Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 02:14, Rich Freeman wrote: > Part of me also wonders if Gentoo would be better off having emerge > gentoo-sources actually BUILD the kernel and initramfs and not just > dump a bunch of sources on the disk. Most distros consider an > initramfs a no-brainer because it just ships already

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 03:06, Rich Freeman wrote: > > By that argument, when you run emerge chromium shouldn't it just dump > the chromium sources in /usr/src, so that you can build and install > your own chromium? > > The whole point of a source-based package manager is that it actually > BUILDs the packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 04:08, Rich Freeman wrote: > I think the bigger issue with the kernel is the huge configuration > space it has. Chromium may have a ton of USE flags compared to most > packages, but those pale in comparison to the kernel. Obviously it > would not make sense to try to create a USE fla

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 04:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > 1. As you point out, its not a package. That means it works > differently than everything else, and it can't be used as a > dependency/etc. > 2. Genkernel's initramfs isn't all that great. Don't get me wrong - > it was very good back when it was new. How

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New eclass: mate

On 11/04/16 06:09, NP-Hardass wrote: > Greetings all, > > As all potential new eclasses are supposed to be discussed here, I > thought I'd file a message and see if anyone had anything to > contribute on the matter. > > I'm in the midst of a major version bump for the entirety of the MATE > desktop

Re: [gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 82 bugs

On 13/04/16 07:49, Austin English wrote: > On 04/11/2016 04:00 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: > > Our bug queue has 82 bugs! > > If you have some spare time, please help > > assign/sort a few bugs. > > > To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 > > Thanks! > I got it down to 6. Enjoy. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-qt/qtmultimedia/

On 18/04/16 16:47, Michał Górny wrote: > This is invalid. Replacing invalid package names with other invalid > names is no fix. It is ugly Gentoo-style hackery which proves that > developers prefer trying randomly changing something until QA check > doesn't trigger over reading the documentation. A

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new USE="win32" flag for mingw and prefix/windows support

On 20/04/16 19:17, Mike Frysinger wrote: > agreed ... we have kernel_Winnt & elibc_Winnt already. i think > those represent a mingw environment (vs a cygwin env). Surely 'winnt' is a somewhat out-of-date and potentially confusing flag? Can't we migrate to a win32 and win64 as pertaining to current

Re: [gentoo-dev] New gen-b0rk repository specifically for Q/A tools testing

On 02/05/16 00:53, Brian Dolbec wrote: > In order to further improve the chances of Q/A tools catching > errors. I have created a new repo (overlay) which will contain minimal > test case ebuilds. The idea is to have test case ebuilds to run > repoman code against. The outcome of these runs shou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:17, Duncan wrote: > Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > >> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, >> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: >> >> What problem is being solved here? > For one thing,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: > To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD > people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core > 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad. > > > Y'all have too much free time ... ;) > I'm inclined to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/16 08:53, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users > that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken. > To quote an old proverb .. "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" .. if you wish me to explain, I'll do it private

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

On 07/05/16 16:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've been pushing out systemd stage3s for amd64 and x86 and putting them > under our official releases at [1] and [2]. I think all the bugs are > out and those stages are pretty tight. The next step is for me to > advertise them at [3

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

On 08/05/16 12:13, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2016, 07:09:31 schrieb Michał Górny: >>> What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be >>> worded in a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is >>> avoided and we all are on the same page on this t

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

On 09/05/16 21:08, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> Is there actually a decent systemd-based rescue CD out there? >> > while i can see some merits to this, eg. running systemd-nspawn from a > live cd, this is a lower priority. i don't have any desire to maintain > this. > I rather thought this questi

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and x32 systemd stages should be ready

On 10/05/16 00:08, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: >> oh okay. sorry if i misunderstood. nonetheless, doesn't the fedora >> installation cd double as a rescue cd? i think that uses systemd. >> > It might - no idea. I'm not sure if it is as loade

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] ebuild-writing/variables: better describe ROOT

On 10/05/16 16:08, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/08/2016 01:42 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> The current description of ROOT makes no sense and just confuses people. >> The new description is paraphrased from PMS. > The current version is bad, but the PMS version isn't great either. > > We really ne

