On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote:
>>
>> Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts
>> building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to
>> find that half of the package isn't there be
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Christopher Head wrote:
>
> Why? It’s just another dependency. Why does DEPEND="dev-libs/bar" work
> so beautifully but DEPEND="dev-libs/bar[baz]" work so horribly? If I
> haven’t explicitly said I want baz, and I haven’t explicitly said I
> *don’t* want baz, and en
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide
>> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER,
>> because you will break all of the packa
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>> > OK, can we all decide out of this thread, that if any package is
>> > enablin
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Jaewon Choi <1500...@dwight.or.kr> wrote:
>
> 2) What do you think of the systemd as a service manager? Do you have an
> opinion about its pros and cons?
>
Picking a random question here.
Can I ask that people respond privately by email and not to the list?
A few
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Therefore, I am going to remove the remaining CVS headers throughout
> the tree (except for patches, of course) in two days from now.
>
Speaking from git migration experience, I'd be really careful about
how you go about it. Filtering th
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>
>> Typical questions for tree-wide cleanups:
>
>> - Are new ebuilds forbidden to have '$Id$' or just discouraged?
>> - [same as above] Will new version of repoman complain about
>> lef
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:24:38 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
>>Am Sonntag, 26. Februar 2017, 21:16:28 CET schrieb Lars Wendler:
>>> I am completely against removal of this header line. It does _not_ do
>>> any harm and I don't understand why
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Mathy Vanvoorden wrote:
>
> 2017-03-06 15:53 GMT+01:00 Anthony G. Basile :
>>
>> Bitcoin Knots includes a number of enhancements users may find useful. I
>> think it would be a good idea to make it the default for Bitcoin
>> ebuilds (net-p2p/bitcoin-qt, net-p2p/bit
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Matthias Maier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 10:52 CST, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>>> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience
>>> changing without me changing USE-flags. I'm not against changi
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Matthias Maier wrote:
>
>> The kernel doesn't give you a choice of multiple independent patch
>> sets. We have just a few options that bundle many patches. You can't
>> selectively turn them on and off.
>>
>> I'm not asking whether patching bitcoin is good or bad.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> 1. classic forks -- package B is forked out of A, and the development of
> both continue independently (eudev/systemd, ffmpeg/libav);
>
> 2. large patch sets / continuously rebased forks -- where the particular
> set of changes is usually ap
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:34:20 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> 1. classic forks -- package B is forked out of A, and the development of
>> both continue independently (eudev/systemd, ffmpeg/libav);
>>
>> 2. large patch sets / continuously reba
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 03/11/2017 11:23 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> My point is that users must be informed about security problem, but
>> they still should have a choice. So it should be either a rule
>> "mask without removal" or clear guidelines
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> In most cases lack of maintainer participation is likely the issue to
> begin with. The primary issue with a package mask of this nature is that
> it is more permanent than temporary in nature. To what extent would
> other package m
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
>
> Looks like we are disagreeing about the role of a project lead.
>
> The primary goal of any Gentoo project is to group people working
> towards the same goal(s) in small, manageable groups. It shouldn't need
> a lead in most cases to c
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Yury German wrote:
>
>
> The maintainer also knows the package, dependencies, other bugs filed, etc.
> Removing things for your
> packages might be simple, but it is not the same across all packages and that
> is the reason we ask the
> Maintainers to take an act
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> Given the attitudes of some. I am glad I stay clear.
If only...
--
Rich
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:15 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> Signs are all around. Lots of posts about packages up for grabs etc...
> Of course I am the one killing Gentoo. Despite having been gone for
> years. Not posting for months etc.
>
> People need to wake up. The stats are poor.
>
Yo
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:21 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> Why are no new people coming? its hardly because of me Maybe
> someday the majority will make it past the denial and blame others. You
> cannot blame the community for how people within Gentoo act
>
> That is really funny!!
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
>
> It isn't like security project adds any additional load to any arch
> team, an architecture capable to keep up with normal keyword and
> stabilization requests should also be able to keep up with security.
What about arches that use st
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Yury German wrote:
>
> we can not call for cleanup or release the GLSA,
> waiting for a stabilization of a non-core package, while the actual
> package has been in a tree in ~arch status for weeks or months.
