On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> We can't force people who write Gentoo specific software to host w/us
> (that would be silly.) If upstream is dead then take a tarball and
> clone it into a git repo; nothing is stopping you.
While that should certainly happen if you want to
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:15 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> I think we can't salvage much from a corrupted db (anything can happen,
> and the reporter mentions some code being present in the files), but at
> least "emerge -e world" or equivalent should be possible.
I'm not sure how portage handl
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote:
> One thing that is less obvious is that there are essentially two
> flavors of unstable chromium- dev and beta. Currently beta is 17.*,
> dev is 16.*. If you don't want blee
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> You expect people to manually check the build.log just to see, where it
> hangs? I prefer checking the
> console, there i can see it directly and dont have to check for the path of
> the current build.log
> and then have to additionally ope
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> 1. Who defines, what the default should be and when it is acceptable to force
> an unknown amount of
> users to change their settings?
Well, this did go on a mailing list, and so far we have all of 13
unique participants, so this seems lik
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> I would like to avoid the situation that we all file stable requests like mad
> and end up with all-but-one swamped arch teams and a neverending list of open
> stabilization bugs waiting for the last arch.
I think that this is somethi
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:47 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> Do we still need lafilefixer? I think it's been integrated into portage,
> right?
Not until it is stabilized and made the default. I'm not sure what
the plans are for that.
Rich
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?*
>
> (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else
> that needs to go stable)
I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-neede
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Since GNOME 3 is already in the
> tree, and the news file content is straightforward, I'd like to commit
> this in 24hrs if there are no problems.
If we're gong to go to all the trouble to create upgrade guides and
news/etc, wouldn't it m
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I think that the addition of a Display-If-Visible option would help,
> along with the addition of news file procedures to the devmanual and
> the quizzes. Even I didn't know where to commit the news file before
> some creative googling tod
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:20:27 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Actually, reading the code it seems that it's about the file merge
>> order of a single package. My participation in this entire discussion
>> is m00t. Never mind. :p
>
> ...i
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
> On my part, it was a failure of imagination. I had always seen large
> changes dumped in ~arch with no warning or documentation (even the
> png15 upgrade didn't get a news item until libpng-1.5.x went stable),
Of course - just figured
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> But in this particular case, I don't think COW is particularly useful.
> If it works only on filesystem bounds, we could move the file directly
> anyway.
Yup - I would only use it if you really are doing a copy and not a
move (neglecting the
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Have you considered time overhead of moving files in unnatural order?
Rather than re-discuss this point it would probably be better for
everybody to just read through the entire thread again, particularly
Cirian's post and its follow-ups. My
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> Ignoring circular dependencies doesn't make them go away. Ignoring
> dependencies can lead to build failures that could have been avoided if
> they were expressed in a way that the dependency resolver could properly
> account for them.
++
One
2011/12/4 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> I too think it is sufficient to have
> LC_MESSAGES=C
> in the default make.conf (or somewhere else where the user can easily
> change it), with a comment to leave it like this for build.log when
> reporting bugs.
++
Or if that goes too far have it commen
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> Can we just translate the error messages?
>
That seems pretty impractical to me. Google Translate is about your
only option here, and somehow I doubt it is up to parsing build logs.
Hand translation could work if we increases the understaffed
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I haven't really understood what you mean with RDEPENDs being scheduled
> "after".
> RDEPEND must be always scheduled before the pkg requiring it, changing
> this behaviour would have disruptive effects on all the PMS out there
There is on
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> @pr: could one of you commit this please?
>
I don't speak for PR, but while PR must be copied on any news items I
don't believe they actually have to commit it.
They just go in:
svn+ssh://@svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/gentoo-news
(and th
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> (There's one little change: In item 6 it says /MM but meanwhile
> the month directories have been abandoned, i.e. it's just now.)
Hmm, a good sign that we're under-utilizing the feature. I chuckled
at the mention in the post that a
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ncurses is no longer part of the system deps. in practice, this probably
> won't make a difference to most people since bash itself depends on ncurses,
> but it does make embedded/etc... simpler.