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 14/05/16 12:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2016 11:55:42 +0200 >> Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016, 10:52:09 schrieb Ian Delaney: >>> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or reading diffs before committing? >>> Do you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 14/05/16 17:53, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Gordon Pettey schrieb: > >> So, it's perfectly okay to make direct commits of obviously broken >> code that >> has no chance of working, because community something mumble... > > You may have missed some sarcasm in the post which you replied

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 14/05/16 18:06, Rich Freeman wrote: > > While this is certainly sensible, the irony here is that this whole > discussion was started by somebody making a sarcastic remark when > simply pointing out a mistake would have been just as functional. > > Nobody thinks it is ok to commit broken code. W

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 14/05/16 18:52, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:07 PM, landis blackwell > wrote: >> No fun allowed >> > Are you saying that you don't want people to have fun developing > Gentoo? Or are you trying to say that it is impossible to have fun > developing Gentoo without insulting st

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 15/05/16 01:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >> Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong language of >> "seriously" or definitively stating that the individual did not perform the >> necessary QA actions before committing? > He

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 15/05/16 02:04, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 12:48:12 AM JST Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 >>> >>> Aaron Bauman wrote: Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

On 15/05/16 23:55, Duncan wrote: > Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:04:57 -0700 as excerpted: > >> If the dev in question hasn't done that before, then it's entirely >> possible they *thought* they tested, or tested it *before* making some >> other edit and absent-mindedly committed. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] NEW: split portage/repoman releases now in the tree

On 16/05/16 02:39, Brian Dolbec wrote: > portage-2.3.0_rc1 and repoman-2.3.0_rc1 are now in the tree. w00t :D > portage-2.3.0_rc1 is essentially the portage 2.2.28 release with only a > few small patches applied. It mostly just installs less code, namely > the repoman code. > > So, now servers and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

On 18/05/16 01:14, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 18 May 2016 at 04:05, Sébastien Fabbro wrote: >> Basically CI for ebuilds: it could be implemented as a script living >> in the package directory, something like a .travis.yml in the GitHub >> repositories or may be an EAPI change. Debian has a similar p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

On 18/05/16 01:44, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 18 May 2016 at 12:35, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> Yes, whilst that's a special case, it would be desirable to collaborate >> with another maintainer/team/project to devise a test schedule that was >> independent from the target

[gentoo-dev] Proposal for enhancement to PMS/EAPI7+

I've just been party to a discussion over in the Proxy Maintainers channel .. and the subject of correct ways to install documentation popped up. It seems to me rather quirky, that there is no middle ground in (for example) EAPI6 to have the default documentation installed per https://dev.gentoo.or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for enhancement to PMS/EAPI7+

On 18/05/16 07:43, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2016 04:07:07 +0100 > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > >> I've just been party to a discussion over in the Proxy Maintainers >> channel .. and the subject of correct ways to install documentation >> pop

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

On 20/05/16 14:11, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> keywording for a new arch should normally only be done when necessary, >> mainly if it is a direct dependency of another package. There is no need >> to keywor it for an arch until it has been tested on that arch by some >> user / developer ... c

Re: [gentoo-dev] please remove me off your mailing list

On 23/05/16 22:37, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 24 May 2016 at 09:22, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> give a man a fish and he has food for a day, teach a man to fish and he >> has food for a lifetime > > But if you feed a man while you teach him, he's better equipped to learn. :p > > Hence, the sugg

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation

On 27/05/16 16:40, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 05:21:06PM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Despite it being 2016 and gtk2 pretty much dead, buried and forgotten >> upstream, many applications still support only gtk2, have subtle issues >> with their gtk3 port, or suppo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On 03/06/16 21:13, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Walter, > > I think you're missing where the devs want to take this and what USE > is all about. It's about *features*, not about dependencies. > > USE="gtk" is a dependency. > USE="gui" is a feature. > You only need enable a specific graphics lib flag when

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 18:14, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 06/04/2016 12:29 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: >> dev-lang/php:vpx - Enable webp suppoprt for GD >> >> ?!?!?!?! Is that a typo? >> > Half and half. The "suppoprt" is obviously a typo, but unfortunately, > PHP uses a bundled copy of GD, so that isn