Why not? If an arch is considered a non-security-suppor
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Michael Jones wrote:
> From a non-gentoo developer who seriously looked at joining the community
> over the last few years as a new developer, this entire conversation thread
> is absurd, and is a wonderful example of why I decided to not bother.
>
> If you don't w
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:24 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> Or one is punished for things others are not. Even if other's actions
> are far worse than those of the person being punished.
>
Considering that we don't disclose whether anybody is punished or what
they're punished for publicly,
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> A. It gives a wider choice of tools for developers (and privileged
> contributors) -- they can choose either the open or restricted mailing
> list depending on the type of requested feedback.
>
> B. The gentoo-dev mailing list is still open
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:41:25AM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote
>> Next time such a thing happens, the discussion will happen on a
>> completely private media or not happen at all because of the state
>> of this mailing list. Is this what you rea
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2017-05-24, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> On śro, 2017-05-24 at 03:48 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:41:25AM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote
> [...]
>>> Note where I said "...posted on Gentoo-User for comment...". What I'm
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On śro, 2017-05-24 at 11:54 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>
>> I was using the Firefox PulseAudio event as another example of stuff
>> that happens in some obscure location that ordinary users don't know
>> about. It was https://bugzilla.mozil
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:17 PM, A. Wilcox wrote:
>
> just have users of a *source based distro* where the emphasis is
> *choice* actually choose what they want?
>
> What is the big deal with the way REQUIRED_USE works now? "Users have
> to do something".
The issue is that there isn't any value b
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On śro, 2017-06-14 at 11:11 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
>> container-related utilities.
>>
>> Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation,
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> Bug #272488[0] proposed a PROPERTIES="set" feature to combine the power
> of sets with the flexibility of ebuilds.
>
> 1: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488
>
What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:34:55 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other
>> direction and just have packages instead of sets?
>
> The blog entr
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> Let's say I try to do this as a meta package. So in my overlay I
> create a category "meta-set" and a file "meta-set/pmbuild-0.ebuild"
>
> EAPI=5
> SLOT="0"
> KEYWORDS="amd64 x86"
> DEPEND="
>>=app-arch/zip-2.3
>>=dev-lang/p
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5:
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt
>
I realize a warning will address most of the issue, but when creating
lists like these it can be helpful to stick
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
> Now, since I work on these arches just to help, i.e. I don't have any business
> and I do non have any installation of those arches and the work I'm doing is
> not appreciated at all I decided to stop for now.
I wouldn't say that your w
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, Jack Morgan was recently getting his sparc and
> ia64 systems back up, but then decided to retire instead when he saw
> all of the discussions about dropping the architectures he cares
> about.
>
Honestly, I don't really
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>>
>> > You aren't taking the time to read your own emerge output.
>
> It always says that same generic message. If that is the case, then why
> even have that option?
The --un
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> In the case of amd64 we already
>> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own
>> packages
>
> Huh? Have our rules changed
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>
> I dunno where you've been lately, Rich, but for most devs, would-be
> devs, and observers .. there -are- no arch teams left .. just a few Arch
> devs, or arch 'people' ..
Obviously.
I was describing how the arch team process worked when t
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>>
>> The --unmerge option is there to let people shoot themselves in the
>> feet if they know what they're doing.
>
> Not sure why
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>>
>> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks
>> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's significantly
>> more complex to check for
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> I am aware in a way. Depends on how implemented. This has to hit
> package.env files. But what you see below comes from a dependency list.
> I have packages with even more deps.
>
If you want to cope with poor package maintenance
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:27:54 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> > This is why stabilisation, if not for individual package maintainers on
>> > amd64, has be
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered
>> questions here:
>> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient?
>> - should developer test each stabi
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200
>> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> T
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:42:50 -0700 Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Lucas Ramage
>> wrote:
>> > What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist.
>>
>> The documentation should be updated to say
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:09:45 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:42:50 -0700 Matt Turner wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 12,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> I see no problems with compatibility. In case of software needs to
> write to efivars (bootloader installation, etc) algo is simple:
>
> flag = false;
> if (mounted(efivars) == RO) { remount(efivars, RW); flag = true; }
> do_usual_stuff(
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> But in some scenarios this command is normal. E.g. user installs
> Gentoo from some live dvd/flash, makes some mistakes, understands
> that system is broken beyond repair and decides to start over again.
