Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

[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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

On 08/09/2013 06:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: >> On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >>> It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd >>> and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. >> >> We are not ju

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

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 to install systemd or to implement openrc support. > Invalid upgrade path. "The upgr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

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 remove

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 > Sergey Popov wrote: >> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS >> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It >> is one of the long-standing feature of quite exp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka >>> wrote: >>> Right now, however, >>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being used, >>> trade ideas, etc. > No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 >>> Sergey Popov wrote: >>>> I am all for the standa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/14/2013 11:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:56 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka >>>>> wrote: Right now, however, >>&

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changes in libreoffice ebuild

On 08/13/2013 04:10 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > As per my comment in bugzilla [1] I said that the patch should be > submitted upstream prior having it in cvs. > > Yet you decided to completely ignore my statement and just smash in the > patch anyway [2]. > > Please don't do this ever again. We had

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/14/2013 11:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:50:36 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800 >>> Patrick Lauer wrote: >>>> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, C

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: >> >>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general >>> progress in gentoo. >> >> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gento

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/15/2013 04:56 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 14 August 2013 21:41, hasufell wrote: >> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: >>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general progress in gentoo. >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

On 08/15/2013 03:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 15 August 2013 00:42, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: >&g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Move m68k, sh, s390 to ~arch

On 09/25/2013 03:07 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 09/24/2013 07:28 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: >> On 09/23/2013 22:41, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> (unless of course you want to increase your number of cvs commits >>> which is a worrying argument on its own) > >> 11:16 #gentoo-bugs: <+bonsaikitten

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Policy for migrating library consumers to subslots

tl;dr: We should use EAPI5 features I've noticed some libraries (e.g. poppler) having (almost) all their consumers migrated to eapi5 subslots. So upgrading those is now really neato. Other libraries are still a bit less optimal. So there's lots of revdep-rebuild / emerge @preserved-rebuild happen

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilizing libraries without testing reverse deps

On 09/30/2013 07:45 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > hasufell schrieb: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464536 >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470554 >> >> for the first bug: >> net-libs/ortp media-libs/mediastreamer and net-voip/linphone >> are from the same upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: converting /etc/mtab to a symlink

On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a > symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1]. > > Are there any remaining concerns about doing this? Apart from breaking umount -a and some other things? None at all ;) (The breakag

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: converting /etc/mtab to a symlink

On 10/14/2013 07:29 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a >>> symli

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding large files to the mirrors?

On 10/16/2013 07:20 AM, Mike Auty wrote: > Hi there, > > I'm updating the app-crypt/ophcrack-tables package to include the new > tables available from their site. These are basically just additional > data packages that can be useful with the app-crypt/ophcrack package, > but they're very large.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [Bug 488318] media-video/mpv[luajit] - Keyword request on alpha, arm, ppc, ppc64, sparc

On 10/20/2013 06:18 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 10/19/2013 06:43 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> P.S.: It is interesting to see the effects of AutoRepoman beating >> people to filing bugs, maybe I should write AutoNotifyman as a >> response to not having the chance to file the bug in a reasonable >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [Bug 488318] media-video/mpv[luajit] - Keyword request on alpha, arm, ppc, ppc64, sparc

On 10/20/2013 07:41 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 10/20/2013 11:40 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>> The affected packages can slowly be fixed. It's not like they are >>> totally broken but it's more like of another way to tell you that >>> a few QA prob

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is > {package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to manage the partial > transisition between emul-* and multilib-build dependencies ^^ Why is there a partial random transition

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

On 11/14/2013 01:13 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-11-14, o godz. 07:49:55 > Patrick Lauer napisał(a): > >> On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >>> It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is >>> {pack

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

On 11/14/2013 08:13 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> >> So just "fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time" ... > > Have any problems appeared that impact anybody who hasn't tried to > take

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

On 11/15/2013 01:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> So tell me, what you exactly want or need? Or is it just bare >>> complaining for the sake of complaining? >> >> Well, you accidentally cut out all references to TommyD's work again. >> Almost as if you don't even want to discuss a working proper sol

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

On 11/15/2013 03:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:07:39 +0100 > Thomas Sachau wrote: >> - multilib-portage was planned to add features with a future EAPI >> version, so in the end needs agreement from maintainers of package >> managers, the pms team and the council. If anyone

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

On 11/15/2013 03:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Ben de Groot wrote: > >> As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing >> solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a >> distro: > >> 1: emul-* packages >> 2: multilib-portage >> 3

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in >>> random package(s) a la binary-distribution style >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

On 12/05/2013 08:13 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:45:22AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead?