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 20:39, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 06/04/2016 03:30 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> The existing use description might be considered slightly confusing, >> potentially .. >> > I changed them to, > > Enable webp support for GD in php-5.x > Enable webp

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 20:45, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > would a REQUIRED_USE in newer versions make sense to force the new use > flag for people upgrading as a deprecation period? > What's the migration path/timeline look like .. I'da thought it would be months/years to move everything that's centred on

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 20:59, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 06/04/2016 03:50 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> What's the migration path/timeline look like .. I'da thought it would be >> months/years to move everything that's centred on php5 up to php7 if >> that's the wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New global USE flag: webp

On 04/06/16 21:17, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > We've still got 5.x stable, but that's because there's a security bug > for PHP every 20 days and it takes 30 days to stabilize an ebuild. > > Here's a status report: > > * We've got the "eselect php..." stuff sorted out already so you can > easil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Repo mirror & CI project news: 'stable' gentoo branch, new repo stats, faster CI

On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote: > On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal wrote: >>> Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert >>> commit? >> >> Huh? >> >> Its doing "replicate to github on pass using a merge commit". > I'd like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Repo mirror & CI project news: 'stable' gentoo branch, new repo stats, faster CI

On 05/06/16 18:09, rindeal wrote: > On 5 June 2016 at 18:53, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote: >>> On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric wrote: >>>> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal wrote: >>>>> Isn't no commit

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: dev-util/{...}

On 05/06/16 20:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:47:48PM +0200, Patrice Clement wrote: >> dev-util/cdecl >> dev-util/dwarves >> dev-util/intel2gas >> dev-util/lsuio >> dev-util/mock >> dev-util/par >> dev-util/tinlink >> dev-util/usb-robot > I've used the above subset of thes

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-util/nsis: Maintainer request

On 05/06/16 22:55, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > dev-util/nsis curretly has no maintainer. It has a [critical security > bug filed against it]. Does anyone want to pick it up? if not we'll > start a last rite process for it. > > [critical security bug filed against it] > https://bugs.gentoo.org/sh

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 07/06/16 10:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Its time to retire the project. Put out a last call for anyone to adopt > it. If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive. > Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can do so. > > +1 - This sounds like a fairly sensible solu

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 07/06/16 16:44, james wrote: > On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same >> effect? >> >> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so >> people can get the newest ebuilds. > > Perhaps a deprecation pe

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 07/06/16 16:37, Michał Górny wrote: > I'm against keeping it in repos.xml for more than a month, considering > the current (huge) state of breakage it is in. Other repositories with > similar breakage were already removed. > In which case, we should get a notice out post-haste ... My concern is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default DOCS for einstalldocs and HACKING file

On 07/06/16 23:50, NP-Hardass wrote: > From what I've seen, HACKING is a fairly common doc in FOSS projects. > It doesn't seem to have been included in the default DOCS for > einstalldocs in EAPI6. While going through the MATE packages, I noticed > that we have quite a few packages that include HA

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 08/06/16 04:13, Matthew Marchese wrote: > On 06/07/2016 02:29 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> Its time to retire the project. Put out a last call for anyone to adopt >> it. If not, then freeze commits but leave the repo open as an archive. >> Anyone who wants to scavenge ebuilds from it can

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 00:08, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely > > superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where > > they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree > > would just focus on a high-quality rep

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 10:37, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 08/06/16 16:39, Zac Medico wrote: > > The first obstacle that comes to my mind is how to discover the > > packages. There needs to be a central index of repositories which > > includes searchable metadata for all of the packages provided by > > thos

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 10:48, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 09/06/16 11:45, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > Btw, your key is showing up as expired, Alex. > It doesn't expire until next year. > > I'll blame it on Enigmail, but this is the information I'm seeing: "EXPI

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 10:58, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 09/06/16 11:55, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > According to Enigmail, it expired April 19th. > I suggest you refresh your keys. My signing subkey was signed April > 20th and expires in 2017. > Indeed, cache error, thanks. All square now. MJE signat

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 10/06/16 08:33, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 09/06/16 12:28, Igor Savlook wrote: > > Ok how coordinate? Example: I install packageA in exherbo from > > repository1 and packageA denend on packageB on repository2. Now > > packageB removed from repository2 and exherbo crash on install > > package

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 10/06/16 17:16, james wrote: > > And this effort needs a documentation collection to support users, > post installation to their target (ideal stage-4?) collection of > packages; many of which they maintain themselves even if a strong-user > or dev > helps them assimilate those final packages.

