[gentoo-dev] Gentoo usage in companies

Hello everybody! As Gentoo approaches its 10th birthday I've been wondering how and where it is used. We used to have some great stories from companies in the weekly newsletter, but that one has become very dormant a while ago. I'd like to collect your success stories, endorsements and case stu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: USE=qa-test

On Wednesday 07 October 2009 13:13:31 Duncan wrote: > Ryan Hill posted on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:38:18 -0600 as excerpted: > > I'd like to propose a new USE flag, qa-test or a better name, to handle > > these cases in a consistent way. This would give us a way to > > differentiate between tests that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup

On Friday 09 October 2009 00:22:26 Petteri Räty wrote: > >> across a case that couldn't be done with EAPI 2 yet. Granted the atoms > >> can be a bit cleaner with EAPI 3 but considering how much zmedico slacks > >> in implementing it, it's best to do migrating now with EAPI 2 than EAPI > > > > Comm

Re: [gentoo-dev] New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is?

On Saturday 17 October 2009 01:29:00 Daniel Bradshaw wrote: > Some packages, like findutils, are pretty robust and generally just get on > with working. > Other packages, like apache and ssh, need are more fragile and need plenty > of configuration. That's almost completely user-side configuration

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl-5.10.1 status update

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 11:10:39 Torsten Veller wrote: > * Torsten Veller: > > After that I'll minimize my perl work if no more people join to help. > > Plan revised: I stop doing perl work right now. > Thanks for all the time you spent on perl. I can understand that doing everything by you

[gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

Hi there, a while ago Thilo Bangert spent quite some time on filing lots of bugs. While I appreciate such QA efforts I don't agree with those bugs at all. All of these bugs were for the use of the FEATURES variable in ebuilds, which is a very convenient thing to work around issues. For example

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 18:27:46 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > a while ago Thilo Bangert spent quite some time on filing lots of bugs. > > While I appreciate such QA efforts I don't agree with those bugs at all. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 22:26:24 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > To quote: > > "FEATURES is a portage specific package manager configuration > > variable not specified in PMS and cannot reliably be used in ebuilds > > or eclasses." > > For distcc & ccache, let me quote ebuild.sh code: > > if hasq d

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 21:58:27 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:36:18 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Userpriv I've seen the funny idea to check if UID=0 and such. > > Yes, and that 'funny idea' has the added advantage of working even

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES use or misuse?

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 01:33:23 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Calling EAPI is ... well ... I can't even think of a place to start to > > explain how wrong it is. How on earth are you going to parse an eclass > > that supports multiple EA

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: FEATURES use or misuse?

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 01:11:39 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:28:57 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > And then why bother when the tree doesn't reflect PMS. > > Maybe if some people would stop ignoring PMS on whim because they don't > agree

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:21:18 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +0000, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет: > > patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46 > > Log: > > Bump > > > > file : > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-forensics

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:56:24 Petteri Räty wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:21:18 Peter Volkov wrote: > >> В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +0000, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет: > >>> patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46 > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: > > And because I'm a lazy > > > > I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix > > it instead > > Do you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 19:24:47 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 08 November 2009 13:10:34 Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: > > > В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: > > > > And because I'm a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 20:27:23 Mark Loeser wrote: > Patrick Lauer said: > > If you feel you have too much time you could search on bugzilla for > > "patch" and start fixing those bugs. "Bump" is also a funny search. > > If you are just bumping rand

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA is unimportant?

On Monday 09 November 2009 13:08:52 Peter Volkov wrote: [Snip] > Well, it looks like the root of this problem is the following statement: > "QA is less important then new packages in the tree". I failed to hear > any arguments why QA is unimportant so I still believe that QA problem > is a problem.

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA is unimportant?

On Monday 09 November 2009 21:16:28 Mike Frysinger wrote: > oh muffin ! get over it already. either do it right or stop doing it. perl? That's how you want to handle things? Great. I think we can agree that that strategy doesn't work. > > You should understand one thing: I don't care at all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Election for the Gentoo Council empty seat

On 12/24/09 23:50, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2009.12.16 00:36, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> Hello. >> >> As announced by Denis (Calchan)[1], we need to have an election for >> the >> Gentoo Council's empty seat. >> We'll be putting up a page with all the information for the Council >> electio

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: net-analyzer/zabbix-{agent,frontend,server}

# Patrick Lauer (09 Jan 2010) # Package has been unsplit, use net-analyzer/zabbix net-analyzer/zabbix-agent net-analyzer/zabbix-frontend net-analyzer/zabbix-server Unmaintained and no longer useful as package has been unsplit

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/samhain: ChangeLog samhain-2.6.2.ebuild