> If there is no need to recreat
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable.
>
> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)
> carries with it an unneccessary cost.
>
The question is whether devs would start being more conservat
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Hans de Graaff wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> > More troubleshooting and fixing "hard" problems, less routine work.
>
> Except that some of that routine work is actually what I enjoy doing in
> Gentoo. I already get plenty of t
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> The 30 day waiting period is useful for smoking out major upstream bugs,
> but can't replace stabilisation integration testing. For example,
> package foobar may build fine in ~arch but fails in stable because it
> needs a newer libbaz.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Except that there is no machines using it. In all contexts, using full URL
> for machine readability is better as it works with all software out of the
> box.
>
Until the domain name of the bugzilla server changes/etc. Even if we
migrate
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I feel like this is going towards 'anybody can do keywording /
> stabilization'. I'd rather not go this route right now, and just let
> arch teams recruit people as they see fit.
>
I think this depends on the arch team.
Back in the early
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Markus Meier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:03:30 +0200
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
>> On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>> > 1. lack of automation
>> I'd summarize the techical steps into:
>> 1) get the list of packages
>> 2) test
>> 3) c
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage
>>> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> > > On 07/25/201
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/26/2017 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> The same applies to #123456 in the summary line, though. I don't see a
>> good reason for using a URL after the "Bug:" keyword as long as bare
>> numbers are used elsewhere.
>
> For Bug
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>
> Here's a data point you may, or may not, find relevant. in 16 years of using
> Gentoo exclusively, the only one time I used stable on one machine for about
> 2 years it ended up being much more of a pain than unstable. Actually, I
> can't
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
>>
>> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge:
>> >
>> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable.
>> >
>> > I continue to feel tha
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2
> repos instead of 1.
>
> 1) Rolling.
> 2) Stable.
>
> Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they
> want; they can't affect stable at all
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, to be clear the conclusi
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> As most things I think this would require support in PMS, or next EAPI
> at minimum. But I think the EAPI comes from PMS, so they are related.
>
Actually, I'm not sure about this since it doesn't really affect what
is actually bui
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 06:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> I make a lot of binaries for use on other systems, to expedite updates.
>> It does not make sense for some packages to ever be a binary package.
>
> Any particular reason this d
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit
>> from revbumps.
>>
>
> There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes
> come with a new
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
> On 08/12/2017 09:50 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Q. But what about the rebuilds?
>>
>> For most packages, the rebuilds simply don't matter. Unless you're
>> the maintainer of libreoffice, firefox, chromium, etc. -- just do the
>>
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 08/12/2017 08:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please provide some examples o
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> I am sure
> that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from
> PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are
> all better off for it.
>
Honestly, I've yet to see any portage developers complaining abou
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> I cannot explain why those who do portage development are not the PMS
> authors.
>
Have you considered asking them?
--
Rich
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is debate
> on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug request and
> makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and PMS lacking
> anything on se
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On pon, 2017-08-14 at 21:58 +0200, Thomas Beierlein wrote:
>>
>> * 'bacula-clientonly' becomes 'clientonly'
>
> This is still negative logic in disguise. clientonly = noserver.
>
>> * 'bacula-nodir' will be replaced by 'director' but with inve
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:19 AM, wrote:
> Quoting Michał Górny (2017-08-15 08:43:07)
>> On wto, 2017-08-15 at 06:55 +0200, tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> > Quoting Rich Freeman (2017-08-15 00:29:19)
>> > >
>> > > I guess to make it a bit more explicit, w
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 11:33 AM, tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> Quoting Kristian Fiskerstrand (2017-08-15 10:37:39)
>>> On 08/15/2017 12:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Michał Górny
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 02:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> For example, could you say that a client-only install that still
>> installs the X11 components is "minimal?"
>
> Its somewhat context dependent, fo
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> But even if that's the case (I wouldn't know), it's the case due to a
> deliberate decision of those going "under the bus", because portage is
> the default, and by choosing to use some other PM, they've deliberately
> chose
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Gordon Pettey wrote:
>
>> Can these package.mask notes stop saying "no alternative found" when
>> it's obvious five seconds of Google searching was not even performed
>> to find an alternative?
