Am Donnerstag, 8. August 2013, 08:21:47 schrieb Duncan:
> ...
>
> [Those uninterested in gentoo/kde can stop reading here, as the rest of
> the post is a complaint about that project not taking the same position.]
>
> Gentoo/kde users would be so lucky!
>
> As a gentoo/kde-er, I *WISH* the gento
Dnia 2013-08-08, o godz. 00:26:26
"Robin H. Johnson" napisał(a):
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:56:58AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, fellow developers.
> >
> > On behalf of Python team, I would like to announce that we're
> > officially discontinuing support for Python 2.5, Python 3.1
> >
Daniel Campbell posted on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 01:26:47 -0500 as excerpted:
> [Duncan wrote...]
>> Gentoo/gnome is simply working with what upstream gnome gives them,
>> which for gentoo/gnome users now means a choice between gnome with
>> systemd and if no systemd, no gnome either. Upstream decision
Duncan posted on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 08:27:58 + as excerpted:
> Daniel Campbell posted on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 01:26:47 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>> [Duncan wrote...]
Ooopps! That too... WAS intended to be sent privately.
I goofed! Sorry everyone!
(Note to self, change the followup BEFORE you start
On 08/08/2013 01:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 09:14 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
>>> systemd.
>>>
>>> What are the reasons to sta
On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:30:50 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 8/08/2013 07:52, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Guys, please, if you want to bikeshed about bug summary, please do
> > it in a constructive way and get the automated bug assignment
> > project going.
> I think at least one bug wran
On 7 August 2013 20:45, Michael Weber wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
> systemd.
>
> What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
> restriction, enabling all non systemd users to profit from this
> eye-candy as wel
On 08/08/2013 08:21 AM, Duncan wrote:
>
> None-the-less, I do understand the problem of a gentoo project supporting
> an option no devs on the project are actually interested in running.
I do not. If that is the policy, then the project is doing something wrong.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:29:06 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> Leave it in ~arch forever, because it is incompatible with system
> packages. (virtual/service-manager)
But compatible with virtual/service-manager[-prefix,kernel_linux].
Jokes aside; I'm not aware of any requirement to be compatible with thi
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:39:25 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 20:45, Michael Weber wrote:
> > Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which
> > requires systemd.
> >
> > What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
> > restriction, enabling all non
Dnia 2013-08-08, o godz. 11:29:06
hasufell napisał(a):
> On 08/08/2013 01:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Seeing the noise in #gentoo from people getting whacked in the kidney by
> > the systemd sidegrade ... that's a very optimistic decision.
> >
> > It'll cause lots of pain for users that sudd
On 08/08/13 13:05, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-08-08, o godz. 11:29:06
hasufell napisał(a):
On 08/08/2013 01:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Seeing the noise in #gentoo from people getting whacked in the kidney by
the systemd sidegrade ... that's a very optimistic decision.
It'll cause lots of
On 08/08/13 12:39, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 7 August 2013 20:45, Michael Weber wrote:
Greetings,
Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
systemd.
What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
restriction, enabling all non systemd users to profi
Am Mittwoch, 7. August 2013, 12:00:57 schrieb William Hubbs:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > > person to respond to. I
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:29:06 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> Leave it in ~arch forever, because it is incompatible with system
>> packages. (virtual/service-manager)
>
> But compatible with virtual/service-manager[-prefix,kernel_linux].
>
> Jokes
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:45 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 08:21 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> None-the-less, I do understand the problem of a gentoo project supporting
>> an option no devs on the project are actually interested in running.
>
> I do not. If that is the policy, then the project is d
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:19:39 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:29:06 +0200
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> >> Leave it in ~arch forever, because it is incompatible with system
> >> packages. (virtual/service-manager)
> >
> > But c
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> Seeing the noise in #gentoo from people getting whacked in the kidney by
> the systemd sidegrade ... that's a very optimistic decision.
Yes it is, because our policy has always been to follow upstream as
much as possible. So your sarcasm is
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Moreover, the lvm problem is caused by a very ancient and ill decision
> about doing what upstream tells you to avoid: have mdev in the
> initramfs and udev on the final pivot rooted system. This was just
> looking for troubles but the smart
On 08/08/2013 10:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>
>> Seeing the noise in #gentoo from people getting whacked in the kidney by
>> the systemd sidegrade ... that's a very optimistic decision.
