On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Robert David
wrote:
> Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why it
> would be bad. The point is somewhere else. I really dont know how many
> user will switch inits and how many of them will do this regularly.
> But the wrapper will be ex
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:49 +0200
> Robert David wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> > Init.d scripts are just shell scripts. All somebody needs to do is
>>
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:26 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Cc: tom...@gentoo.org
>
> Please don't CC me, this causes duplicate mails; one of both does not
> include reply-to. Nobody else that has responded to me did this before.
>
> Unless
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:01 PM, David Carlos Manuelda
wrote:
> Ok, thinking it better I agree, that having them use system libraries is far
> better, but why then those affected ebuilds have corresponding USE disabled by
> default?
Probably because the use of those system libraries is experiment
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote
>
>> - eselect init will be opt-in ***FOR THE TIME BEING***, people can
>> be left on their own tools if the want it
>
> This statement should bring the same reaction as the posting
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Again you should read the whole thread, please do, the whole eselect
>> init stuff should stay opt-in for the time being so all this discussion
>> is close to pointless.
>
> Can
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> This is for a ABI change without bumping the soname? It's possible to
> trigger rebuilds for that case by using sub-slots and slot-operators.
Or you could choose a longer-term solution like firebombing the
upstream maintainers...
Rich
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Ah btw how's that git migration coming along?
>
Even though we're drifting here an update is probably due.
At this point I'd say we have pretty high confidence that we can
accurately migrate the tree. The issues that remain shouldn'
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> And, moreover, I guess, SRC_URI can even be used for VCS:
>>
>> SRC_URI="
>> git+ssh://github.com/lol/moo.git
>> hg+ssh://bitbucket.org/lol/m
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> It's just not going to happen as long as I got CVS access, it's not a threat
> or a grandstanding, it's a simple boolean logic statement.
That IS grandstanding. I'm not saying I disagree with the position
you advocate, but saying "do i
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> The other thing is that would put a mandatory system requirement on
> layman which many of the devs would be opposed to. But, there is an open
> bug calling for it to be merged with portage...
Honestly, native support for overlays is somethi
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 05:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>>> The other thing is that would put a mandatory system requirement on
>>> layman which many of the devs woul
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:15 PM, wrote:
> Am I the only one who feels that trolling, abuse, and so forth, are largely
> in the eye of the beholder, and that lively, impassioned, constructive
> debate may seem to many readers like hyperbole and ad hominem attack?
Hence my comment that this is a b
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
>
> And it's not fair to pick on the candidates by putting them under
> close watch (mentor ship, probation already in place) and let the
> established ones walk away.
Tend to agree, and I don't think it is as productive either. Set
policies
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
> Bottom line: I think we need more of a culture of mutual trust than a
> ton of metadata.
>
I have to agree with this. The culture should be that we're doing
this work FOR GENTOO. Sure, we're getting benefits out of it as well
so it should
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Shouldn't this be REQUIRES_TEAM instead? A "herd" used to be a
> collection of packages, whereas the devs maintaining them were called
> a team. Or don't we care about this distinction any more?
Certainly when I was recruited this distincti
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Semantic-desktop: Just so you guys know, as I said, I need semantic-
> desktop about as much as I need another hole in my head, so I'm **VERY**
> not happy with the 4.11 changes...
I believe this was announced - the reason the
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
> === kexec ===
> speaking of panic. I've never actually used it, but newer kernels
> support kexec and in conjunction with pre-loaded panic-images[1] and
> corresponding (compiled-in) initramfs, it'd be possible to have an
> recovery shell. fo
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> And unlike IRC meetings, you can cannot multitask, say making your dinner
> while discussing this or that feature.
Honestly, that bit is a two-edged sword. I was just musing with the
Trustees yesterday how it seems the meetings take fo
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> These are all good reasons to not use Hangouts. Fortunately, there was
> nothing in the proposal to suggest that it will be required for anyone, or
> that it will replace any existing source of information. Therefore anyone
> who chooses n
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Egg Plant wrote:
> The resourcefull developers/users can meet each other at Gentoo Miniconf and
> similar other gatherings in real world. That will make us more human.
I don't think this is really sufficient. As far as I can tell most
people attend such things b
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Unfortunately, this means that I sometimes get credit for posting
> such comments. Please make note of the ebuild/diff replacement and
> attribute the changes correctly to the submitter, not the messenger. I
> shouldn't be getting the credit
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> And? Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> And I've said the same for any other proposed category like that.
I agree that precedence alone isn't really a good basis for this. I
don't really have concerns with the initial category size so
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 14/07/2013 18:26, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> I don't think anyone can dispute that there exists a genre called
>> adventure games..
