux-firmware developers about these
> > files?
>
> I don't know. I haven't, for my part. But maybe
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:33:48PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Greg KH wrote:
>
> >> Ulrich Mueller (ulm) wrote this on the 16th:
> >>
> >> > Look into the WHENCE file and be horrified. Tak
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:51:15PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 20/02/2013 19:43, Greg KH wrote:
> > Really? What firmware files are that way, I just did a quick scan
> > through the upstream linux-firmware.git tree and didn't see anything
> > that would prev
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:25:14PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > > If there really are firmware blobs that are only available via git and
> > > which cannot be redistributed we might consider whether it makes sense
> > > to not support them entirely,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:03:47AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
> wrote:
> > On 20/02/2013 13:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> I'm actually wondering if that makes sense with git when a specific
> >> commit is referenced, since everything is content-
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:22PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:
> On 4.2.2013 23:34, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries
> >> (
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:
> Hi
> I am curious what is the proper path for installation of efi binaries
> (such as shim.efi) in gentoo. I don't think that installing them
> directly into /boot/efi... is proper way - it seems to me that
> /usr/lib64/efi or
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:36:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> Not that anybody is taking requests, but it would be really handy
> >> if serial ports were deterministically labeled.
> >
> > Does /dev/serial/* solve
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 15/01/13 04:16 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > "This can have serious security implications" [1]
> >
> > For whom?
>
> I think the idea there is that a user expects eth0 and eth1 to stay
> the same, writes iptables r
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:01:00AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> 1. Are you party to any *copyright assignment* (eg FSF copyright
> >> assig
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 08:17:59PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> For further messages in this thread, please keep:
> Reply-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-...@lists.gentoo.org
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:08:45PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 a
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:16:25PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On a personal note, if any copyright assignment was in place, I would
> > never have been able to become a Gentoo developer, and if it were to be
> &
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> Olav Vitters wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does
> >> not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to make it
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:07:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Announcing once to -dev-announce due to the general importance of this
> topic to the community, but ALL replies should go to -nfp, or to
> trustees@ if you must, or to /dev/null if you shouldn't.
>
> Before I start, yes, the trustees
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:09:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/12/12 03:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > I'm guessing that the result of the council meeting meant that
> > things are progressing, right? If so, in what way?
>
> Sounds like you should join us in #
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:00:56PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > Greg, can you write back to this message with specific examples of what
> > > would need to be customized so that separate /usr would work right
> > > without an initramfs? I have tried to explain multiple times that this
> > >
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:28:00PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >> Handling separate /usr support ==
> >> After the discussion
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Handling separate /usr support
> ==
> After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay of one
> month due to a new fork of udev was requested. We need an update on
> what's happened.
>
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:31:25AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>
> > Not necessarily, as I'm finding out with real hardware. My only options
> > on the box I have is to either zero out all keys, or specifically tell
&
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:21:29AM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> >> No, all we need is to enable EFI stub support in the kernel, and
> >> integrate the initramfs using CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE and place it in
> >> some location wher
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 08:08:01PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
> wrote:
> > On 10/12/2012 01:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> The shim might work, but I'd hardly call it "secure boot" if every
> >> motherboard manufacturer and OEM in the world has t
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 07:52:16PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
> wrote:
> > On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote:
> >> The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode,
> >> sorry. You will
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:24:53AM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote:
> > The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode,
> > sorry. You will have to disable it in order to boot a Gentoo image,
> > which is fine,
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:35:57PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine
> > with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side.
> >
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 07:46:59PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Fernando Reyes schrieb:
> > That's what meant since we use isolinux on the release media and until
> > syslinux-6 we are forced to use another bootloader and grub seems out of
> > the questions because of licensing is
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:13:38PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes
> wrote:
> > I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from
> > using grub on the livedvd.
>
> Well, if some perceived legal constraint is keeping us from do
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> The key misunderstanding here seems to be that initiation of a "Gentoo
> project" means that the council explicitly supports it, because in most
> distributions there is no choice available to end users at this level of
> deta
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:58:21PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> The eudev project has suffered a fair number of psychological attacks
> against project members. I know that you are a strong supporter of
> systemd. When you emailed gentoo-dev@, I assumed that you were trying to
> harm
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>
> > Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
>
> See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgrade&redirect=no
&
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:22:14AM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev?
> I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that.
I recall this was discussed on the systemd mailing list when it
happened, so you might want to
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wr
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:06:17PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and
> >> r
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:23:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800
> Greg KH wrote:
> > No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick
> > consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> > There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand
> > why you are thinking that udev has anything to do with this issue
> >
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law,
> > and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "ma
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand
> copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter
> and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite
> what you said a few ema
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:21:20PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 11:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> We develop open source
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:29:35PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of
> > a file, although it is generally considered something that you really
>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:42:11PM -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 19:38, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> > Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
> > PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc? Then kmod was changed to
> > link against libs in /us
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> We develop open source software in public repositories. A developer
> decided it would be helpful to change the software name systemd to
> eudev, among other things, in various
tizen. Note that Richard Yao is
> *NOT* forking systemd. He is forking udev, which addresses the issue of
> Kay's+Lennart's hostility to standalone udev on non-systemd setups. I,
> and a lot of other people, would like to use a sane standalone udev
> (from the Greg KH days) with
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> >
> > Yes, I know all about the firmware issue with media drivers. It's now
> > resolved and fixed, in two different ways (the kernel now loads fir
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> COPYRIGHT
>
> I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing
> on any of the really contentious points here.
>
> I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the
> world that (emphasis mine
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:19:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are.
>
> It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation
> copyri
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are.
It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation
copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by
you.
I think I would be
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:54:38AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >> I foresee a new udev fork then.
> >
> > Please feel free to do so, the code has b
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
> but I think that is not as impor
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>
> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> > accompli
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> >>> not have a
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:13:37AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> We do not need to justify the need for our project before it is
> announced or even after it is announced. It is free to conflict with
> RedHat's systemd project. If we find next year that we can reconcile
> with Kay Sievers and Lennart
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> > not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
> > makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without knowing such goals,
> > there's no way th
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under a
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:26:41PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. It will be fixed before it goes into HEAD.
I recommend deleting the branch and starting over, having that commit
floating around like that could cause trouble.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:28:00AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > > that be
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under a
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> > really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> > more origi
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Handling separate /usr support
> ==
> WilliamH requested approval for two methods to support separate /usr
> systems[2]. The discussion is closely related to recent opinons on udev, such
> as e.g. [1], be
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
> > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
>
> Well, if you completely agreed wit
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
