On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> FWIW/IMHO, I don't believe the news item needs mentioning that it was bash
> that made it slow and inflexible. Most users don't so much care whether
> it's C or bash or java that made it so, only that it was.
If this were Ubu
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Dane Smith wrote:
> @Trustees: Any thoughts? I didn't mean to step on any toes, I just
> hadn't spotted that old bug until today.
So, speaking only for myself, my thinking is that there is enough
debate over the truecrypt license that I see no point in not just
pl
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:08 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Someone suggested that we make emerge not work until the news item is
> read. There is nothing I can do in openrc to make something like that
> happen. It would be something that would require a portage modification.
Honestly - I see that as
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote:
>
>> please have a look at the attached patch.
>
>> -EAPI="1"
>> +EAPI="4"
>
> Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style"
> to "EAPI 2 style" too?
If the goal is to
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> A proper SA avoids upgrade pathways were possible that require
> manual intervention. This requires manual intervention.
>
> Said proper SA's also have a rather large hatred of anything that can
> leave a system nonbootable (rant: including
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:44 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> I'm fine with shipping a trimmed down versions to users, but I think the
> full version must be easy to access.
If the changelogs were accessible via a predicable URL then a simple
command-line tool or portage option might display them
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
> crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
Well, more like get any one of the keys and you get the tree, since
portage only validates that a trusted key signed a packag
2011/5/17 Olivier Crête :
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 01:18 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Maybe you should use /var/tmp for that? Or ~/tmp/ ?
>>
>> OTOH, we could use an rc.conf configuration variable to control
>> whether /tmp is mounted as tmpfs.
>
> Having /tmp and /var/tmp as tmpfs sounds like
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Dale wrote:
> The reason the info is there is so that users, like me, know what the USE
> flag is for. Me personally, I still think some of them don't help much and
> need more info but it is better than it used to be. So, if you can make
> them shorter and user
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:39 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> On 5/22/11 11:33 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> I would also like to see a minimal webpage ( under
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/tools? ) which would describe how
>> to use these tools on daily basis to deal with the bug workload
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> The current "every change" policy goes overboard, I doubt anyone
> disagrees, but it's worth repeating the point someone else made already,
> every added exception makes the rule harder to remember. The four
> numbered excepti
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> wrote:
>> (c) has irked enough developers and users that people pushed council to
>> update the policy about the use of ChangeLogs.
>
>
> Yes, and I'm surprised that these same d
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> He didn't say he was going to defy council, rather, that he simply
> wouldn't be removing ebuilds /at/ /all/ until either the changelog is auto-
> generated (making the case moot) or the council changes policy.
>
> That means th
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> thinking about it a little more, i think this can easily be addressed.
> only auto-generate the ChangeLog file if it doesnt exist in VCS.
> thus the few people who are actually anal about typos (or just think
> they are) can retain their Cha
On Jun 9, 2011 9:27 AM, "Samuli Suominen" wrote:
>
> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team.
So, without trying to comment on the particulars of this situation (of which
I'm blissfully unaware beyond being able to guess from recent list traffic),
do we need some
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dane Smith wrote:
> Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team
> calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part.
> I don't want to see a new "appointee" merely because the lead upset one
> person. Perhaps if more th
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die;
> at the time of the rule, portage couldn't handle resolving graphs of
> that sort. PM resolvers for gentoo are generally a fair bit saner
> now thus doing what you're sug
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :)
Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy
doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either. There
are
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> So again, what are you trying to fix, and what makes you think it was
> broken to start with?
Well, I think there are things worth improving. However, I'm not sure
that we should consider implementation of tagging a reason to
re-design the
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200
> Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
>
>> Sets concept is completely orthogonal to tags concept, please do not
>> mix unrelated things.
>
> Depends upon what you think the "tags concept" is. We've already
> establis
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Wyatt Epp wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 16:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I too feel that tags should be distinct from sets, for a bunch of reasons.
>>
>> Sets should really be something carefully controlled by the
>> repository. Whil
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with
> other things.
I'd say that "welcome" is a better word than "tolerate" - after all,
Gentoo is about choice. :)
Still, I do agree that we should avoid disruptive changes
2011/6/29 Olivier Crête :
> systemd is where the innovation is today and we, Gentoo,
> should get on board or be left behind.
Certainly agree that systemd is innovative.
I think this whole thing is becoming a bit moot. The openrc
maintainer is already planning to add use flags to allow for clean
On Jun 30, 2011 11:06 AM, "Mike Frysinger" wrote:
>
> we're not splitting the source trees. the reasons have already been
> detailed in the bug open on the topic.
> -mike
>
I think we're generally aiming for perfection when we should be pragmatic.