>> https://neverwinterv
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has
>> permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery slope.
>
> We don't,
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Don't you think there is a difference between downloading a package
> that has a known upstream and that is also carried by other distros,
> and downlo
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:32 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:26:10 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:03:21 +0800 (HKT)
>> Brendan Horan wrote:
>>
>> > Just an update for everyone :
>> > R0b0t1, has the Power 6+
>> > Johnson, has the Sparc
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> &g
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 16∶42 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman
>&g
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Maybe find yourself a lawyer, and ask him. We're all volunteers,
I've already done the research. There is no legal requirement to
contact the authors before changing the SRC_URI.
> and we're no in way obligated to give legal advices to you
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Quoting from "all-rights-reserved":
>
> | This package has an explicit "all rights reserved" clause, or comes
> | without any license, or only with a disclaimer. This means that you
> | have only the rights that are granted to you by law. I
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> What do you think about it? Is there anything else that needs being
> covered?
>
FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed
devmanual changes to implement the new tags please comment at:
https://github.com/gentoo/devma
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶19 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>>
>> FYI - if anybody does want to make any comments on the proposed
>> devmanual changes to implement the new tags please comment at:
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Johnson Steward wrote:
> Well, I guess the owner of the machines may want them to be under personal
> possession, be taken care of personally and, hopefully, extend the love he
> has with them even though he had to part with them. Sentiment towards old
> friends, yo
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> But in my experience, crappy and easy
> is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki
> documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become
> the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people jus
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
wrote:
>
> I'd like to suggest to remove `service` widget from openrc and make it the
> part of (which package? baselayout?)?
IMO this really should go in its own package. By all means have
openrc and/or systemd pull it in by default, bu
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>
> Some other distros try harder to isolate build environment either
> through chroot and/or private mount/user/network namespace that
> contains only explicitly specified files in build environment.
>
> That would require more cooperatio
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:43 PM, James McMechan
wrote:
>
> # now create a separate mount namespace non-persistent
> unshare -m bash
>
If you're going to go to the trouble to set up a container, you might
as well add some more isolation:
unshare --mount --net --pid --uts --cgroup --fork --ipc --m
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:29 PM, James McMechan
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:43 PM, James McMechan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> # now create a separate mount namespace non-persistent
>>> unshare -m
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> We could try forcing failures (say, by not having / mounted as lowerdir, so
> syscalls against the rootfs would just fail as E_NOENT) but then we are
> still stuck with the tricky part; which is that sometimes things *do* need
> to read / wri
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Tim Harder wrote:
>
> It is the big advantage of overlay that it is implemented in
> kernel and does not involve any time-consuming checks during
> normal file operations.
>
Why would you expect containers to behave any differently? Either
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>>> Tim Harder wrote:
>>>
>>> It is the big advantage of overlay that it is implemented in
>>> kernel and does
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if it works with a single bind mount with
>> /proc and /dev and so on mounted on top of that.
>
> Either you start with a writable tree and bind-mount some d
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Austin English wrote:
>
>> Talking with Whubbs about it, I found that our service script only
>> supports OpenRC, via rc-service. I looked around, and from what I
>> can tell, most distros ship a service tool for a
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 30 Sep 2017 00:20:31 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> But, how do we reliably detect the currently running init system? Are
>> there running processes, or entries in /sys/ or /proc/ or /dev that are
>> uniqu
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/20/2017 11:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>
>> I support Hanno's suggestion of doing just SHA512, but would be
>> interested in hearing opinions from others who have apparent
>> security/crypto experience. Maybe the Security pro
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Geaaru wrote:
>
> So, my first question is why dependency to openrc is not inserted to a
> specific profile and so when is configured a systemd profile is
> possible prepare a pure systemd environment without openrc package ?
>
My understanding is that openrc is p
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
wrote:
> On 24/10/2017 06:11, Michał Górny wrote:
>> W dniu wto, 24.10.2017 o godzinie 06∶04 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny
>> napisał:
>>> Three hashes don't give any noticeable advantage. If we want a diverse
>>> construct, we take SHA3. SHA3 is
301 - 400 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
