On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
>
> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to
> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Question... how would "blacklisting" work on linux machines? Let's
> say Joe Blow gets a signing key and then passes it around. I can see
> that if you want to build an executable (*.exe) to run under Windows,
> you'll run into problems if t
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 06:57 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> If you have influence on UEFI secure boot spec, you could suggest that
>> they mandate a UI which lists all boot images known to the EFI boot
>> manager, and the user can easily wh
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> If we want to try to get serious on 5, we could try to gather the
> hardened/security people across distributions and setup the whole chain
> to be parallel and cut deals with OEM to store this trust-chain keys
> along with MS.
Perhaps. Sinc
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:14:12AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The whole chain-of-trust is an interesting issue as the UEFI spec does
> not require it at all, and some people on the UEFI committee have told
> me that it is not req
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:55:35 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:51:04PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > 2. What happens if, say, your bootloader is compromised?
>>
>> And how would this happen? Your bootloader would not r
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Sascha Cunz wrote:
>
> Given the fact that the keys in the BIOS must somehow get there and it must
> also be able to update them (how to revoke or add keys else?).
Based on what I've read the keys are stored in flash. The flash
module itself is protected. There
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 17.06.2012 20:56, schrieb Sascha Cunz:
>> I was under the impression that it should at least help in that scenario.
>> OTOH, if it takes a compromised system or physical access to the machine in
>> order to manipulate the boot sequence,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but their
> development process is slow and their approach seems to make the boot process
> more complicated than it needs to be. Since Secure Boot will force us to
> flash our
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Core Boot is a Linux distribution. I do not think that we should boot
> Gentoo using their distribution any more than we boot Gentoo using RHEL.
Well, maybe it is a distro in the s
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> We would gain a faster boot process. We would also enable people to
> avoid paying money for keys that can be revoked without a refund.
>
While I have no doubt that a determined team
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> There is this vague idea that you can just propose something; get
> consensus on the ML, everyone goes to implement it, and then it works
> just as designed. That is usually called the 'waterfall' model and its
> really hard to do correctly.
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Homer Parker wrote:
>
> In the beginning there was a method...
>
> And now it needs revamped.. I see no problem with re-investigating the
> problem to make it better/easier/whatever.
>
++
I for one am happy to have had a working amd64 system for the
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Roy Bamford wrote:
>
>> So when you build a dud kernel and flash your BIOS with it, and we
>> all build the odd dud, your motherboard is bricked.
>
> Any firmware modification has potential to brick, and shouldn't be
> done unless you are comfo
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't
>> endear you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject
>> an argument simpl
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote:
> WARN: postinst
> Please rebuild both libxcb and xcb-util if you are upgrading from version 1.6
>
I've read enough warnings like this (many packages use them) that it
occurred to me that perhaps there should be some better way of dealing
with this.
I rea
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> I don't really see a way to reliably call grub2-install from the
> ebuild, and I think this would be a bit unfriendly to the user anyway.
>
Please don't. We don't auto-install grub during the initial install,
so we have NO idea how users h
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> As far as I can tell, grub:0 only half-way updates itself; there is a
> large ewarn telling the user that they must take action to install the
> new version in the MBR. This seems a bit broken to me.
In what way. As far as I can tell I have
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> It does copy all of the images to /boot so that the grub shell can be
> used to install an MBR image. grub:2 no longer has an interactive
> shell and grub2-install must be used. Therefore, copying files to
> /boot in the ebuild is completely p
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a
> special BIOS Boot Partition in order to function. That is where it
> stores the equivalent of the stage2 bootcode. That is similar to
> FreeBSD's bootloader.
Now, that should
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> 3. grub2-install calls grub2-bios-setup which installs boot.img into
> the MBR and embeds core.img into the sectors immediately after the
> MBR.
Ok, that isn't all that unlike grub1 - that is what stage1.5 is. It
just sounds like these aren'
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> The KBUILD_OUTPUT / O= option seems like the best solution to me
> (especially so as I build three kernel images from a single sources
> tree), and it works well, except that it sometimes doesn't with
> especially monstrous and hard to config
After a little discussion in bug 425016 [1], I did an experiment.
I created a fresh Gentoo install, set the profile to desktop/kde, and
tried to emerge chromium and kde-meta.
The immediate response was for portage to suggest setting -u and -N
due to conflicts.
