Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> The certificates that Gentoo distributes have at least been vouched >> for by somebody who is a part of our community, which is more than can >> be said for most of the upstream certifi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo and Root CAs

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > Michael Mol gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman gentoo.org> wrote: >> > Speaking of which, say what you will about Mozilla's broken criteria >> > for root in

Re: [gentoo-dev] About using a CONFIGURATION (or SETUP) file under /usr/share/doc for configuration information

On Jan 6, 2013 8:32 PM, "Zac Medico" wrote: > > On 01/06/2013 01:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:34:59 -0600 > > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > >> On 10:26 Sat 22 Dec , Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> Hello > >>> > >>> After seeing: > >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?i

Re: [gentoo-dev] About using a CONFIGURATION (or SETUP) file under /usr/share/doc for configuration information

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/06/2013 05:36 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> >> On Jan 6, 2013 8:32 PM, "Zac Medico" > <mailto:zmed...@gentoo.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/06/2013 01:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: > On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would >> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) >> server profiles. >

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with > > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or > > ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend

[gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

(I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed here, so...) So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to enable kerberos system-wide on my server. No joy, as net-fs/nfs-utils has an

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right >> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed >> here, so...) >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/24/2013 10:40 PM, Duncan wrote: > Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted: > >>> I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are >>> not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both version

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/24/2013 10:46 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >>>> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: >> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right >> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed >> here, so...) >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/25/2013 06:03 AM, Duncan wrote: > Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted: > I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows focused. >> >> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused > > ... But samba is... Actually, no. That's why I've been so

Re: [gentoo-dev] kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages

On 02/25/2013 12:48 PM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Matthew Thode > wrote: >> On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: >>> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right >>> now, but I believe that if I bring it up

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo GPG key policies

On 03/14/2013 09:01 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 05:14:15PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >> If that means doing an additional signature every time something is >> going to be committed, that sounds like an overkill. If we were to do >> something radical, I'd rather be in favo

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo GPG key policies

On 03/14/2013 11:18 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:32:30PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: >>> As to how to accomplish this, it's either a throwaway sig, or poking the >>> agent protocol directly. >> The only trouble with that is if the ag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt

On 03/29/2013 08:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 29/03/13 13:38, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> On 29/03/2013 12:29, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> One you can control, the another you can't. So still not FUD. >> >> You do not really control it any more than the kernel. The fact that me >> and you can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: sys-apps/texinfo vs @system

On 03/31/2013 06:19 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013, Duncan wrote: > >> Or maybe your intent was to either kill these deps or put them >> behind USE=doc as well? > > USE=doc doesn't look right for this, as it's normally used for large > sized documentation. Something like US

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt : SOLVED

On 04/01/2013 01:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 1 April 2013 16:32, Philip Webb wrote: >> 130401 Markos Chandras wrote: >>> On 1 April 2013 02:56, Philip Webb wrote: I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem. Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global useflags zeroconf and avahi

On 04/01/2013 10:47 PM, Alex Xu wrote: > Kill zeroconf and use "dnssd", "upnp", "ssdp". Problem solved? I very much like the approach in principle, though. Digging briefly into Wikipedia[1], UPnP has several components: * AutoIP (IPv4LL) * SSDP (So, a separate "ssdp" USE flag may not be necessary

Re: [gentoo-dev] libpng 1.6 upgrade and subslotting (and misuse of subslotting when there is also normal slotting)

On 04/05/2013 04:44 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > libpng 1.6 is in portage, but temporarily without KEYWORDS, pending on > testign and this conversion, help would be much appericiated with > converting the tree to use automatic rebuilds for the upgrade > > Because there is binary-only SLOT="1.2" of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Establishing Gentoo patch policy to keep our patches consistent and clean

On Apr 6, 2013 2:36 PM, "Alexandre Rostovtsev" wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 20:08 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > 2. Patches have to apply to the top directory of the source tree with > > 'patch -p1'. If patches are applied to sub-directories, necessary '-p' > > argument shall be passed to 'epa

Re: [gentoo-dev] autoconf now supports multislots

On 4/17/2013 2:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:33:29 -0400 > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> but i'm super lazy, so even this manual step is annoying. as such, >> i've added USE=multislot support to autoconf (just like it is with >> binutils & gcc). > > But it's massively illegal

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [OT/NIT] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

On 04/24/2013 07:21 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> Er, you can't be seriously suggesting we will drop repoman checks >> with the migration to git? I don't see how that would benefit anyone. > > I would argue that repoman and/or corresponding checks should be run > by a CI system

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC

On Apr 26, 2013 4:59 AM, "Tobias Klausmann" wrote: > > Hi! > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > I'm still not quite sure what newnet does that oldnet doesn't, or > > why somebody felt it was necessary to make a new package (and no, > > let's not discuss that here). Whatever it is,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RANT: Upgrade icu and KDE at once

On 04/30/2013 01:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> The most annoying fact is, that none of this would have been necessary with >> portage 2.2, but maybe we have to wait for 2.1.11.500 before 2.2 gets >> stable... > > Actually, @preserved-rebuil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages using -Werror

On 05/03/2013 09:46 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2013 16:06:01 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > >> Personally I've always thought -Werror is a mistake in release code, >> but was accepted practice. I've almost never actively removed it from >> packages I maintain. That will change now,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/08/2013 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Ben de Groot schrieb: >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote: >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about >>> new systemd unit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote: >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs abou

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC supporting systemd units

On 05/08/2013 03:18 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:55:35 +0200 > Ambroz Bizjak wrote: > >>> Init.d scripts are programs - they could probably do just about >>> anything. >> >> They couldn't monitor a process and restart it when it crashes, as >> specified by the restart options

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC supporting systemd units

On 05/08/2013 04:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michael Mol schrieb: >>> Sounds like a great feature. A crashed process is a buggy one, and I >>> would want to investigate said program before I relaunched it, and >>> not have it automatically relaunc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/18/2013 03:23 PM, Carlos Silva wrote: > Is the real problem just the god damn unit/init files?! Damn, who cares > about 2KiB files in the age of GiBs?! You can install 1000 of them that > it will only take 2MiB of storage, so please, quit complaining about this. Practically speaking, I think

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/20/2013 11:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: [snip] >> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit >> files is pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, >> but that seems like a hack instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack. > > Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using > it without risk of brea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/21/2013 10:02 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:57:53 -0400 > Michael Mol wrote: >> On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC) >>> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> B

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

On 05/22/2013 08:53 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > > [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ] > > So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a > package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets > everyone opt-in, an

Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ] >> So why don't we add something to pack

[gentoo-dev] Duplicate bug reports, resolution status and Bug 426262

(First, I don't care how the autoconf.in->autoconf.ac migration is handled at a code level. This isn't about that. I'd appreciate if that were largely handled in a separate thread. This (I think) is about policy around bug reporting.) Timeline: 1) *Bug 426262*

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Solving the problem of huge number of wrong LICENSES=*GPL-[23]

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:09:41 AM EDT Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 26/08/2018 12:53, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > The common issue here is that upstream COPYING files really do only > > talk about one of the versions. And then you get to validate or source > > files to be sure that they do have a

<    1   2