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 12/06/16 04:53, james wrote: > > So I read this bug, but it did not illuminate an active archive, but the > requests and subsequent problems encountered, or did i miss it? It > looks like the kinks are being worked out. PM having a ML is a great > idea. > > > Interesting. I found the ML @ game:

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-util/nsis: Maintainer request

Cheers Alon, Michael. On 12/06/16 12:43, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Hi, > I've revbumped this package. > Regards, > Alon > > On 6 June 2016 at 03:23, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 05/06/16 22:55, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> dev-util/nsis curretly has no m

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-util/nsis: Maintainer request

I'll see what I can do .. possibly not today .. Cheers, Michael. On 12/06/16 12:50, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Can you please check it out? > I had no time nor setup. > > On 12 June 2016 at 14:49, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> Cheers Alon, >> >> Michael. >> On 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On 12/06/16 18:57, Mike Frysinger wrote: > please avoid html e-mails > -mike And PGP/MIME is your friend :] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 13/06/16 08:50, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > > I still think you're underestimating the need for centralization. > > What you call a "core/base" package is probably going to end up > > being anything listed in a dependency. That is a LOT of packages, > > actually - we're not just talking about

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 13/06/16 09:04, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 11/06/16 09:00, Michał Górny wrote: > > If you are not going to maintain your contribution, we can't > > guarantee it will be accepted. I'm certainly not interested in > > having to worry about 20 more maintainer-needed packages next month > > becau

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 15/06/16 07:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:15:03 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:12:40 +0200 >> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >> >>> Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 02:32:41 schrieb Peter Stuge: >>> I would personally be super happy to have my overlay ho

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 16/06/16 13:04, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> Right now we have the following components: >> >> - Applications, >> - baselayout, >> - Core system, >> - Development, >> - Eclasses and Profiles, >> - Games, >> - GCC Porting, >> - GNOME, >> - H

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. >> >> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. >> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED

On 16/06/16 14:19, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:14:44 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >>> What I'd like to introduce instead is a new STABILIZED state. It >>> would -- like VERIFIED now -- be only available for bugs already >>> RESOLVED, and it could be used to signify th

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenAFS on Gentoo Hardened

On 18/06/16 00:08, Deven Lahoti wrote: > I wrote a patch to make OpenAFS work with grsecurity kernels. I'm > working on getting it submitted upstream, but for now it would be nice > to have it in portage. > > http://web.mit.edu/deywos/www/openafs-grsec.patch > > deven At the risk of stating the obv

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package up for grab

On 02/08/16 23:43, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 08/02/2016 04:15 PM, Amy Winston wrote: >> net-im/skype >> >> Anyone interested? >> >> > I feel like this is a trick question :P > +2 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] new eselect module: compiler

On 10/08/16 01:39, Lei Zhang wrote: > 2016-08-09 13:58 GMT+08:00 Fabian Groffen : >> As a question to Lei, I'm wondering why you chose eselect compiler, and >> not gcc-config to manage the links. In a way, gcc-config is tailored >> towards gcc, but it does a lot of things also for the environment.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] new eselect module: compiler

On 10/08/16 06:08, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:52:29 +0100 > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > >> On 10/08/16 01:39, Lei Zhang wrote: >>> 2016-08-09 13:58 GMT+08:00 Fabian Groffen : >>>> As a question to Lei, I'm wondering why you chose

Re: [gentoo-dev] libpcre.so.3 - Compatibility with Debian

On 12/08/16 18:40, james wrote: > On 08/12/2016 10:39 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:12:22 -0500 >> james wrote: >> >>> (also, I'm not hung up on 'Jentoo' as a name; perhaps 'Gintoo'? >>> >>> (peace && hth), >>> James >> >> Way outside the scope needed here. However we pull off