So, I tried emerge -puDNv chromiu
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It also seems like the current portage output is giving the user some
>> contradictory and counterproductive advice. It seems like there are
>> really only two possible choices
>> 1. T
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> It shouldn't require *too* much modification to automate what you're
> trying to test. I intend to modify it to work in chroot environments,
> as a prelude to some build-related bug reports I'm sitting on.
Thanks - seems useful in general. No
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'll test it out on a fresh install, but that will take a number of
> hours
If I install chromium first, I get the following messages when I try
to install kde-meta:
The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
#
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> Not unless the --complete-graph option is enabled. What I'd like to do
> is to automatically enable --complete-graph mode whenever the USE of an
> installed package would change. It would be like that
> --complete-graph-if-new-ver option which
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> There have already been users on the forums with that very confusion of
> what to do with the cryptic "[!icu?]". And there are currently many
> forum threads involving the icu use flag, qt-webkit,...
Yup, this issue hit anybody who has qt-we
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 10 July 2012 11:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> You keep saying that, but do you have any actual data to back up
> that claim? There is no doubt that Chromium is a mainstream and
> popular package, but I doubt if it is quite *t
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no need to
> build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant.
I think this discussion is getting sidetracked.
This didn't start out as a discussion about whether
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> Walter Dnes (very active over in gentoo-user) has put a lot of work
> into testing and documenting mdev as an alternative for udev. There's
> been a good deal of success there, up to and including it working with
> GNOME 2. The work's been docu
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the
>> udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and the
>> virtual. So we should first sort tha
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Are you aware how much additional code and maintenance does keeping two
> hacked build systems introduce? One of things I don't want to do is
> keeping the list of *all other* systemd targets up-to-date,
> and installing them all by hand.
I'
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Actually, there is another workable solution, and that is to set
> USE="-gstreamer -icu" for qt-webkit.
>
> Currently we enable gstreamer by default in the ebuild (as it
> is used for HTML5 audio/video, which is expected functionality
> in qt
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> And on any new embedded platform, one should seriously think about using
> systemd too. It is very lean, replaces most of the giant, unmaintainable
> shellscripts that you find in many devices with smaller compiled code,
> and was designed to
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> BTW, any "gentooish" documentation out there on rootfs as tmpfs, with
> /etc and the like mounted on top of it, operationally ro, rw remounted
> for updates?
>
> That's obviously going to take an initr*, which I've never really
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:57:41 -0400 as excerpted:
>>
>> I doubt anybody has tried it, so you'll have to experiment.
>
> "Anybody" /anybody/, or "anybody"
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I've been managing my own overlay and a few private ones for a few
> years now, all while using catalyst to build more or less customized
> Linux systems for me and for others.
>
> I dive into bugzilla when a bug bites, and I'll usually generat
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:15:26 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> The first time I did the quizzes, it took me 9 months. After having
>> been away for a couple of years, I recently returned as Gentoo
>> dev, and the second time I did the quizzes
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:25:02 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 07:33:59 -0400
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > Some other questionable ones:
>> > emboss - Adds support for the European Mole
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> less idiotic
> idiots such as perhaps myself need years because we're doing
> whatever work as opposed to learning foundation bylaws by heart.
Well, I don't think the bylaws are a terribly important topic for the
quizzes, and unless somethin
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> So I have the general idea,
> but doing it from an initr* with limited tools available will be
> interesting.
>
Dracut modules can specify any tools they need, and they will be
loaded into the initramfs. Obviously you'll want
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I have also been told that the /usr merge is necessary because upstream
> will force it on us. Interestingly, most of @system on Gentoo Linux is
> GNU software, which would need to stop supporting things in / in order
> for that to happen.
I d
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I have yet to see any convincing reason to do this other than "RedHat is
> doing it". This change will not make Gentoo a better distribution and it
> is simply not worth the pain. Some people appear to think that this is
> an urgent issue and I
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process,
let alone initramfs systems.
In general you update them togeth
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> So your initramfs doesn't include network tools such as ping,
> traceroute or wget. Fine. Fundamentally speaking, why shouldn't
> someone else's?
So, an initramfs is just a piece of kernel functionality. You can do
almost ANYTHING in an initr
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I'm not really following your logic here, so forgive me. I completely
> understand why folks do not say, rebuild their kernel when it is
> updated (kernel configs are annoying.)
>
> However lets say I have coreutils in / and coreutils in my
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
>
> I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone have
> any comments about it?