>
> How comes scummvm is not in the list then? Just saying.
>
> Seriously, a category for 10 games is *not*
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Matt Turner wrote:
>> >> And? Two wrongs don't make a right.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "And?" - it doesn't make much sense as a reply. :\
>>
>> He means that none of those provide justification.
>
> It seemed that the main argument was that
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM, hasufell wrote:
> I am maintaining it for some months now and it has reached a state
> where we should think about treecleaning it.
++
> Maintaining a package in gentoo implies a few things for me:
> We are able to support it properly which either means that we
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:55 PM, hasufell wrote:
> But people should expect that things work somehow in the tree, even on
> ~arch. Even worse: the stable googleearth builds are unfetchable and
> that's not how I'd define any stable ebuild in the tree.
You'll get no argument from me on any of that
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31
> hasufell napisał(a):
>> - users have to run "layman -a foo" ...I hope they will manage (and the
>> masking reason will be updated to explain where to look for googleearth
>> ebuilds)
>
> Then to get *a sing
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> - vote for holding meetings every 2nd Tuesday of the month at 2000
>> UTC
>> (or
>> 1900 UTC depending on daylight savings)
>
> In any timezone in particular?
>
Don't care much, but agree we should pick one.
>
> The open floor is a part of t
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> The council really doesn't have the ability to just instantly vote on
> things outside of a meeting. The transparency of the body requires
> announcements about meetings, and their topics, with a reasonable amount
> of notice. It
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Alex Xu wrote:
> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages
> and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
++
Stable should mean something, and those who understand the tradeoffs
can accept unstable packages where needed (far more ea
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Stable should mean something
>
> For users, stable means "older" in practice. Always did, always will.
If you don't like stable, then don't run stable. Don't change the
mea
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>> > I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should
>> > perhaps be the default for Gentoo users.
>>
>> You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel
>> releases, the very common bre
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It just seems like we should be able to get by without a semiweekly
>> kernel upgrade on our "stable" branch.
>
> You want me to slow down and do relea
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Some time ago I was also thinking about writing a test framework for
> testing live images through kvm.
> Of course I didn't manage to find time to try to arrange something in
> the end, but the idea is still popping up in my mind every now
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Mike Pagano schrieb:
>> Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h
>> have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources
>> kernel.
>
> How about dropping vanilla-sources an
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Grepping in the tree, looks like only some old genkernel versions are
> depending on it. Apart of that, what is requiring static libs in
> cryptsetup and lvm2?
This isn't the specific answer you're likely looking for, but the
obvious answers w
I figure this is half-on-topic for this list since I'm trying to
prepare patch sets for a package. I'm getting fairly bizarre behavior
from git format-patch - patches that don't apply, and patches numbered
early in sequence that didn't show up previously in this branch. I
suspect rebasing might b
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Dustin C. Hatch wrote:
> I think the point is that users may have an initramfs (that they built
> manually or using some tool besides dracut or genkernel) that makes use of
> cryptsetup/lvm2 built statically, or perhaps they just like it that way, so
> why take awa
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Final output is:
>>> can't find file to patch at input line 17
>>> (messing with -p d
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Is the history from the v0.26.0 tag to the tip of the branch linear?
> If it contains merge commits, then git format-patch / git am isn't
> guaranteed to work.
There are branches. There is obviously /A/ linear path from the tag
to the hea
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:27:31 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Ulrich Mueller
>> wrote:
>> > Is the history from the v0.26.0 tag to the tip of the branch linear?
>> > If
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Thomas Kahle posted on Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:58:58 -0600 as excerpted:
>> 3. Conveying Modified Versions.
>>
>> You may modify the Program for your private use only. You may not
>> convey, in any manner, a modified version of th
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> does "storage space" make everyone happy?
>
rich0 is confused and looks over at the "storage space" he keeps his
bicycles in...
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
>> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
>> static builds.
>
> I'm
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> If we want to continue supporting this, it will probably require custom
> patches to udev, and kmod. Then we will have to make sure none of that
> breaks systemd.
Seems like the simpler solution is to just have a dep on -static
lvm/cryptset
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 17:17:35
> Luca Barbato napisał(a):
>
>> On 01/08/13 17:04, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > There is a hack in our udev and kmod ebuilds that makes it possible to
>> > build the static libraries, but I think we should remov
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> It's funny how you always discuss those two options and consistently fail to
> mention
> the one option that allows people who never needed an initramfs before to
> continue
> without one, and still use udev in line with upstream requiremen
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2013 10:06 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" wrote:
>> On 15:36 Fri 02 Aug , William Hubbs wrote:
>> > I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on my system, and
>> > I know of others who are using OpenRc from git successful
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Ok all, I would like to appologise for the harsh wording.