On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as the > default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand commits to > fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package is made. [1] Pff. Lazy. > When our defaults f

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up

On 12/09/2013 10:50 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > On 12/08/2013 05:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >>> 1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a >>> USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pul

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC

On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, > which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. > > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", s

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC

On 12/12/2013 05:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: >> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the >> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc -> >> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and maki

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

> > You are interfering with my workflow and I already told you why I kept > the useflag, so stop reverting my commits after I told you the reasons > in a private mail. Eh, it's been two days, and the temporary issue is still there ... Fix your workflow not to rely on repoman warnings being non

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

other > peoples ebuilds. (besides that you already managed to break the > Manifest of this stable package last time) > S 25 Dec 2013; Julian Ospald metadata.xml: revert pseudo-QA commit 25 Dec 2013; Patrick Lauer metadata.xml: Remove unneeded useflag description

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

On 12/26/2013 02:29 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 12/26/2013 02:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:25:04 +0100 >> hasufell wrote: >>> That is funny that you mention "cleaning up". I remember last time >>> when you broke 8 ebuilds at once because you just trusted your >>> outdated r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog

> The discussion is based on some questions that are hard to agree on: > > 1. How much of a problem is an unused USE flag in metadata.xml? Cosmetic issue. No functional impact. > 2. Should such repoman warnings be fixed? By whom? When? How? Yes. You see it, you fix it. Not fixing cosmetic is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS

On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > Igor writes: > >> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure >> rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. > > I am curious about the slowness of emerge. > > How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS

On 01/10/2014 08:30 PM, Igor wrote: > Hello Heroxbd, > > Friday, January 10, 2014, 4:16:47 AM, you wrote: > >>> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure >>> rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. > >> I am curious about the slowness of emerge. > >> How abo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS

On 01/11/2014 02:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: >>> Igor writes: >>> >>>> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team)

On 01/13/2014 10:58 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:31:56 +0100 > Fabio Erculiani wrote: > >> Portage can still take *minutes* to calculate the merge queue of a >> pkg with all its deps satisfied. > > Half a minute if you disable backtracking which you don't need. :) Or if you d

Re: [gentoo-dev] overlays.gentoo.org restoration & post-mortem

On 01/18/2014 01:23 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 18 January 2014 18:02, Robin H. Johnson > wrote: > > - More people need to use the infra-status page to learn about the state > of Gentoo services. > > > > A service middle layer like fastly or cloudflare

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights

On 01/20/2014 10:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend >>> people >>> >>> Whether this has actually happened is something that is q

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights

On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see > is someone who has probably never had to do it for real. > > People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their > freely given time nullified and access remove

[gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

Ahoi, I've been looking for a clean git-converted gentoo-x86 repo for ... well ... mostly data mining as cvs / anoncvs.g.o is too slow for some things. This has been needlessly challenging, which confuses me a bit. First, a little complaint: There used to be some data at git-exp.overlays.gentoo

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules

As previously discussed I would like to suggest that the number of tolerated EAPIs be reduced. There's been some discussion over the last 2+ years, with a weak consensus towards deprecating some EAPIs. What, when and how still isn't decided. So let's add some data so we have a better idea: EAPI St

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules

On 02/10/2014 09:34 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Adding EAPI 1 and 2 ebuilds is forbidden. (repoman-fatal) > > Does "adding" in this case include revbumps? By the design of our repo structure and repoman, yes.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules

On 02/10/2014 09:23 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > The statement "Deprecating an EAPI can mean breakage" depends on what we > mean by "deprecating." I'm assuming here we mean something like repoman > won't allow commits at EAPI=1,2,3 but that ebuilds in the tree at those > EAPI's will continue wor

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On 03/13/2014 12:52 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> No, I don't think gentoo-functions should take over the symbolic >>> link in /etc/init.d/functions.sh; that needs to stay with OpenRc. >>> My plan there is to work that into a script that prints a warning >>> message. It will stay that way until ope

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages

On 04/01/2014 01:13 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 1 April 2014 06:16, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, all. >> >> The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on >> abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not sure if we're doing things >> the right way. >> >> That said, I have an alternat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages

On 04/01/2014 10:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev > wrote: >> On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >>> >>> In my opinion your multilib approach introduces an unnecessary degree >>> of complexity, which --as has been shown here agai

Re: [gentoo-dev] Change or revert the "30 days maintainer timeout" stabilization policy

On 04/03/2014 12:52 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > The "30 days maintainer time out" stabilization policy isn't working > when package has multiple SLOTs, because > the bugs are filed for only latest SLOT, where as some packages require > stabilization in sync at both SLOTs Question: Why is the main

Re: [gentoo-dev] Akamai secure memory allocator for OpenSSL?

On 04/14/2014 04:42 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > So one of the side-discussions happening after Heartbleed was the fact that > OpenSSL has its own memory allocator code that effectively mitigates any C > library-provided exploit mitigations (as discussed on the openbsd-misc ML at > [1] and Ted Una

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Monday 02 June 2014 14:50:56 Parker Schmitt wrote: > I think we need to keep the opencl stuff. In a few weeks I'll have time to > help. > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Kacper Kowalik > > wrote: > > Hi All! > > There's a bunch packages that I'm officially maintaining but due to the > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: UPower upstream (git master) and 0.99 release -> No sys-power/pm-utils support anymore

On 06/03/2014 07:25 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 03/06/14 14:40, J. Roeleveld wrote: >> Would have been nice to fix all the dependencies BEFORE marking the >> systemd- depending "sys-power/upower-pm-utils" stable. -- Joost > > No clue what you mean, sys-power/upower-pm-utils doesn't depend

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: UPower upstream (git master) and 0.99 release -> No sys-power/pm-utils support anymore

On 06/04/2014 08:24 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:55:50 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> On 06/03/2014 07:25 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> >>> On 03/06/14 14:40, J. Roeleveld wrote: >>>> Would have been nice to fix all the

[gentoo-dev] The infinite git migration

On 06/10/2014 11:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: [lots of whining removed ;) ] > > I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository, > probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its > internals, because I see of no other reason why Git is still not > used despite efforts o

Re: [gentoo-dev] The state and future of the OpenRC project

On 06/11/2014 01:39 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 23:08:15 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0500 >> Daniel Campbell wrote: >> [2]: Overview of bugs that involve OpenRC, most for the package itself. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicks

Re: [gentoo-dev] The state and future etc. etc.

On 06/10/2014 03:52 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote: > On 08/06/14 18:06, hasufell wrote: >> I am not sure if that is a joke. You can pretty much ask most major >> gentoo projects. The ones where I was involved more deeply definitely >> suffer from that problem, including sunrise and games team. Science tea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The state and future of the OpenRC project

On 06/11/2014 12:10 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: >> But, for the most part we just need to get the back-end re-written to >> work with a git repo. Actually migrating the tree itself to git is >> largely a solved problem. > > Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land? > That's completel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes?

On Saturday 14 June 2014 11:50:29 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200 > > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary. > > > > This shouldn't be consid

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: crossdev and multilib interference

On 06/17/2014 04:24 AM, hasufell wrote: >> What about those of us who have been using crossdev to generate >> cross-compilers for years w/o issue, because we run non-multilib? >> Hardmasking crossdev to solve multilib problems doesn't accomplish anything, >> other than just irk us. Why not hardma

Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?

On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100 > > Markos Chandras wrote: > > It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker > > but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lxc-1.0.0 by > > the virtualization team (and Diego

Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?