>
> Yes it is, because our policy has always been to
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> Moreover, the lvm problem is caused by a very ancient and ill decision
>> about doing what upstream tells you to avoid: have mdev in the
>> initramfs and udev on the final pivot rooted
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>
> Any users trying this sidegrade will be left without support and risk
> being ridiculed by annoyed bystanders.
>
>
There are many of us supporting systemd + gnome 3.8 in #gentoo right now
today, and I am strongly discouraging this "ridicul
Dnia 2013-08-08, o godz. 17:10:24
Alon Bar-Lev napisał(a):
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > Moreover, the lvm problem is caused by a very ancient and ill decision
> > about doing what upstream tells you to avoid: have mdev in the
> > initramfs and udev on the final pi
On 08/08/2013 04:34 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
>
> As for the stabilization issue-- it seems like most people against
> stabilization just want ~arch as a barrier or "whoa, wait up a sec" warning
> to stable users don't stumble upon systemd, which makes sense. But I think
> there are better ways to ac
Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> answer is about 10 additional megs of ram at idle
> and about 2 extra seconds to boot.
huge waste of compile time (not so much for KDE but more for the
databases), opening to all sort of possible attacks by bugs in these
databases whose servers need to be running etc
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:19:34AM -0500, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 10:16 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Also, I think we should stop spending a lot of time trying to keep it
> > working with openrc, we simply don't have resources to do that at the
> > moment (even Debian/Ubuntu people are
Just a user point of view:
When a user decide to restrict the packages on his system to "stable", I
think the user expect stability in the sense works properly under most
(if not all) situations.
Therefore, for a user, if real stability demand a lot of restriction, it
is a price to pay. I think it
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Gentoo supports systemd, fine. Still, OpenRC is our default
> implementation and I don't think something should be called stable _on
> gentoo_ that doesn't work with the system tools we have designed and
> advertise.
If a package requires libav s
On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:56:16 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> Gentoo supports systemd, fine. Still, OpenRC is our default
> implementation and I don't think something should be called stable _on
> gentoo_ that doesn't work with the system tools we have designed and
> advertise.
Gentoo advertises choice [
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/08/13 11:16 AM, Damien Levac wrote:
> Just a user point of view:
>
> When a user decide to restrict the packages on his system to
> "stable", I think the user expect stability in the sense works
> properly under most (if not all) situations.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:40:58 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/08/13 11:16 AM, Damien Levac wrote:
> > Just a user point of view:
> >
> > When a user decide to restrict the packages on his s
El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 11:40 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
[...]
> That makes a lot of sense, and on that basis keeping gnome-3.8+ in
> ~arch is probably not warranted. HOWEVER, part of keeping things
> stable is also a stable upgrade path, and -at least at this point- it
> is -not- trivial
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> It may be pertinent for this reason (a "smoother" upgrade path) and
> this reason alone, to stabilize gnome-3.6 first -- just to get into
> gnome3 (and get gnome-2 removed) without having to also deal with the
> systemd migration at the sa
On 08/08/13 11:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Honestly, we're probably getting to the point where we should offer a
> choice of init systems in our handbook. It doesn't make sense for
> Gnome users to go configuring openrc in the handbook only to throw out
> all that work and start over with systemd
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:05:02PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
> On 08/08/13 11:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Honestly, we're probably getting to the point where we should offer a
> > choice of init systems in our handbook. It doesn't make sense for
> > Gnome users to go configuring openrc in the handb
El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 12:02 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > It may be pertinent for this reason (a "smoother" upgrade path) and
> > this reason alone, to stabilize gnome-3.6 first -- just to get into
> > gnome3 (and get gnome-2 remove
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/08/13 12:13 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 12:02 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ian Stakenvicius
>> wrote:
>>> It may be pertinent for this reason (a "smoother" upgrade path)
>>> and this r
El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 12:20 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
[...]
