Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 23:27:41
Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 08/09/2013 02:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just a quick one.
> >
> > Currently, the two listed variables are set in make.globals (installed
> > by portage ebuild);
> >
> > COLLISION_IGNORE="/lib/modules/* *.py[co] *
On 08/10/2013 12:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Are we sure that this thing really belongs in the profile, rather than
>> something that's defined in ebuilds? Or maybe we should have both?
>
> Well, AFAICS we have three cases:
>
> 1. kernel modules that all are installed to a common location
> and
Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 11:32:12
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> Hello,
>
> Just a quick one.
>
> Currently, the two listed variables are set in make.globals (installed
> by portage ebuild);
>
> COLLISION_IGNORE="/lib/modules/* *.py[co] *\$py.class"
> UNINSTALL_IGNORE="/lib/modules/*"
I've commit
Dnia 2013-08-10, o godz. 01:14:52
Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 08/10/2013 12:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Are we sure that this thing really belongs in the profile, rather than
> >> something that's defined in ebuilds? Or maybe we should have both?
> >
> > Well, AFAICS we have three cases:
> >
On 08/09/2013 07:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone
>> remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from
>> that?)
>
> That's a very selective perception t
On 08/09/2013 07:45 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:39:08 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800
>>> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>>
You just removed the upgrade path for users.
>>>
>>> The upgrade path is
On 08/09/2013 08:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> You just removed the upgrade path for users.
>>
>
> Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative.
> Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with
> Ope
On 08/09/2013 11:12 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:50:24 +0300
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
>> So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can
>> this a good service for users?
>
> Just like we can't ensure that everything builds with LLVM doesn't mean
> we shou
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration,
> well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing
> and sends the wrong signal.
>
There is no one official supported configuration of Gentoo. Nobo
On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
>> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than
>> openrc (baselayout).
>
> Was there the decision to only support a single layout on Gentoo? Where?
>
You kids don't re
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration,
>> well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing
>> and sends the wrong signal.
>>
>
> Th
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation they
> were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported
> configuration.
Since when was installing half the packages on your system a supported
configuration (w
Matt Turner schrieb:
> I think this is doable, and I think I have a good reason for wanting
> to be able to do it.
>
> I have no idea why Tommy[D] or AxS want to do it. I've never discussed
> my plans with them.
The main reason seems indeed being able to build 32 bit software where a 32
bit toolc
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:50:49 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 07:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone
> >> remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and t
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:12:42 +0300
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer
> > wrote:
> >> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported
> >> configuration, well, then telling me to go to an unsupp
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
Using systemd doesn't imply removing openrc ...
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C16
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/10/2013 01:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
>
>> Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
>
> Using systemd doesn't imply removing openrc ...
>
Running systemd as PID=1 does imply not ru
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:03:10 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300
> > Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >
> >> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than
> >> openrc (baselayout).
> >
> > Was there the decisi
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:55:03 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation
> they were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported
> configuration.
Support for it is given all over the place; like for instance in #gentoo
and #gentoo
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
>
> Support for it is given all over the place; like for instance in #gentoo
> and #gentoo-desktop on the FreeNode IRC network, on the Gentoo Forums,
> on the gentoo-user ML as well as for bugs on the Bugzilla bug tracker.
>
> The people sayin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/08/13 11:28 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
>>> ...so, allowing for the ability of 32bit userland with 64bit
>>> toolchain (via, say, setting ABI_X86=32 in make.conf) using
>>> the eclasses is
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 01:51:13PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/10/2013 01:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
> >
> > Using syst
On 08/10/2013 02:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-10, o godz. 01:14:52
> Zac Medico napisał(a):
>
>> On 08/10/2013 12:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Are we sure that this thing really belongs in the profile, rather than
something that's defined in ebuilds? Or maybe we should have b
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:09 -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:13 +0200, Alex Legler wrote:
> > The overlays configuration file repositories.xml is the first file that
> > is now being served via api.gentoo.org.
> >
> > New public URL: https://api.gentoo.org/overlays/repositorie
Rich Freeman wrote:
> In general I'd avoid any requirement to use a non-base profile.
> Obviously using the right arch/prefix profile makes sense as those are
> fundamental config changes and they're all minimalist profiles anyway.
> The issues come when you force users to use non-minimalist profi
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Let's say that I were to develop a system with some other Gentoo devs;
> that doesn't mean we are able to make everything in the tree support
> that system, making it an usable tool for everything is unrealistic
This isn't just "any tool" though: it's the core init-system. You
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:34:58 +0100
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Let's say that I were to develop a system with some other Gentoo
> > devs; that doesn't mean we are able to make everything in the tree
> > support that system, making it an usable tool for everything is
> > unrea
On 2013.08.07 13:45, Michael Weber wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires
> systemd.
>
[snip]
>
>Michael
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478252
> --
> Michael Weber
> Gentoo Developer
> web: https://xmw.de/
> mailto: Mi
On 08/09/13 15:54, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 14:14:12
> "viv...@gmail.com" napisał(a):
>> On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
> I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on
> mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and
> necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that any of them necessarily
> has the skills
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
>> I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on
>> mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and
>> necessary ones, but that doesn't mea
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Mike Auty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>> On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
>>> I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on
>>> mplayer. All those people are open sour
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:10:29 +0100
Mike Auty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote:
> >> I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/13 00:45, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> They thought deeply about the changes that are being made to the
> desktop, and they discussed it and reached a consensus about what
> the direction of the project is; you can usually read about in the
>
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mike Auty wrote:
> Just because companies pour money into something does not mean they
> know what they're doing, or that they've done their market research
> into what their users want. I've tried several of the forks, and
> sadly Gnome, because of the backing it
On Aug 10, 2013 2:41 PM, "Steven J. Long"
wrote:
> It's also easier for developers to handle, similar to the KDE profiles.
Though I'm
> not sure why it's necessary to use a "non-base" profile. We have several
> "non-minimalist" profiles already, and the suggestion seems to fit into
the
> existing
Steven J. Long posted on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:42:11 +0100 as excerpted:
> That's the point though: given that certain decisions are forced if you
> want to use gnome3 (ie you must use systemd, which in turn forces a
> whole set of decisions about all the functionality you can no longer mix
> and ma
On 09/08/13 12:51, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 11:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
escribió:
Pacho Ramos schrieb:
If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept ebuild
patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again?
Only mak
38 matches
Mail list logo