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree

On 14/08/16 22:49, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:45:07 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> What's a Working Group, and how is it related to a Project? Shouldn't >> there be a GLEP to define what a Working Group is first? > So if a group of people wanted to write such a GLEP ... woul

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

On 22/08/16 16:58, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > it looks like app-emulation/docker expects /etc/hostname to exist. > > On Gentoo, this file does not exist, so I'm wondering how we can make it > exist? > > I know in OpenRC I can read it and use the value there as the hostname > instead of /etc/co

Upgrading Old Gentoo - Was Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

On 24/08/16 15:08, Pacho Ramos wrote: > This reminds me a question I have for some time: is it documented in > some place what are the steps to follow for updating old systems? I > remember posts like: > http://blog.siphos.be/2013/12/upgrading-old-gentoo-installations/ > > but I don't know if that

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

On 28/08/16 07:30, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/24/2016 09:42 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 08/24/2016 09:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> * no benefit put forth so far, other than that it's the same file that >>> systemd uses, which is true but not beneficial as far as I can tell >> It's a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: chromium-54 needs ffmpeg-3.0.1

On 01/09/16 17:58, Duncan wrote: > Martin Vaeth posted on Thu, 01 Sep 2016 05:03:20 + as excerpted: > >> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >>> Martin Vaeth posted on Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:08:17 + as excerpted: >>> Kent Fredric wrote: > I really wish there was a way to run ancient

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

On 06/09/16 14:35, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 09/06/2016 03:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand >> wrote: >>> I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a >>> section of the eclass (as many already have) that does

Re: [gentoo-dev] questions about small fixes/cleanups

On 13/09/16 19:57, Michael Mair-Keimberger wrote: > Hello Gentoo-Team, > > For some time now I'm trying to help improve the gentoo tree. I've > started with fixing some HOMEPAGE variables in ebuilds and now removing > obsolete patches from packages. > Usually (especially with obsolete patches) it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Looking for a mentor

On 17/09/16 20:38, Kacper Kołodziej wrote: > Hello! > > I'm interested in becoming a Gentoo Developer. I'm familiar with C++, Python, > Git and some others. > > I'd like to begin with maintaining some package. I'm looking for a mentor who > will introduce me and help with quizes mentioned on Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub-2 configuration

On 09/10/16 00:57, Ben Kohler wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Tom H > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:34 PM, William Hubbs > mailto:willi...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > > > You don't have to use grub-mkconfig. You can write > /boot/grub/

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub-2 configuration

On 11/10/16 15:42, Tom H wrote [excerpted]: > I was sharing what I do because I've overwritten a manually-edited > grub.cfg by running grub-mkconfig/grub2-mkconfig/update-grub (re > grub2-mkconfig, I use grub-mkconfig on Gentoo because I set > "-multislot") more than once - and I know other sysadmi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Guile security vulnerability w/ listening on localhost + port (with fix)

On 11/10/16 16:38, ng0 wrote: > Hi, > > if this hasn't already caught your interest here's a forward from > guile-dev, should be of interest of the people maintaining guile on > Gentoo. Below follows the message: Might be worth directly cc'ing the scheme *ahem* herd .. aka Amynka on this .. but t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Guile security vulnerability w/ listening on localhost + port (with fix)

On 11/10/16 16:53, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/11/2016 05:38 PM, ng0 wrote: >> Hi, >> >> if this hasn't already caught your interest here's a forward from >> guile-dev, should be of interest of the people maintaining guile on >> Gentoo. Below follows the message: >> > Created bug https://b

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Ban dolib and libopts in EAPI 7

On 13/10/16 15:04, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:53:16 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7. >> >> Rationale: >> 1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one >>third of them appears

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] toolchain-funcs.eclass: Add tc-check-openmp() function

On 13/10/16 21:40, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 10/13/2016 04:35 PM, David Seifert wrote: >> +ewarn "Your current compiler does not support OpenMP" >> + >> +... >> + >> +die "Active compiler does not have required support > Hey, a message that isn't about comrel.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Dead project cleanup - Merging Presentation with Public Relations