What action if any do you want Gentoo users to take. If I read that
news item the first question I'd have is where SHOULD I keep tho
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
> This is just a heads-up for Gentoo users that got used to find
> make.conf and make.profile under /etc in stages, that these files will
> stop being there and will instead be under /etc/portage. So we are
> changing the defaults.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to
> existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be
> spam.)
Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than
others, but I d
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 24-07-2012 08:01:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
>> 3) That news item about udev-181 and a unified /usr is still greeting
>> new users...and it's still claiming an unmask of 2012-03-19, which is
>> three months ago. It's quite confusing in t
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting
>> experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy.
>
> I don't see how it breaks. And second
I've been messing around with namespaces and some of what systemd has
been doing with them, and I have an idea for a portage feature.
But before doing a brain dump of ideas, how useful would it be to have
a FEATURE for portage to do a limited-visibility build? That is, the
build would be run in a
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> (Really, this observation is more about simply making the information
> available; distcc could consume that information if someone chose to
> do the work to add that functionality.)
Well, I'm not sure how to get the info out of the internals
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> It seems like you might need some kind of copy-on-write support, at
> least to run pkg_setup. Apparently cowbuilder uses cow hardlinks for
> that. Another way would be to use fiemap (cp --reflink).
Reflinks would be a much clearer implementat
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> You'd really want to a "which do you prefer, which can you use"
> survey, then; You don't really want to choose the result preferred by
> the most people, rather you want the result which is usable by the
> most people.
I tend to agree. Do
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> Although that is true, it would be -WAY- too slow to generate said
> list via equery/q* helpers; I think that's where the
> extended-attributes and/or cache idea comes into play.
I agree. This needs to be high-performance when it come
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, hasufell wrote:
> - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build
>
++
If you're going to spam the console with 10k lines of text, what's the
harm in spamming it with 100k? I realize the odd package has a fairly
quiet build system, but
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Most importantly, this allows us to easily find out which packages
> install such files and perform global operations on them. For example,
> if a particular user had systemd locations in INSTALL_MASK and changed
> his mind, he can easily updat
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-08-2012 13:37:55 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> > Also, I'm not so sure if this will work correctly for Prefix.
>>
>> I'm sure that is easily checked and we will get feedback quickly.
>
> I'm sure systemd/udev will never run in (a) Pr
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> While OpenRC is likely perfectly capable of starting/stopping daemons as
> a normal user (with some tweaks), I expect systemd replacing init, to
> already have a fair bit of isssues with being just a normal unprivileged
> user. I may be wron
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Sylvain Alain wrote:
> Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of
> activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and other
> stuff related to SystemD.
>
You and half the world. Most of the issues you raise are much big
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Yes, but if the upstream that is Gnome decides to start depending on
> systemd features then that's their decision, and the place to discuss
> if it's good or bad (more important, the place to change it!) would
> be within the Gnome project.
M
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I don't think that's possible. Much like with other kinds of updates,
> the packages in the tree would be updated to install in the new
> location anyway.
>
If I were faced with doing this manually I know the first thing I'd do
is run quickp
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:57 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il 31/07/2012 21:27, Michał Górny ha scritto:
>> I'd be more afraid about resources, and whether the kernel will be
>> actually able to handle bazillion bind mounts. And if, whether it won't
>> actually cause more overhead than copying the
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Dale wrote:
> Now, since Walter didn't like the way things are going, can he write
> code and be left in peace to do so? Maybe have a little bit of support
> while he is doing it?
++
I can't say I think that preferring mdev over an initramfs is a good
choice, but
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> We aren't going to add USE flags which don't do anything. That topic
>> was discussed a thousand times, and rising it once more won't change
>> our decision.
>>
>> Similarly, bash-c
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and binary
> names again?
> Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we have to
> do it.
I think that having binaries going in different places based on a USE
fl
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Path to bash can't change because it will break most of scripts
> in the world.
>
> Path to libc can't change because it will break all of the executables
> in the world.
My point was illustrative. Basically if we're going to move
something,
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Forking udev hadn't been considered mostly just on that premise.
>
> So someone should just *finally* fork it, rather than talking about it
> all the time.
>
++
If the sky actually
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more
>> than libc is stupid and dangerous.
>
> Why do you say?