The proposed solution isn't ideal, but is workab
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> You're very correct about portage getting confused if the existing
> packages are outdated, since the tarball would be dropping in untracked
> files. At least in the past, portage wouldn't unmerge glibc or the like,
> but it ce
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> One thing to keep in mind when we're talking about the download of
> historical binaries is the obligations of the GPL, etc, in that regard.
>...
> But once you start shipping historical binaries, as we're talking here,
Actuall
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> it would be nice to come up with some level of automated conversion. no
> matter how much we say "read the docs", there will always be people who do
> not. i think the reason the openrc upgrade has gone so smooth thus far is
> because ho
2011/7/22 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> But I do think it is
> good to have live ebuilds in portage, especially for fast moving
> applications.
I think they can be useful for any application as long as they're
maintained. I can see the value of the QA policy that they must be
masked, but I don
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top of
> / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time now[1][2][3]
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235
> [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
> many users that might be?
>
> I dislike the documentation not being clear on separate /usr, that it
> should only be used if you *really* need it due to the potential pr
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 11:39 <@aidecoe> dracut has module fstab-sys. You might check this out
> to mount additional stuff before switching to root.
If we want to make /usr required on boot we should build this
capability into genkernel. Or, we should have genk
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
> On Saturday 30 July 2011 14:55:23 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
>> many users that might be?
>
> From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as small as
> possi
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> BTW doesn't encrypting rootfs require initramfs anyway?
>
Yup.
On a side note. I've been experimenting with Dracut+LVM+RAID5 and
have found that it actually works pretty transparently. Now, I
haven't tried it with /usr not on the rootfs - I
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> > I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the PMS
>>> > altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting to a
>>> > selinux system where one relabels the e
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> A good moderation would be to require PGP signatures as well but I
> guess many devs still don't do that.
Most MUAs don't support pgp signatures. I used to use them until
being able to compose emails from Android and ChromeOS with full
folde
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Dale wrote:
> From a users perspective. Could it not be possible to have some USE flag,
> or other setting, that would tell portage that a separate /usr partition is
> being used then have the needed files placed elsewhere on / ? I'm not a dev
> and I don't play o
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:42 AM, David Abbott wrote:
> The LSB workgroup is preparing FHS 3.0, which will be the first FHS
> release since 2004. As part of that release, we are soliciting
> contributions from all interested parties.
More interesting was this thread on their mailing list:
https://
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> Also, again, this is an upstream issue, based on the packages you have
> installed, not anything that has changed in the distro itself. Upstream
> is also working to resolve the issue already, by mounting /usr from the
> initramfs, to keep this sa
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> * Robin H. Johnson schrieb am 05.08.11 um 02:46 Uhr:
> [...]
>> That leaves the only reasonable solution as #2. In terms of minimal
>> impact, I propose that we offer users with a static system an absolutely
>> minimal initramfs, that _just
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Matthew Summers
wrote:
> In point of fact all modern Linux kernels have an initramfs built in
> now, that when empty is effectively bypassed, so there is no wheel
> reinvention. To quote the docs [1]
Yes, but that embedded initramfs doesn't actually do much of anyt
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:06:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>> How does the tool that creates an initramfs know which files to copy from
>> /usr and /var anyhow?
>
> My understanding is that nothing gets copied from /usr and /var, and it
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-08-2011 20:55:05 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> Problems:
>> - atomic/well-ordered commits that span packages, eclasses and profiles/
>> directories. (Esp. committing to eclasses and then packages
>> afterwards).
>
> This can be
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:32:12PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > That one's udev specific? I guess it could be moved as well.
>> >
>> > It's a blkid(8) cache to mount stuff by uuid/label and guess FS.
>> > Used at least by udev rules a
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dale wrote:
> I understand that Fedora is wanting to do this. What I don't understand is
> why. It seems it is udev that is wrecking this havoc.
Well, the answer is a bit more nuanced.
First, keep in mind that in a "typical" linux distro the end user does
not b
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Dale wrote:
> How long till all this is going to be a absolute requirement? That is my
> question.
Well, I don't speak for the teams that want to implement this, but my
recommendation is that it not become a requirement until everything is
in place to support it.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> But then the docs folks said the policy was only to document stable, and
> that they weren't going to document openrc until it was going stable.
Well, I can see their point - OpenRC was the future for probably 2
years before
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> As far as I am aware, under the current organisation there is no legal
> connection between the Gentoo Foundation Inc., and the Gentoo
> distribution.
True, but that doesn't mean that the Foundation might not be found
liable for things done u
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get
> pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will
> meet some rather unpleasant resistance :)
Well, we could always broadcast the news widely (lists,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> Sorry, but NO. If you want you can make a big noise message that asks
> users to install the cron-job but opt-out is not an option here.