On 02/26/10 22:01, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 02/26/2010 10:49 PM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote: >> patrick 10/02/26 20:49:19 >> >> Modified: ChangeLog >> Added:samhain-2.6.2.ebuild >> Log: >> Bump >> (Portage

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/zzuf: ChangeLog zzuf-0.13.ebuild

On 02/26/10 22:02, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 02/26/2010 10:50 PM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote: >> src_test() { >> if hasq sandbox ${FEATURES}; then >> ewarn "zzuf tests don't work correctly when sandbox is enabled," >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: Proxy-maintainer project

On 03/18/10 18:24, Sébastien Fabbro wrote: > On Thursday 18 March, Markos Chandras wrote: > >> 1) Should we use a new overlay? A new branch on sunrise? or work >> ebuilds in Gentoo bugzilla?I think the latter is the best >> 2) I think an email alias is not needed We can "monitor" >> maintainer-wan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is Gentoo a Phoenix?

On 04/03/10 11:16, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > Hell no, but ... > > We have lots of quite understaffed areas, to sum up in a positive way. > Summing it up the negative way one might say, we have lots of areas were > users might get the idea Gentoo already is dead. So what are _you_ doing to make it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is Gentoo dying?

On 04/04/10 03:48, Joshua Saddler wrote: > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:16:32 +0200 > Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > >> - Our formerly outstanding documentation still is somewhat maintained, >> but that's it. I haven't seen any new additions (both to our docs, but >> also to our docs-team) for years. Peopl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

On 04/08/10 15:29, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:02:25 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: >> 4) if there are questions re: use cycle breaking or other bits, feel >> free to ask prior please- council meeting times unfortunately right >> now intersect badly with my paying work so it's h

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-fs/samba/files: samba-init

On 05/20/10 15:34, Peter Volkov wrote: > В Втр, 11/05/2010 в 11:53 +0000, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет: >> start() { >> +# we can't assume that /var/run/ is persistent, so create dir if needed >> +[ ! -e /var/run/samba ] && mkdir /var/run/samba > &

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Packages up for grabs -- xmerlin, yoswink, chtekk, omp, tantive, mueli, bluebird, hncaldwell, caleb

On 06/02/10 09:18, Torsten Veller wrote: > Here's a bunch of packages up for grabs, due to maintainers retiring.. > > maintainer-needed > - > app-admin/monit > app-forensics/samhain > app-misc/anki > app-misc/beanstalkd > dev-libs/vanessa-adt > dev-libs/vanessa-logger > net-libs/v

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2010/2011 - Nominations are now open

On 06/05/10 13:36, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 02:00, Torsten Veller wrote: >> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2010/2011 are now open for the next >> two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2010). > > I'd like to nominate patrick I accept the nomination. > and vapier. > > Che

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

Let me cut out one or two pieces I consider very important: > We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural > background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a > word for please. Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

On 06/17/10 22:09, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Patrick, > > > On 06/17/10 18:21, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with >> germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english. >> For examp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

> Now that's tone in Gentoo. Brilliant. And you're ugly! Hey, you're doing it yourself. You're using sarcasm (I assume you do, otherwise the positive "Brilliant." doesn't fit in the context of "Oh dear, these rude people said that!") I think we need to remember to tolerate each other more - the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

On 06/19/10 18:20, Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> And never forget, I don't care if you're upset that I filed 35 bugs for >> you. > If you mean what you say: that's pretty insensitive. But I honestly don't care how you _feel_ about a bug. There's a defect. It's a fact. The only way to change it is to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

On 06/19/10 23:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:03:31 +0200 > Ben de Groot wrote: >> That is an incredibly shortsighted and cynic look at the community. >> Keep it off this list. > > I consider that remark disrespectful. By rejecting comments in such an > impolite manner, and w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo

On 06/19/10 23:57, David Leverton wrote: > On Saturday 19 June 2010 22:03:31 Ben de Groot wrote: >> It is about whether Gentoo wants to keep around people [...] who >> continually attack others > > Considering the number of attacks directed towards Paludis developers (and > sometimes users), and

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: Rules for distro-friendly packages

On 06/27/10 13:02, Enrico Weigelt wrote: [snip] >> We also offer 10 versions of glibc, 8 versions of uclibc, and 7 versions >> of klibc. Each version may have header bugs, so may trigger warnings for >> perfectly good code. > > Well, if there're header bugs, shouldn't they get fixed before these >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations

On 06/27/10 17:04, Markos Chandras wrote: [snip] > Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they can't keep > up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64 do, I still > think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable tree which I > doesn't make sense to me

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: Rules for distro-friendly packages