>
> And why is libc different from other libraries, say libuuid or
> libext2fs? I mean: Why allow
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Wyatt Epp wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> ...have an init as PID=1 that does
>> nothing but launch systemd and keep it propped up until it gets a
>> signal from systemd. However, that could have issues I'
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
> "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo
(or Debian, or other general-purpose
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> He has a perfectly reasonable argument that build time is really not
> something you should be optimising for. Build systems easily become
> overcomplicated if you try to make everyone happy, you do have to make
> choices. Anyway, I'm not sure
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> [snip]
>> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
>> libc is stupid and dangerous.
>
> No, it's not. You can (and should) depend on whatever libraries h
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> I don't understand you. Greg is a Gentoo developer; he would never
> propose for Gentoo to disappear.
I wasn't suggesting he was saying it should disappear. I think his
point was that distros like Gentoo shouldn't be the first place
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:26 PM, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 07:12 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> Can we also have a desktop that doesn't us X?
>
> That is NOT likely to happen. X Windows is about the only *nix
> windowing system around.
> There may be others, but their use is rare. Prac
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> The whole point of the debate should be if easier to have systemd split
> itself in usable components so people with certain focuses could
> leverage it on linux and replace those on non-linux (apparently not a
> chance) or have what we curren
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Peter Stuge posted on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:12:38 +0200 as excerpted:
>>
>> What software parses the filesystem labels when you boot with openrc?
>>
>> (I ask because I never use labels myself.)
>
> Short answer, mount and udev,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> We poke inactive developers from time to time to
> ensure they are still interested in contributing to the Gentoo project.
> ...
> Having said that, we are short on manpower...
Perhaps the undertakers need to be undertaken? :)
Rich
(Sor
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
>> > "v
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other
> distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to
> make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most
> of Gentoo developers
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
>> > of libraries in the core system it needs
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
> (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use
> "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )"
> stuff at the moment.
Half the packages in portage link to libc, t
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-08-2012 07:50:42 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
>> > (min/max) version of g
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> It also sounds like something like that could be a benefit to shrinking
> @system.
>
I think the solution to the circular dependency issue isn't to make
Portage able to completely bootstrap the whole system, but rather just
to make it capable
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> From that angle, if you wouldd remove the system set, would you add its
> contents to the Portage ebuild? Portage itself doesn't need a compiler
> or might not need gawk, but whatever it runs (ebuilds) often need so.
Nope - I'd add them
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> The limited-visibility build feature discussed a week or so ago would
> go a long way in detecting unexpressed build dependencies.
I can't say that is a coincidence, but my intent would be to include
@system as implicit dependencies, at least
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> Bootstrapping is an inherently curious problem. Most systems are built
> upon the systems they themselves build, but getting to that
> self-hosting state always requires some unclean solution.
Yup, I never viewed getting rid of @system as a s
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
>>
>> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and
>> see i
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven
> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break
> them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no
> progress is an example of ha
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such,
>> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days
>> after it is
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> That's all I'm saying. It's being made a whole lot less pleasant that it
> might be... for what reason? Just to satisfy someone's ego that they're
> right and can /force/ compliance? Yuck!
Honestly, while I might agree wit
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you have noticed, but many developers in Gentoo
> dislike process ;)
>
And I'd count myself chief among them. But then again, compared to
what it takes at work to do anything productive, the "process" at
Gentoo just seems li
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Sylvain Alain wrote:
> Hi everyone, I don't want to start a flamewar on that subject, but I would
> like to know if there's any official position about the current situation.
There is not. But thanks for starting the flamewar just the same. :)
>
> I saw on the
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> I think this issue is currently in far too murky of a state to get any
> well-informed issue from the council. Perhaps when the issues get
> hammered out a bit more, but not currently.
I tend to agree. Taking a position for or against some
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> And
> by 2-3 years out, if Linux/FLOSS history is any guide, the whole
> ecosystem will look different, and we'll have a whole list of new changes
> and challenges to worry about,
Agreed. I suspect the status quo will remain
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
>> scarabeus suggested the change "dev should use latest eapi when bumping"
>> to "dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses".
>> He was asked to bring it up on the mailing lists, to get a better
>> definition of when
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
>
> EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer? No benefit for
> user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy?
Then why make it a policy?
If as you say there is a benefit to the maintainer, then you won't
have to hit them ove
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> If you are rewriting a full ebuild as your solution, and the ebuild
> you start with is EAPI<4 , then Markos would appreciate it if you
> changed the ebuild to be EAPI=4 (or whatever the latest EAPI is) in
> addition to the fix. Otherwise
101 - 200 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