> Somewhat related question -- a new(?) profile was mentioned as being
> required for gnome-3 ; if this is definitely happening, would it be a
> good idea to mask gnome in the other profiles? Would that help with
> the migratio
On 08/08/2013 05:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:56:16 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> Gentoo supports systemd, fine. Still, OpenRC is our default
>> implementation and I don't think something should be called stable _on
>> gentoo_ that doesn't work with the system tools we have d
El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 18:36 +0200, hasufell escribió:
[...]
> I am only talking about stabilization here, maybe that wasn't clear enough?
>
> The virtual is in @system and the default pre-installed implementation
> is INCOMPATIBLE with gnome-3.8. Until that is solved (in what way I
> don't care
On 08/08/2013 06:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 18:36 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> [...]
>> I am only talking about stabilization here, maybe that wasn't clear enough?
>>
>> The virtual is in @system and the default pre-installed implementation
>> is INCOMPATIBLE with gnome-3.8
On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:36:24 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 05:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Look into stage3.
>
Not sure which bits or bytes of stage3 you are referring to; but it
coming as default doesn't mean that it advertises it. What's so
problematic about replacing something that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/08/13 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 12:20 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
> [...]
>> Somewhat related question -- a new(?) profile was mentioned as
>> being required for gnome-3 ; if this is definitely happening,
>>
El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 18:52 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> On 08/08/2013 06:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 18:36 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> > [...]
> >> I am only talking about stabilization here, maybe that wasn't clear enough?
> >>
> >> The virtual is in @system and the d
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:36:24 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. Gentoo does
>> > not require the use of OpenRC any more than it requires the use of
Sorry for reposting: Somehow the first line got lost
making the whole posting not understandable...
Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> answer is about 10 additional megs of ram at idle
> and about 2 extra seconds to boot.
..and two huge database servers which lots of disk and ram space and a
huge was
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Martin Vaeth
wrote:
> Sorry for reposting: Somehow the first line got lost
> making the whole posting not understandable...
>
> Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>> answer is about 10 additional megs of ram at idle
>> and about 2 extra seconds to boot.
>
> ..and two hug
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user experience
> in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo developers think
> that the package is useful. Many would say that nobody should be
> using MySQL/MariaDB for production
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:52 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 06:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 18:36 +0200, hasufell escribió:
>> [...]
>>> I am only talking about stabilization here, maybe that wasn't clear enough?
>>>
>>> The virtual is in @system and the default pre-i
On 08/08/13 20:57, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user experience
in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo developers think
that the package is useful. Many would say that nobody should be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/08/2013 01:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Martin Vaeth
> wrote:
>> Sorry for reposting: Somehow the first line got lost making the
>> whole posting not understandable...
>>
>> Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>
>>> a
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:41:02 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > This isn't a good example, because the PMS compliance governs over
> > this.
>
> PMS really only covers the format of the ebuilds themselves, and stuff
> like built-in functions that these rely on - the interface between
> ebuilds and pac
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 08/08/13 20:57, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user experience
>>> in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo developers
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:57:15 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user
> > experience in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo
> > developers think that the package is useful. Many woul
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:57:15 +0300
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user
>> > experience in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, 20:57:18 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> If from now on, a bug with systemd of new version of a package blocks
> that package stabilization, it means that all developers must support
> systemd. So having systemd stable is a decision that should be made by
> the entire community, a
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, 20:57:18 +0300
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
>> If from now on, a bug with systemd of new version of a package blocks
>> that package stabilization, it means that all developers must support
>> systemd. So having systemd stable is
On 08/08/13 21:23, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 08/08/13 20:57, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user experience
in general. It is not a statement
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 08/08/13 21:23, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Samuli Suominen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/08/13 20:57, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>
> Stab
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user
>> > experience in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo
>> > developers think that the package is useful. Many woul
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:38:55 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily, one can opt to mask this combination and stabilize
> > this combination later by removing the mask; it's an implementation
> > detail, but certainly there's no need t
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> This is called a 'profile'.
>
> You can have systemd and openrc profiles, and then able to mask
> specific packages...
>
> It is a technical solution, but won't make lives much easier in this regard.
