El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
> call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this
> add
On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Minor details like, "do we have a '
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
> > > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> > >
> > > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, o
On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this
adds pointless overhead to bi
Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should
On 06/15/2012 10:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Using all 3 vars would also likely mean that the diff's for xfce-overlay
* vars -> phases
silly typing error. sorry.
Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan:
> Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted:
>
>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
>>
>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
>> Gentoo right now and just focus on the oth
On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/2012 03:49 AM, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
>> Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg
Am 15.06.2012 10:06, schrieb Richard Farina:
> On 06/15/2012 03:49 AM, Florian Philipp wrote:
>> Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
>>> Greg KH wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 09:58,
Am 15.06.2012 09:58, schrieb Richard Farina:
> On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
>> So, anyone
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As per the discussion in bug #328245, we would like to propose a
> new global useflag, to replace both ass and libass local useflags
> currently in media-video/{ffmpeg,mplayer,mplayer2,vlc}.
>
> The proposed description is the one alre
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
>
> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to
> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the
On 15 June 2012 15:58, Richard Farina wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
>> So, anyon
Am 15.06.2012 12:14, schrieb Rich Freeman:
[...]
+1 for your assessment so far.
>
> I'd be personally interested in pointers to info on what the "powers
> that be" do and don't allow with UEFI. I've seen lots of
> sky-is-falling blog entries and discussion but little in the way of
> specs, and
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:37:02AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote
> Besides, it wouldn't work long. They can blacklist keys.
Question... how would "blacklisting" work on linux machines? Let's
say Joe Blow gets a signing key and then passes it around. I can see
that if you want to build an execu
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Question... how would "blacklisting" work on linux machines? Let's
> say Joe Blow gets a signing key and then passes it around. I can see
> that if you want to build an executable (*.exe) to run under Windows,
> you'll run into problems if t
On 06/15/2012 06:57 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
>>
>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
>> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
>>
>> Minor deta
On 06/15/2012 12:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 5. If somebody (perhaps under the umbrella of hardened) wanted to
> create a Gentoo project around a fully trusted Gentoo I'd be
> completely supportive of that. It would take work. In the spirit of
> Gentoo we should allow anybody to build their own
On 06/15/2012 09:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables,
> DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare, and XFCONF for src_configure
>
> No way we will add all 3 phases to every Xfce ebuild since that would
> defeat the purpose of the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote
> I guess anti-trust is not an issue since MS is not even close to having
> a monopoly in ARM.
Will you be able to get an ARM machine without their UEFI? If MS
ever gets huge in the ARM arena, and 95% of ARM cpus go into Windows
m
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 06:57 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> If you have influence on UEFI secure boot spec, you could suggest that
>> they mandate a UI which lists all boot images known to the EFI boot
>> manager, and the user can easily wh
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:24:54 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 09:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3
> > variables, DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare, and
> > XFCONF for src_configure
> >
> > No way we will add all 3 p
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> If we want to try to get serious on 5, we could try to gather the
> hardened/security people across distributions and setup the whole chain
> to be parallel and cut deals with OEM to store this trust-chain keys
> along with MS.
Perhaps. Sinc
Am 15.06.2012 14:01, schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> Question... how would "blacklisting" work on linux machines? Let's
>> say Joe Blow gets a signing key and then passes it around. I can see
>> that if you want to build an executable (*.exe) to ru
Am 15.06.2012 14:28, schrieb Walter Dnes:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote
>
>> I guess anti-trust is not an issue since MS is not even close to having
>> a monopoly in ARM.
>
> Will you be able to get an ARM machine without their UEFI? If MS
> ever gets huge i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/06/12 04:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2012 15:35:40 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> --- user.eclass [some timestamp] +++
>> user.eclass.esethome [some other timestamp] @@ -388,3 +388,63
>> @@ }
>>
>> fi + +# @FUNCT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/06/12 06:30 PM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> As per bug #421037, there is a demand to make multiple voicemail
> storage backends switchable within the ebuild. The USE_EXPAND
> mechanism would automatically provide an explan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/06/12 07:58 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> 9'ish consumers. I propose "Enable support for the PostScript
>> language"
>
> Perhaps "ps" or "postscript" instead of the implementation-centric
> "gs" ?