On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote: > On 10/07/2016 04:56 PM, Matthew Marchese wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Thought I'd send a RFC out to you all to get a little feedback before I >> make any changes to this since I didn't originally start the project. If >> no one responds with a good reason w

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Dead project cleanup - Merging Presentation with Public Relations

On 15/10/16 00:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:34:44PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote: >>> Not sure what we're going to do about video. Upload them to our >>> YouTube account and/or Archive.org f

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Dead project cleanup - Merging Presentation with Public Relations

On 15/10/16 01:15, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 15/10/16 00:04, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:34:44PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> On 14/10/16 09:33, Matthew Marchese wrote: >>>> Not sure what we're going to do about video. Upload them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 17/10/16 08:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems > to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in > this thread. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Antarus/Package_Tags > > Ulrich Looks rational to me .. blockers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:17:48 AM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> But seriously, what has become of the package tags proposal? It seems >> to me that it would fit some of the things suggested previously in >> this thread. >> https://wiki.gentoo.o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based >> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' >> for distinction." > Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not > address > the pr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 17/10/16 14:52, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based >>>> equivalent, the name

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

On 17/10/16 15:09, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/17/2016 04:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> Even if we have a list, what next? There are reasons why they are not >> packaged >> from source, and that will not change. Good to be aware, but without any >> sort >> of plan or means to

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: important fstab update

On 25/10/16 18:27, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 06:07:51PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:01:06 -0500 >> William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> this item is about an important fstab update. In short, people need to >>> move away from /dev/disk-by/* in their fstab vf

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On 28/10/16 08:34, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700 >> Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: [snip] To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

On 28/10/16 16:41, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 28/10/16 08:34, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700 >>> Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on Android stage3

On 29/10/16 16:09, Benda Xu wrote: > Hi Fellows, > > This is an announcement of the latest Gentoo on Android stage3 tarball, > > > http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/prefix/rap/rap-stage3-armv7a_hardfp-20161026.tar.xz > > snapshot from the latest main Gentoo repository, featuring gcc-5.4,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on Android stage3

On 29/10/16 16:14, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 29/10/16 16:09, Benda Xu wrote: >> Hi Fellows, >> >> This is an announcement of the latest Gentoo on Android stage3 tarball, >> >> >> http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/prefix/rap/rap-stage3-armv7a_hardfp-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on Android stage3

On 29/10/16 16:35, Benda Xu wrote: > Hey MJE, > > "M. J. Everitt" writes: > >> COOL ! I'll have to give this a try .. got an old(er) Samsung Galaxy >> S4 Active, > From our past experience[1], Samsung sometimes imposed noexec to /data by > kernel hac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: dev-ada/cbind, net-dialup/dtrace, net-nds/lat, app-pda/jpilot-mail, net-dialup/drdsl, dev-util/insight, app-laptop/configure-trackpoint, x11-misc/lxmed, dev-util/ketchup, m

On 29/10/16 21:25, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 10/29/2016 02:30 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >> Someone needs to take over responsibility for the packages >> (maintainership) and fixing the issues then. If not, they should be removed. >> > I'm only talking about the packages that have no other is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code shutdown requires 524 ebuilds to be fixed before end of 2016

On 05/11/16 00:20, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Jonas Stein wrote: >> If you maintain one of these packages, please fix the SRC_URI and >> HOMEPAGE variables. >> > It would probably be better if the output included the maintainer. > Hopefully this isn't using anything depr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code shutdown requires 524 ebuilds to be fixed before end of 2016

On 05/11/16 00:23, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 05/11/16 00:20, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Jonas Stein wrote: >>> If you maintain one of these packages, please fix the SRC_URI and >>> HOMEPAGE variables. >>> >> It would pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code shutdown requires 524 ebuilds to be fixed before end of 2016

On 05/11/16 01:20, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:30 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> Apologies, getting ahead of myself here .. there must be a portage >> utility, but I've forgotten which one interrogates metadata .. I'll >> defer to a more authoritat

<    1   2   3   >