On 06/27/10 20:33, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 01:08:58PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: >> * Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: >> Well, at least for tar, I've experienced no problem here yet. But: true, it might change between tar versions. >>> >>> The main offender is the compr

[gentoo-dev] Council manifesto of the bonsaikitten

With only a few hours left to vote y'all might be wondering "What happened to Patrick's manifesto?" Short version - I'm not in the mood to write long speeches about things I won't manage to do. We have lots of technical issues to discuss and decide on (like the recent as-needed discussion, again,

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

On 07/05/10 03:03, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done. it >> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message. > > I think this is a great occasion to dump our stup

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

On 08/23/10 19:26, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit : >> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix] >>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate >>> where we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mongolian keyboard layout

On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 18:56 +0800, Dulmandakh Sukhbaatar wrote: > Mongolian keyboard layout won't work on Gentoo. How does it not work? Please give more information when describing problems, like "keyboard layou does not work with xorg-6.8.2" or "extra characters don't work in Openoffice". Also, t

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way > | to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them > | sync'd someho

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week. I can get > the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so > we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.) But we need to get > moved off of bkbits.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: New category proposal

On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 23:58 +0100, Stroller wrote: > On May 11, 2005, at 8:10 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > * Unique ID strings for packages, zynot style. Messy as hell though, > > DEPEND="foo/bar {12379812AD7382164BD87678652438FC65E43A2}" doesn't have > > the same kind of ring to it... > > M

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo metastructure reform poll is open

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Waring wrote: > On 6/8/05, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Polls are open for the metastructure reform vote. All Gentoo developers > > are > > eligible to vote. > > Any particular reason why Gentoo users are not allowed to have a say? Because

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo metastructure reform poll is open

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 18:12 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: > Daniel Drake wrote: > > We are using dev.gentoo.org to collect ballots this year. The > > procedure is as follows: > > > > $ votify --new metastructure2005 > > Where do I get votify from? ssh dev.gentoo.org :-) -- Stand still,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo metastructure reform poll is open

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 08:59 -0700, Jim Northrup wrote: > might I suggest not kicking #gentoo-dev visitors who ask for voice to > speak to the devs without a 'rtfm & go get a gentoo job' smokescreen ? I hope this was only a misunderstanding / miscommunication. #g-dev is already quite crowded and not

[gentoo-dev] Requests for status updates

Hi all, the last global status update was in January when most top-level projects posted a short overview of their progress and their rough roadmap to the -dev mailinglist. I'd like to ask all top-level projects (and all subprojects that want to) to present a short overview of what happened since

Re: [gentoo-dev] chriswhite herd(?) status update

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 20:24 +0200, Andrej Kacian wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:49:28 +0900 > Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > on a minor note, I was thinking of maybe a somewhat small comprehensive list > > of major problems and ways to solve them. I know we do have bugzilla, but >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 13:18 +0200, Torsten Veller wrote: > Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir? Because there should be an easy way to find licenses? And you can do "emerge search foo", then read the license and decide wether you want to install foo. > And in addition: When should a licen

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-admin/mbr.. what to do...

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 01:41 +0900, Chris White wrote: > I just saw a bug report flow by for app-admin/mbr and looked for maintainers. > I found this: > ChangeLog: 1 manson, 1 woodchip > from jeeves. Now, I think those people are retired, or I need to get out > more (or both). So what to do wit

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-admin/mbr.. what to do...

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 11:13 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Thursday 16 June 2005 10:53, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Maybe someone with some scripting skillz could create a list of all > > "orphaned" packages? > > (no metadata.xml, no active m

Re: [gentoo-dev] splitting one source package into many binaries

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 13:50 -0300, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > I am using Gentoo to build some small systems. While things like the > minimal useflag is a joy, the monolithic nature of most gentoo > packages is a headache. It depends on your point of view. Having to install 142 -devel packages just t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Software patents

On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 06:13 +0100, twofourtysix wrote: > Mostly, I was hoping that all those people who seem more than happy to > advocate something with *words* would be prepared to back them up with > *actions*. I think it's a shame that Gentoo is prepared to encourage > people to pester their po

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-embedded] Interactive command

On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 01:13 -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote: > What I want is "emerge busybox uclibc vanilla-sources nano". Should > unpack only the 3 first packages, show me busybox menuconfig, uclibc > menuconfig and vanilla-sources menuconfig and only then perform the rest > of the installation as

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags groups

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 18:13 -0300, Herbert Fischer wrote: > I see that the USE flags list is very big today but I don't know if > it's growing too fast. So, I may think that someday Gentoo will need > some mechanism to facilitate USE flags configuration. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-002