On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100 > > > > Markos Chandras wrote: > > > It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?

On 06/29/14 17:33, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 06/29/2014 10:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote: >>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100 >>>> >>&

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch

On 06/30/14 22:15, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED >> AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it. > > Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Wednesday 23 July 2014 01:06:15 Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300 > > Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > > And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps > > > don't work at all on binpkgs since the Package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: maintainer-needed@ packages need you!

On Sunday 31 August 2014 11:39:22 hasufell wrote: > Martin Vaeth: > > hasufell wrote: > >> On 08/30/2014 02:35 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > >>> For net-im/skype, > >> > >> Screw skype. > > > > Please don't. Not all communication partners are linux users. > > Tox is multiplatform. > > >> We have t

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-9999 (and upcoming 217) no longer has userspace firmware loader (will need Linux 3.7 for firmware's to be loaded)

On Sunday 31 August 2014 17:13:49 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Trying to raise awareness: > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=be2ea723b1d023b3d385d > 3b791ee4607cbfb20ca > What are the effects for end-users? Will things just quietly fail hard (e.g. radeon driver -> no firmwar

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: adding sys-apps/iproute2 to the @system set

On Friday 05 September 2014 12:34:11 William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > there is a bug open requesting that we add sys-apps/iproute2 to the > system set [1]. Originally the request was to drop net-tools, but it has > become just adding iproute2. I wouldn't mind either option - net-tools has been dep

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GLEP 64: Export Package Manager Cached Information. (Was: RFC: GLEP 64: Standardize contents of VDB and establish and API for exporting this information.)

On Saturday 06 September 2014 16:22:46 hasufell wrote: > Anthony G. Basile: > > On 09/06/14 12:12, hasufell wrote: > >> Anthony G. Basile: > And when you do ask, is a package that's "provided" installed, and if > so, what's its metadata? > >>> > >>> When the package is installed, that da

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GLEP 64: Export Package Manager Cached Information. (Was: RFC: GLEP 64: Standardize contents of VDB and establish and API for exporting this information.)

> >> That means either say "you cannot expect anything, because there might > >> or might not be metadata" or say "you can expect metadata for any > >> provided/installed package" in which case package.provided feature has > >> to be removed from portage. > > > > "Provided" means "not managed by

Re: [gentoo-dev] My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

On Sunday 14 September 2014 15:40:06 Davide Pesavento wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > We have main developer repo where developers work & commit and are > > relatively happy. For every push into developer repo, automated magic > > thingie merges stuff into user sy

Re: [gentoo-dev] My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

On Sunday 14 September 2014 15:42:15 hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer: > >> Are we going to disallow merge commits and ask devs to rebase local > >> changes in order to keep the history "clean"? > > > > Is that going to be sane with our commit frequency?

Re: [gentoo-dev] My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

On Monday 15 September 2014 11:27:34 Kent Fredric wrote: > On 15 September 2014 11:21, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > iow, git doesn't allow people to work on more than one item at a time? > > > > That'd mean I need half a dozen checkouts just to emulate cvs, which &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo git workflows and the stabilization/keywording process

On Monday 22 September 2014 00:52:14 hasufell wrote: > > | • repoman must be run from all related ebuild directories (or > > | > > | related category directories or top-level directory) on the tip of > > | the local master branch (as in: right before you push and also > > | after resolving p

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenLDAP 2.3.x removal on October 27, migrate to 2.4.x

On 10/14/14 05:22, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > For compatibility and migration support, we've kept the old OpenLDAP > 2.3.x ebuilds in the tree for nearly 5 years. And you better keep them for a while, because some of us are stuck with 2.3, and mixed operation (e.g. master 2.4, slaves 2.3) is not s

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenLDAP 2.3.x removal on October 27, migrate to 2.4.x

On Tuesday 14 October 2014 16:02:20 Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:52:03AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On 10/14/14 05:22, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > For compatibility and migration support, we've kept the old OpenLDAP > > > 2.3.x ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage dependency solving algorithm