Well, that's up to the Council/Trustees ultimately, but opinions (and
better still reasoning) are welcom
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> It has to be opt-in as opt out would be a dangerous precendent to set.
>
> I don't see any harm is a gentle reminder message from emerge, provided
> that the reminder can be turned off too, if the user really does not
> want to opt in. Thats no
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> We did post to -dev, hence this thread.
My post was intended to be general in applicability, and not critical
of the particular instance of this issue being discussed.
I would generally suggest that implementing this as a package and not
as
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Perhaps I used the wrong term here. I mean that 2.2 (B) allows the
> user to download and install the software without having to explicitly
> click the "Agree" button on the software download page.
I did not review the Chrome license, but spe
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:17:21 +0300
> Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> > Moving things as openrc to /usr/libexec will effectevely barake old
> > systems with separtae / and /usr. So it isnt good idea
>
> Old systems should migrate to initramfs, like
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:22:46AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Right now migrating to initramfs won't do any good, as Gentoo doesn't
> have
> > an initramfs available which mounts /usr. No doubt once Fedo
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Never once have I had any issues
> with separate / and /usr, and none of them use an initramfs.
Ditto here, but that doesn't mean that problems don't exist. Right now the
problems are likely to be subtle, perhaps arising only with certain
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I'd rather say we should do the work on real issues rather than
> imaginate 'separate /usr' problem. Honestly, most of 'advantages' of
> separate /usr are just hacks avoiding other problems.
>
>
I guess the irony in my case was that having a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 03:55:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > as for no-multilib systems, "lib64" will be the same, and "lib" will be
> > symlinked to "lib64". this will be easier i think to share files between
> > multilib and
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we
> are
> > not seeing any issues with our cu
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb support.
> > It installs /usr/share/v86d/initramfs and when you configure your
> > kernel, you set CONFIG_INITR
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
> It is my understanding all the options need to be specified every time
> dracut
> is run to create an initramfs. If this becomes mandatory, will this be
> added
> to the "make" script of the kernel-sources and as such, make this more
> s
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Will the ebuild automatically add all the different modules into the
> /etc/dracut.conf ?
> Please note, I am asking these questions to put my mind at ease and
> hopefully
> be able to explain all this back to the people on gentoo-user.
>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> It may be that this is already sorted on the gnome side, or that all this
> talk of gnome-os is simply hot-air, but like I said, I'm a kde user, so I
> wouldn't know, tho I'm concerned about its implications for the rest of
>
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
> Except that Redhat and Centos use LVM by default. Which will also mean that
> "simple users" also end up using LVM.
> Then again, they also end up with an initr* and a generic kernel for
> everything under the sun.
> I haven't properly l
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I think putting more pressure so systemd isn't given as granted would be
> more healthy for both those who are not using it (because, again, is an
> aberration for any kind of daemon not written for it) and those that want to
> use it (since
On Sep 18, 2011 12:05 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh"
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote:
> > As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
> > to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing
> > tree?
>
> Every tim
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted:
> > I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.
>
> Interesting question. I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread,
> either, and
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> Note: I'm brainstorming here. Anyone else?
>
> It's as if people are just totally ignoring what has already been
> discussed here, why should we even pay attention to this anymore?
>
I agree that this is getting a bit off-topic. If anybody want
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Host-specific / and host-independent /usr is not itself a bad idea. I can
> envision quite a few useful scenarios for this. But on a single box, why?
> And for those of us with differing architectures, how would this add any
> benefit? Is
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> At least an initial read suggests that you just multiplied the mirror
> space requirements by however many times you use this trick. I don't
> believe infra's going to go for that.
>
Yup - and everybody needs to mirror all th
On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
> Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd need a
helper script to figure out your current state (using portage version and
tree snapshot maybe), then prepare the environment to upgrade
> (and how do you handle the "common" ca
2011/9/20 Tomáš Chvátal :
> The issue here is that if some part of the tree looses lots of its
> maintainers we as devs usually manage to shape it up enough for us in
> testing but nobody ever bothers to wait that 30 days and open
> stablereq.
An issue your suggestion doesn't address is when packa
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Talking about... Just today I was reading that the firefox folks are
> debating shortening the current 6-week cycle to 5-weeks or less.
Upstream issues are a whole different kettle of fish, but obviously
still cause problems
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> I agree that these new 'channel' concepts are not very compatible with
> out stable/testing tree model and security stabilizations. Every single
> stabilization (except the first) of www-client/chromium for instance is
> a security stabiliza
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> Let's have a page in our docs where everybody can explain his or her
> tool. Where in the hierarchy should the page be? How about:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/arch-testing
Please! And the documentation should include examples of
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> It is a bit hard to document a generic testing process. Each package
> has different requirements. We tried to document a generic workflow in
> amd64 AT[1] and in the AT quiz as well.