++
I don't think that this is really susta
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:57:37 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo going forward.
> >
> > We need to come up with a solution similar to the above to avoid
> > this...
>
> This is called a 'profile'.
>
> You can have systemd and openrc profiles, and then ab
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:02:55 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Package updates that break other packages is not an issue unique to
> the stable tree - we just have less tolerance for it there. If
> libfoo-5 breaks stable systemd, then there needs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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-systemd
> systemd
O
El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 21:40 +0100, Mike Auty escribió:
[...]
> Ok,
>
> So there's lots of people that don't want systemd. Can't we group
> together and have some kind of an affect on upstream? Upstream
> appears to be suffering the same split we found with portage, in that
> the specification
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, why even if we do
> > > > know some fixes
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
> > > easy; I'm not saying it is your task
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-
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 better kernel is always
> > the one with the most fixes.
>
> That's what us kerne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/08/13 22:06, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Anyway, are you sure openRC is better than systemd for desktop
> systems (for deserving the effort to keep maintaining consolekit,
> that is currently orphan, cgroups stuff and any other things I am
> probably fo
[snip]
>> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. Gentoo does
>>> not require the use of OpenRC any more than it requires the use of
>>> portage as the package manager.
>>
>> So would you stabilize a package that works with paludis, but
Citing from Pachos blog,
"[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly
run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are
lost, [...]" [1].
Pacho, would you accept patches and USE flags to make gdm an optional
component to gnome virtual? Power managemen
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> - openBSD is simply supplying the "semibroken" Gnome stuff running with
> their setup (without multiseat working, neither power management, gdm
> service handling, and any new issues that could rise from logind not
> being running)
If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/08/13 00:19, Greg KH wrote:
> Become upstream developers and create fixes to remove the
> dependancy either by working on openrc features to emulate the same
> things that systemd has that GNOME requires, or split things out of
> GNOME so that it
On 08/08/2013 12:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:57:37 +0300
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
>>> Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo going forward.
>>>
>>> We need to come up with a solution similar to the above to avoid
>>> this...
>>
>> This is called a 'profile'.
>>
>> Yo
On 8/8/2013 20:05, Zac Medico wrote:
On 08/08/2013 12:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:57:37 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo going forward.
We need to come up with a solution similar to the above to avoid
this...
This is called a 'pr
The decision to depend on systemd for part of its functionality is with
gnome upstream, not the gnome team of Gentoo.
Pacho wrote a good summary of what is going on. I can see why OpenBSD
would provide the missing functionality of systemd for gnome (systemd
does not, and will not, exist on the *BS
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It's not a regression; actually, it's quite common to drop features
>> that can no longer be supported. I don't see us blocking stabilization
>> for other cases in the Portage tree where a featu
On 09/08/13 03:25, Michael Weber wrote:
Citing from Pachos blog,
"[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly
run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are
lost, [...]" [1].
Pacho, would you accept patches and USE flags to make gdm an optional
c
On 09/08/13 04:05, Zac Medico wrote:
On 08/08/2013 12:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:57:37 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo going forward.
We need to come up with a solution similar to the above to avoid
this...
This is called a 'pr
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 02:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > - openBSD is simply supplying the "semibroken" Gnome stuff running with
> > their setup (without multiseat working, neither power management, gdm
> > service handling, and any new issues that cou
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 02:25 +0200, Michael Weber escribió:
> Citing from Pachos blog,
>
> "[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly
> run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are
> lost, [...]" [1].
> Pacho, would you accept patches and USE
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 08:29 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 09/08/13 03:25, Michael Weber wrote:
> > Citing from Pachos blog,
> >
> > "[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly
> > run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are
> > lost, [
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:39:20AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I've always disliked unnecessary profiles, a lot, but this whole
> selecting of init plus packages supporting it plus the /usr-move issue
> the systemd maintainers are bundling together with it by forcing the
> unstandard systemd
wrote:
> It would seem to make sense if the packages are unmasked conditionally
s/ conditionally//
> in the parent, or the linux profile, and then unmasked in the profiles
> that need them. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
And for noise.
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that
86 matches
Mail list logo