>
>
> //Peter
>
I t
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > + # lets see if the username already exists
> > + if [[ ! -n $(egetent passwd "${euser}") ]] ; then
>
> "! -n" -> "-z"
Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
versions of bash actually have the string argument optional even
though that'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/06/12 10:43 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 05:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thursday 14 June 2012 21:16:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> So how about renaming USE="gs" consumers to USE="ps" and making
>>> USE="ps" global flag with
It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when no
such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
---
eclass/eutils.eclass |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/eutils.eclass b/eclass/eutils.eclass
index 116f7bc..931d97d 10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/06/12 09:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> + # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
>>> ! -n $(egetent passwd "${euser}") ]] ; then
>>
>> "! -n" -> "-z"
>
> Does the $() argument ever need to be doub
On 15-06-2012 09:35:38 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 15/06/12 09:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> + # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
> >>> ! -n $(egetent passwd "${euser}") ]] ; then
> >>
> >> "! -n" -> "-z"
> >
> > Does the $() argument
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> + # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
> >>> ! -n $(egetent passwd "${euser}") ]] ; then
> >>
> >> "! -n" -> "-z"
> >
> > Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
> > versions of bash actually
On 15-06-2012 15:41:03 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >>> + # lets see if the username already exists + if [[
> > >>> ! -n $(egetent passwd "${euser}") ]] ; then
> > >>
> > >> "! -n" -> "-z"
> > >
> > > Does the $() argument ever ne
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > >>> + if [[ ! -n $(egetent passwd "${euser}") ]] ; then
> > > >>
> > > >> "! -n" -> "-z"
> > > >
> > > > Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
> > > > versions of bash actually have the string argument optional even
> > > > though that'
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> > > >>> + if [[ ! -n $(egetent passwd "${euser}") ]] ; then
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "! -n" -> "-z"
>> > > >
>> > > > Does the $() argument ever need to be double quoted, or do all
>> > > > versions of bash actually h
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > [] is shorthand for test. Both test and [[]] in my man bash read:
> >
> > --8<--
> > Expressions are composed of the primaries described .. under
> > CONDITIONAL EXPRESSIONS.
> > -->8--
And the next sentence is exactly what you wrote. :)
"Word splitting and pathname expans
On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have
> > to call the respective src_* func from an
On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when no
> such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
Why keep the "-f"?
> ---
> eclass/eutils.eclass |6 --
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --
On Friday 15 June 2012 09:32:18 Michał Górny wrote:
> # Remove static libs we're not supposed to link against.
> if grep -q '^shouldnotlink=yes$' "${f}"; then
> - einfo "Removing unnecessary ${archivefile#${D%/}}"
> - rm -f "${arch
On 06/15/2012 06:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
8. I think the bigger issue is with ARM, and I'm not personally clear
on what the exact policy is there. That really strikes me as
antitrust, but MS might argue that on ARM they have no monopoly
(instead we have a bunch of different vendors who almost
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2012 09:32:18 Michał Górny wrote:
> > # Remove static libs we're not supposed to link
> > against. if grep -q '^shouldnotlink=yes$' "${f}"; then
> > - einfo "Removing unnecessary
> > ${archi
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:44 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> > It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when
> > no such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
>
> Why keep the "-f"?
For rm?
-f, --force
El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 09:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> > pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to
> > call the respec
On Friday 15 June 2012 12:52:56 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:58 -0400 wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2012 09:32:18 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > # Remove static libs we're not supposed to link
> > >
> > > against. if grep -q '^shouldnotlink=yes$' "${f}"; then
> > > -
On Friday 15 June 2012 12:54:16 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:44 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 06/15/12 09:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > It is a little confusing when the function reports .a removal when
> > > no such file exists. Also, explain why the file is removed.
> >
On 06/15/2012 12:24 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 10:26, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
Should I worry about t
On 06/14/2012 11:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:28:10PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
>>
>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
>> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issue
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
> > Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
> >
> > Minor details like, "do we have a 'company'
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:57:06AM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> If you have influence on UEFI secure boot spec, you could suggest that
> they mandate a UI which lists all boot images known to the EFI boot
> manager, and the user can easily whitelist both individual loaders and
> the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:49:01AM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 15.06.2012 09:26, schrieb Michał Górny:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> >>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
> So, anyone bee
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:35:28PM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
> One of these days I'd like to pick your brain about some hardened UEFI
> interactions I've seen (with pipacs watching).
Sure, be glad to talk about this anytime.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:48:05AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> 120614 Greg KH wrote:
> > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> > Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo
> > or not worry about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
> > Minor d
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:03:24PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
> >> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> >>
> >> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsof
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:26:07AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > > On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The whole chain-of-trust is an interesting issue as the UEFI spec does
> not require it at all, and some people on the UEFI committee have told
> me that it is not required either. Bu
120615 Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:48:05AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
>> Does this affect those of us who build our own machines ?
> Yes, it will be on your new motherboard in a matter of months.
I am going to build a new machine some time in the next 12 mth ,
but it looks as if al
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 08:41:47PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > The whole chain-of-trust is an interesting issue as the UEFI spec does
> > not require it at all, and some people on
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:56:52 -0700
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:57:06AM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher
> Nguyễn wrote:
> > If you have influence on UEFI secure boot spec, you could suggest
> > that they mandate a UI which lists all boot images known to the EFI
> > boot manager, and t
61 matches
Mail list logo