Sure, and that's pretty much the method I use, and I im
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote:
>> Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather
>> more negative effects than one might have anticipated. One would think
>> comment locking would be a logical enough
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> This will be a big challenge for a smaller distro like Gentoo. Obviously we
>> can't just go write our own Wayland replacement, even if we did essentially
>>
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> # Markos Chandras (01 Oct 2011)
> # Unmaintained. Plenty of open bugs ( 219892, 230183, 303199 ).
> # Replaced by dispatch-conf and/or etc-update
> # Masked for removal in 30 days.
> app-portage/cfg-update
If nobody else is interested I th
2011/10/3 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several
> times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply.
>
While I'm all for documenting QA policies, ultimately common sense
does need to prevail. As I've commented be
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> 14 days?
> We can't really wait forever for slacking maintainers to fix their
> packages. amd64 is almost ready to have libpng-1.5 stable in the very
> near future
>
Didn't we just do this thre
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 1) use bundled zlib and libpng14. Doh this is not a fix. It is barely
> a workaround. What if a vulnerability is discovered in the bundled
> version of libpng in the next months? Will upstream fix it? Highly
> unlikely since they don't seem
2011/10/11 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> There was no indication 9 months ago that this bug is so bad that the
> package would be removed if not fixed. Masking the package is ok if it
> is totally broken or violates policy. Removal when the maintainer is
> explicitly against it is not ok.
Agree
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about pngcrush
> and what was discussed there.
I read the entire discussion before making a single post - it would be
irresponsible not to. Now, I can't say that I checked the cvs
hist
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a
> Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in
> Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions.
We should note that RedHat is al
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> That's probably why there's no mention in the docs other than the portage
> manpage. Now that we have swift back, he's applying some much needed
> attention to the docs tree and its coming back into shape. =:^)
I definitely a
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
>> to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
>
> Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
> `apt-get upgrade`? If we hide the new defaults behind a target like
> --upgrade, rather than change the defaults globally, then it allows
> people's existing scripted and ha
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Thus, the point I'd make and that I believe you were making is not that
> Gentoo can't be different, or we'd obviously be doing a binary distro
> like everyone else, but that we pick the differences which we value
> enough to
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
>> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
>> `apt-get upgrade`?
>
> isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed`
Well, you'd
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> So, in your opinion, if we have 'foo' and 'libfoo' which are strictly
> version-bound, we can't allow users to install older versions?
Obviously the real issue is when libfoo is libpng or openssl or whatever.
It almost makes you wonder if t
2011/10/13 Olivier Crête :
> We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
> compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell the
> computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and
> stupid.
I'd also look at it another way. It is a lot eas
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Merely saying if we had some documentation snippet, or an end-quiz
> question for this, QA could more easily/faster revoke access if someone
> were to do this intentionally in tree. This could be minor motivation
> for me to write such snip
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have
> /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the separate
> /usr partition from "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem usage example" in our
> handbook:
>
> http://www.ge
2011/10/20 Tomáš Chvátal :
> I would say that most hardened features should be merged to to main
> profile as soon as they won't cause major PITA for the regular users.
I agree - especially for stuff that doesn't require active setup
(stack protection, PaX, etc).
If there are features that we cou
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> I would not recommend PaX at this time. As Mike said, it breaks things,
> sometimes important things. Eg. python ctypes was broken there for a
> while on hardened. Also, unlike toolchain, it requires that you
> configure your kernel c
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
>> scarabeus 11/10/23 12:00:55
>>
>> Modified: ChangeLog cdparanoia-3.10.2-r3.ebuild
>> Log:
>> Bump to eapi4 and punt static libs.
>
> Time to revert this commit
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
How is this a quality issue? Why do we have a static-libs USE flag is
packages can't use it to determine wh
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:26:01 +0200
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>> Is it possible to just pass flags to GCC: disable all this hardened
>> stuff? I know you can disable stack protector, but how about PIE or PIC,
>> and possible other hardening
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> 2) What's wrong with current approach i.e. having seperate hardened profile?
I don't really see the hardened profile and some hardening by default
as being redundant.
When I think about the hardened profile I think high security at the
co
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 27 October 2011 06:33, Bruno wrote:
>>
>> Is there some guideline about old entries in the ChangeLog?
>>
>> Over the past months ChangeLogs represent a big part of the tree, some
>> of them being pretty big and going back many changes (hun
1501 - 1600 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