On 11/08/2014 03:08 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 11/07/2014 07:54 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: >>> Well, you're not comparing like with like. Paludis with "everything >>> turned off" does more than Portage with "everything turned on". If all >>> you're looking for is the wrong answer as fast as possible,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage dependency solving algorithm

On 11/08/2014 10:48 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 11/08/2014 02:24 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 11/08/2014 03:08 AM, hasufell wrote: >>> On 11/07/2014 07:54 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: >>>>> Well, you're not comparing like with like. Paludis with "everythi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage dependency solving algorithm

On 11/09/2014 08:04 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 11/09/2014 12:33 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> It's not about NIH, it's about slow code being slow. >> > > Can't disagree more. It's about wrong results, broken systems, > unreadable error messages, days of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Running repoman on the portage tree

On 11/19/14 10:17, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote: > Hey devs, > > This is my first mail to this list. If this is out of line, let me know. > > I've been playing around with Jenkins (continuous integration server) > recently for a couple of personal projects, including my own overlay. I > thought it woul

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 22:18 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote: > > > OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs > > > somewhere else from bugzilla. > > The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 16:40 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote: > > Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I > > grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an > > 'unofficial overlay'.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 21:38 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > | Just to take this to a humorous extreme - > > | would you be content if sunrise ceased all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007

On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 02:46 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > well it's about that time of the year ... time for nominating people > for the next Gentoo Council So here's my nominations: Flameeyes brix lu_zero kosmikus Stuart jakub marienz patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the u

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keep Sunrise... But not Here

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:54 -0400, Michael Crute wrote: > Sorry to start yet another thread on this but all the others seem to > have just turned into a shouting match among developers... and sorry > if this has already been covered. > > It seems that the most logical solution to the Sunrise "prob

Re: [gentoo-dev] SpanKY's Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2007

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 16:48 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: [snip] > patrick (nope) I'm the alternative. Vote well or you'll have to live with me :-) I hope that this motivates _everyone_ to vote ... On a more serious note, I hope this mailinglist doesn't degenerate into a political campaign. To paraphra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:21 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > The difference is that I argue, while you accuse me to play false. I consider > this as ad hominem and together with all this "FUD" and "BS" calling, in > contrary to my email, inflammatory. ... and that is inflammatory :-) > > > I'd app

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for August

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:03 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Jakub Moc wrote: > > Broken bugzilla affects every ebuild dev, affects GDP, affects bug > > wranglers, affects anyone else who's using it to track outstanding > > project issues. How is this continuous borkage not a global issue that > > co

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for August

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:20 +, Alec Warner wrote: > > No, not really. Just that I'd expect kinda more proactive approach than > > the one demonstrated fex. in > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128588#c29 (and a bit more > > flexible approach to other alternatives, such as HW/hosting of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for August

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:48 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > (Note to our sponsors: you rock. Keep on rocking.) > > > > Right now bugs is served from a 2,4Ghz P4 - that's roughly a normal > > desktop box from last year. > > You

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo at FROSCON

Hi everyone, as every year there's a FROSCON ( http://froscon.de/ ) happening, this time on the weekend of the 22nd and 23rd of August in St.Augustin near Bonn, Germany. From the last 2 years I can say that it's one of the most fun and geeky conferences around, so better be there or you'll be s

Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay usage and maintainence [was: DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future]

On Sunday 13 September 2009 13:30:13 Thomas Sachau wrote: > Richard Freeman schrieb: > > Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> Most Gentoo users will have no problem to use overlays as they need > >> them. If we had more developers we could as maintain more packages, > >> as simple as that. > > > > I actually

Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay usage and maintainence [was: DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future]

On Sunday 13 September 2009 21:03:13 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:57:48 +0200, Patrick Lauer > > wrote: > > First issue: How do I find out in which overlay stuff is? > > http://gentoo.zapto.org/ That's not an official project, not mentioned in t

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI and system packages

On Sunday 20 September 2009 13:28:40 Richard Freeman wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: > > So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when > > can we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please. > > You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old > EAPIs?

<    1   2   3   4   5   >