Your wording wasn't harsh - it just wasn't ideal. If only imperfect
marketing was our worst problem around here...
Rich
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 4 August 2013 09:56, Alex Xu wrote:
>> Minor grammar/typographical errata:
>>
>> On 04/08/13 12:53 AM, Mike Pagano wrote:
>>> kernel, we recommend user add 'sys-kernel/vanilla-sources' to their
>> s/user add/adding/;s/their/the/ or similar;
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 16:19:16 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> I find it a bit silly to require discussing global useflags on dev-ML.
>
> The purpose of the discussion is to come up with a description that is general
> enough to apply to most ebuilds
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Even though the subslot is implicit, is that any reason to still use the
> operator? We don't know what the maintainer's future intentions for the
> subslot will be.
> For example, we caused many useless rebuilds with poppler because depen
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:10:46 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> We can simply have multiple virtual versions, each depending
>> on the proper jpeg & jpeg-turbo versions.
>
> you can do it that way, yes.
>
> what will you do when jpeg 10 is out o
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> okay, maybe this plan sucks as some have suggested in later posts in this
> thread.
> however the main point from first post stands, don't at least do
> virtual/jpeg:= deps, use at least virtual/jpeg:0 or virtual/jpeg:0= whatever
>
++
Th
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
>> least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
>> know there shouldn't be any breakage.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:04:28 +0200
> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>> That's fine, bug wranglers are doing a great job there.
>>
>> However, I'm also sick of getting bugmail because $RANDOM_DEV thinks
>> * TRACKER is better than Tracker,
>> * e
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 7/08/2013 22:41, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> You are a bug wrangler and should have the
>> authority to mess with anything in bugzilla.
>
> Don't forget that anybody can start a project, even if it conflicts with
> other projects. While Jeroen
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> It's at the maintainer's decision to go ahead or not; there's nobody
> going to stop the maintainer from adding it to ~. But there are people
> that going to complain (users), take action (QA), ... when hell does
> break loose because of careles
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
> Alexis was talking about KEYWORDREQ, not STABLEREQ. When asking to readd
> a keyword, you almost always want that keyword for whatever is the
> highest version in a specific slot, even if that version has been in the
> tree for three da
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Possibly, but it be just another experiment waiting in a slowly
> progressing queue; the one the CVS --> Git move is in. We have to be
> fair, while experiments are neat and all that; they have hardly became
> successful lately, it's as if our
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> While people can scream, complaint and rant all they want about choice;
> it isn't going to happen if nobody is going to implement it, until that
> happens following whatever upstream does is the only reasonable thing
> to do. Or if you really w
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> nothing of the taks you've listed enables you to proceed as you're
> doing right now without an existing (i.e. written down) policy.
>
I think this is the main concern being voiced here.
Jer - can you perhaps consolidate your conventions arou
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:43:12 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If necessary the council can bless it, but I suspect
>> that most will see the logic of your arguments, and perhaps together
>> we'll even improve on it a
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:29:06 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> Leave it in ~arch forever, because it is incompatible with system
>> packages. (virtual/service-manager)
>
> But compatible with virtual/service-manager[-prefix,kernel_linux].
>
> Jokes
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:45 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 08:21 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> None-the-less, I do understand the problem of a gentoo project supporting
>> an option no devs on the project are actually interested in running.
>
> I do not. If that is the policy, then the project is d
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Gentoo supports systemd, fine. Still, OpenRC is our default
> implementation and I don't think something should be called stable _on
> gentoo_ that doesn't work with the system tools we have designed and
> advertise.
If a package requires libav s
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> It may be pertinent for this reason (a "smoother" upgrade path) and
> this reason alone, to stabilize gnome-3.6 first -- just to get into
> gnome3 (and get gnome-2 removed) without having to also deal with the
> systemd migration at the sa
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:36:24 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>> 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 mo
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Martin Vaeth
wrote:
> Sorry for reposting: Somehow the first line got lost
> making the whole posting not understandable...
>
> Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>> answer is about 10 additional megs of ram at idle
>> and about 2 extra seconds to boot.
>
> ..and two hug
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:52 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 06:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> El jue, 08-08-2013 a las 18:36 +0200, hasufell escribió:
>> [...]
>>> I am only talking about stabilization here, maybe that wasn't clear enough?
>>>
>>> The virtual is in @system and the default pre-i
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user
>> > experience in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo
>> > developers think
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> This is called a 'profile'.