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 19:42 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: [snip] > What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those > folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are > allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when > some bug is foun

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:59 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > As I understood it, they were implemented to reduce the amount of work > necessary in maintaining them. As it was back then, it required changes > to an extremely large number of profiles every time a change was made to > the default USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:04 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Added by Grant Goodyear : > glep40: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs > > Added by Brian Harring : > glep33: Eclass Restructure/Redesign > glep37: Virtuals Deprecation > I'd like to see the following items added: glep 15: s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:08:53PM CDT] > > I'd like to see the following items added: > > glep 15: script repository (working prototype has existed for some time) > I'm not quite sure what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 17:01 +0300, Ivan Yosifov wrote: > On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > > are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try > > turning off vesafb-tng > > Why ? Because of known bugs I'd guess? -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move si

Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 22:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for > > ebuilds. The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing. The use > > of package.mask denotes that the application or library itself is > > deemed unstable. > | Secon

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolution - GTK Useflag Situation

On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 17:10 -0500, Albert Hopkins wrote: > I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both sides: > > We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne. That has been done, it has become sentient and applied for developer status. You can reach it at [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [gentoo-dev] Interactive emerge

On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 19:39 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:15:37 +0900 Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | Does it seem like it is time for RESTRICT=interactive. Such ebuilds > > | would refuse to emerge if stdout is not a tty. If only ther

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 2.7 status check?

On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote: > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis writes: > >> 2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a): >> Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of >> Python, so >> python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Move x86/amd64 CPU extensions USE flags to a new USE_EXPAND variable

On 12/11/10 18:57, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > Hi all, > > > bugs like [1] makes clear to me that the increasing number of CPU > extensions USE flags is getting more and more confusing. > [snip] > > Among all CPU extensions USE flags you'll find: > > 3dnow > 3dnowext > mmx > mmxext > sse > s

Re: [gentoo-dev] What are || ( ) dependencies?

On 12/17/10 18:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:56:21 +0100 > Sebastian Luther wrote: Why can't the PM handle >= / < cases itself? >>> >>> Because things are almost never as simple as 'just' >= / <. You can >>> add in clever trickery to deal with very specific cases, but th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1?

On 12/31/10 12:02, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > after approval of EAPI 4, there are now 5 different EAPIs available, > and it's hard to remember what features are offered by which EAPI. > > So maybe it's about time that we deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1 for new > ebuilds. As a first step, a warning c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-php5/ZendOptimizer

t chaotic, so I might need a few days to sort out things. I'd also be willing to be a proxy-committer for any motivated users. Thanks, Patrick -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rejecting unsigned commits

d keys [2] > - keys are revoked [3] > - keys are not listed in userinfo.xml (current or former devs) [4] Yes, yes, yes, and yes :) But since we don't have policies in place yet it's a bit of a mess right now. So. What parameters do we need to agree on? And what's a realisti

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.8.1 stable candidate

anned. I hope it all goes well! -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

why so complimacated?!) But I guess people prefer having to write wrapper scripts around wrappers to get things done, so I'll just stay out of the way and reserve the right to point and laugh when funny misbehaviour happens. -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.o

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of

the darn tarball in a stable location. I've done that for silly and weird upstreams ... > >> I think it would be similar to the situation we had with adobe-flash >> packages. >> > > It reminds me more of the (now defunct) live ebuild of chromium-bin &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

- maybe automation is needed, I don't have a strong opinion either way. But don't make me do more work because you are lazy, that never ends well. -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

On 06/08/11 11:43, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:28:47 +0200 > Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer >> wrote: >>> In all cases I want one resource to look at, viewcvs is a horrible >>> and slow interface. S

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving webapp-config

> if > we're to provide out of the box experience for those web apps. > So provide a default config for, say, apache, and then figure out if that can be transcribed to others easily. Maybe it can be turned into simple templates to generate all configs from? -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: split up media-sound/ category

ct unique package postgres-8.3, postgres-8.4, postgres-9.0 - and a meta package "postgres" that depends on any of those. As an upside we roughly double the amount of packages we have, and our dependencies get so much more ... OMG ... nooo ... what a nightmare. So again, what are you trying to fix, and what makes you think it was broken to start with? -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thoughts about broken package handling

o 2.1 just has preserved-rebuild and some of the set support disabled. But if you trust 2.1 enough to use it you also shouldn't have a problem with 2.2. There's still a few silly bugs with preserved-rebuild (corner cases like downgrades and stupid build systems), but I've not

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: optinal run time dependencies

like something it's easy to change locally. But more metadata around the useflags might be very convenient. > May be instead of ~ introduce three additional prefixes (~ and another > two for +~ and -~ cases)? That looks a bit weird :) -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperi

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

eparate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright > systemd future. > We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with other things. But as OpenRC has some rare features ("being able to start and stop stuff" and "being re

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

On 06/29/11 17:14, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:08 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >>>> The background is that /e

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: deprecation of baselayout-1.x

, certainly no more of one than fighting with broken installs, > because everything has changed out from under the existing one. It's not as easy as it could be. We should figure out a reliable way to move an old install forward ... (I have some ideas, but it all takes time and lots of t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

On 07/01/11 21:25, Sebastian Pipping wrote: [SNIP] > If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon, > correct? As far as I'm aware we have a stable portage with EAPI 4 in the tree for a few weeks now, so you can actively use it everywhere. -- Patrick Lauer

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: splitting virtual/

On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700 > Alec Warner wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore, >>> I think the 'virtual' category is basically one ano

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: ban mirror://gentoo/ from ebuilds

On 08/18/11 10:50, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have already said this before, but it looks like nobody cared. We have > a problem for what concerns Gentoo-generated distfiles. People being quiet doesn't imply they don't care - just that it gets really frustrating to repeat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Including a warning to restart daemons after an update.

On 08/21/11 13:29, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > After updating libraries, I always run something like > > lsof -x / | grep DEL > > to see if any running binaries are linking to old libraries that were > just updated and then I manually restart them. This is particularly > imp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On 08/24/11 12:31, Thomas Kahle wrote: > Hi, > > On 18:16 Tue 23 Aug 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> there is one important aspect of your program that really needs to be >> documented (and comments in the code are not enough): >> >> What data exactly is the client sending to the server?! >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-zope maintenance

On 08/29/11 13:33, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:23, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> Which Zope team is that? Would that be you? Having an overlay with >> updated packages certainly sounds good, but it would be nice to have >> some indication of what we're waiting for, or how long

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] obs eclasses

On 09/13/11 16:44, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 15:02 Tue 13 Sep , Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: >> Excerpts from Joshua Kinard's message of 2011-09-13 14:26:02 +0200: You don't need -n/-z with [[. [[ $var ]] == [[ -n $var ]] [[ ! $var ]] == [[ -z $var ]] >>> >>> What about o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem

On 09/20/11 09:12, Alex Alexander wrote: >> The only real gotcha is if portage is so old that it can't handle the >> binary packages. However, to get around that we really just need a >> set of step-wise binary updates for portage itself so that you can >> sequence it up to something that can inst

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem

On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > What do you guys think? I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and, later, try to update? Usually things turn ugly - used to be that portage saw that th

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem

On 09/20/11 17:19, Zac Medico wrote: On 09/19/2011 03:14 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to the tree, push a new version of portage that includes support for all the new features we want to provide. Then, freeze the tree and clone it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages

On 09/20/11 23:18, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: [snipped to bits] > So, the issue is obvious, we have packages in testing that are in > better shape than stable ones. I'm aware that some of my packages could use a stablereq, but since I don't run any stable machines at the moment it just never bothers me.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more hardening features to default?

On 10/25/11 16:18, Kacper Kowalik wrote: W dniu 20.10.2011 10:47, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." pisze: I've noticed , i.e. Debian is starting to make more and more hardening features default, at least for most packages. Should we start doin

Re: [gentoo-dev] portability.eclass: dead egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled funcs ?

On 10/30/11 23:33, Petteri Räty wrote: > On 27.10.2011 2.40, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell, >> is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for >> keeping these before i punt them ? >> -mike >> > > Breaking overlays. grepping

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-info.eclass: check_extra_config requires a configured kernel

On 11/04/11 13:59, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: check_extra_config requires a configured kernel (/usr/src/linux/.config), while I think it should also be satisfied by /proc/config.gz (i.e. just a way to verify the config, not necessarily kernel built locally). The running kernel is really irreleva

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On 11/11/11 16:44, Zac Medico wrote: good point. we don't want to punish old portage users. let's enable it by default in portage itself then. just add `elog` output to the portage ebuild to inform users of the change ? or do we want a news item ? what's the flag to negate the default ? --n

Re: [gentoo-dev] have portage be quiet by default

On 11/14/11 09:25, Alex Alexander wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 05:59:21PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: Well, it's much easier to gather interest and get feedback if we deploy the change and ask questions later. What if we tried solving this problem by providing more options instead of trying to g

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

On 01/01/12 15:12, Olivier Crête wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 19:59 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: >> I have been working with robbat2 on solutions to the separate /usr issue >> (That is why I have specifically cc'd him on this email) >> which will allow people to not use an initramfs. If we

<    1   2   3   4   5   >