>
> You can have systemd and openrc profiles, and then able to mask
> specific packages...
>
> It is a technical solution, but won't make lives much easier in this regard.
++
I don't think that this is really susta
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It's not a regression; actually, it's quite common to drop features
>> that can no longer be supported. I don't see us blocking stabilization
>> f
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 just talking about random ebuild features here that h
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:32:45 -0700
> Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> > > And what about all of the fixes I merge in, that _are_ really
>> > > security fixes, yet we do not want to shout it out to
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> For example, gnome-base/gnome-settings-daemon could be p.mask in non-systemd
> profiles instructing the users to switch to the systemd profile and point to
> the guide you were referring to
> As in, the benefit would be informative mask me
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 configuration as Gentoo with
OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs.
>
> So
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration,
> well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing
> and sends the wrong signal.
>
There is no one official supported configuration of Gentoo. Nobo
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation they
> were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported
> configuration.
Since when was installing half the packages on your system a supported
configuration (w
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mike Auty wrote:
> Just because companies pour money into something does not mean they
> know what they're doing, or that they've done their market research
> into what their users want. I've tried several of the forks, and
> sadly Gnome, because of the backing it
On Aug 10, 2013 2:41 PM, "Steven J. Long"
wrote:
> It's also easier for developers to handle, similar to the KDE profiles.
Though I'm
> not sure why it's necessary to use a "non-base" profile. We have several
> "non-minimalist" profiles already, and the suggestion seems to fit into
the
> existing
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I've been considering packaging systemd in sys-fs/udev with USE="systemd"
> and use of 'if' and 'else' plus creating virtual/systemd for proper /
> installation and some other minor, but bad design choices done in the
> systemd packaging
W
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Suggestion, before all the rest of gentoo-dev chimes in and the situation goes
> from messy to hopeless:
>
> 1) Hold a regular, public team meeting of the systemd team.
> 2) Confirm or elect the lead.
> 3) First figure out what you as a
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> One thing I think is really important is respecting the maintainers. If
> maintainer said "please send the patch upstream before committing to
> cvs", it is _not_ OK to just ignore that. There are other options
> available like masking
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-13, o godz. 22:59:49
> "Andreas K. Huettel" napisał(a):
>
>> Note that submitting localized build logs to the Gentoo Bugzilla
>> is discouraged, and that such bug reports may be closed as INVALID
>> by the package maintainer.
>
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> If kept, word it something like "When filing bugs; if maintainers are
> unable to translate the necessary information from the build log,
> please attach an English build log [1] and then reopen the bug.
So, this is why I wanted a vote on whet
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Should everyone be free to add sets at will, or should each addition be
> discussed first, similar to adding new global USE flags?
While I don't want to deter people from creating them, it probably
wouldn't hurt to at least do a little bi
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> The discussion at stake here is "Can we add sets to the tree? If so,
> should everyone be able to do that free or by prior discussion?" and I
> don't think that any reply to this whole sub thread benefits anyone.
So, I already added my two ce
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 23:53 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> [...]
>> Well, it should reflect reality.
>>
>> PMS is still broken as much as it does not reflect the state of portage
>> before PMS was written, and we've had to patch it up a fe
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
>
> If upstream doesn't support something it's not a regression. This
> upstream removes features all the time in the name of progress. Either
> get on the train or get run over by it. If /usr isn't mounted at boot
> then systemd
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few people
> lost their net configs
>
> So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice
And hence the value of having a group of volunteer guinea pigs
(anybody running ~arch) is dem
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> For everyone's information -- The conf.d/net removal on upgrade is a
> packaging issue, which could not have been tested prior to
> openrc-0.12.ebuild hitting the tree. There are details in
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> While I don't, and asked it just because of the large amount; it
> appears from some things lately, and not just OpenRC, that there is a
> certain group that regards ~arch as some kind of new stable.
People have been talking about that for yea
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Stable implies "not so often changing". If you really need newer packages on a
> system that has to be rock-solid, then keyword what you need and nothing else.
++
30 days is too long? How can something new be stable? Stable doesn't
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date packages ..." ~
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> That's not to say that gentoo-sources shouldn't follow the regular
> overall stabilization policies, but focusing on the kernel as the
> impetus for adjusting the stabilization policy or pointing out what's
> wrong with the policy as a wh
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> That doesn't make it a special case here, imo; especially not, since
> we are designing and implementing ebuilds that _build_ the kernel.
> Whether it provides the sources, or build it; what does that matter?
Yes and no. I don't think the
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
> unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
Sounds like Prefix, lite?
Rich
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
>>> exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
>>> s
1001 - 1100 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