Hmm, I wonder how much further we'll have t
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> Whatever man, look at all this bloat!
>
> virtual/ssh
Great - I can remote access a system that doesn't boot.
> sys-apps/kbd
Full editing of config files works with my original IBM PC keyboard
(Estonian version)!
> sys-apps/texinfo
I can u
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set which is what
> would come in a stage3 rather than the current "stage3 is the system set".
> then we could move virtual/ssh out of the system set and into the "Gentoo
> default" se
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i have no sympathy for broken userspace code
I define broken userspace code as anything that uses fsync except for
transactional synchronization with external sources.
My system is a bit beefier now, but one of the biggest performance
issue
I'm considering sending out this news item in a few days - comments
are welcome. It is a bit different in tone from a typical news item
but MythTV has been in not-so-great shape for a while and my goal is
to reel things in a bit and commit to something we can continue to
maintain, while soliciting
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Nevertheless, the basic bug is about changing the distfile repository
> format in such a way that a single repo can contain several distfiles
> built with differing build conditions. Putting metadata in the
> filename is only one way of e
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:27 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> - people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I
> CC arches the answer often comes within minutes.
So, I agree with pretty-much everything you said, and I completely
agree that stable-by-default, object-if-you-ca
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I looked into this 6 or 7 years ago. It wasn't feasible unless you were
> on an extremely high-speed, low-latency network, beyond what was
> typically accessible at the time outside of universities and LANs. Could
> be worth exploring agai
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Just wanted to point out that (if there is enough memory) recent
>> kernels manage much better parallelism, even excess of it, once
>> reached the maximum load augmenting threads only bring minimal loss of
>> "real" time.
>
> Does that inclu
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Dale wrote:
> This is my issue as well. I tried to make a init* to deal with this and
> have yet to get one to work, not one single working boot up. I have tried
> different howtos and not one of them produced anything that works. I have
> not found a dracut howt
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> And how does dracut know which files it needs to mount my /usr?
I assume based on the selection of modules that you enabled when
building/running it.
I believe dracut builds static binaries, so it mainly needs updating
when you build a new
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote:
> It
> is getting to the point that the security aspects of having a read-only
> mount for userspace executables is being overridden by developer fiat.
>
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I think the whole reason that
RedHat is doing
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Well, I don't think everything is going to move immediately. The way I
> see this happening is, udev/systemd/kmod are moving first, then other
> upstreams will move their software.
Agreed. If only a few packages have issues we don't have to
2012/1/3 Olivier Crête :
> A couple years ago, Gentoo was the forward looking distribution, ready
> to try radical changes that break existing assumption, like our init
> scripts with dependencies or our early use of udev. These days, I see so
> much resistance to progress, it makes me sad.
I thin
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> Does mdev support all the rules we have in /lib/udev/rules.d/? The
> Internet is surprisingly mute on this subject, but a quick grep
> through the busybox source doesn't turn up anything that suggests that
> it might.
I think the main use cas
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Steven J Long
wrote:
> The thing I don't understand is why it is necessary to move stuff from /bin
> to /usr/bin. After all, if you're running the "approved" setup you don't
> have a separate /usr so all the binaries are available from the get-go.
Where is this app
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Steven J Long
wrote:
> I was under the impression that anyone using lvm+raid (+luks) on root
> already has an initramfs, and there are docs out there about that, but sure,
> improving those docs and the software is always a good idea.
Anybody running root on lvm+r
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> Given that these tools are being moved to /usr and/or duplicated to in
> initrd , what is the point of a root filesystem anyway now? Just to
> mount other things on? Just to store /etc ?
>
> Or will /etc move to /usr too?
I'd recommend reading
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
While I can't speak to your comments about being unable to restart
daemons with systemd (hope this isn
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained root,
> we need to:
>
> - establish a [tight] list of software we consider critical for /
> - fix/patch software in that list so it can run without /usr there
> - create /bin
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Dale wrote:
> Took me days to get dracut to work. Where does 15 minutes come from? How
> much time does it take when the initramfs fails?
I've used dracut on a few VMs now and on my main Gentoo box. My
experience has been that it didn't take long to figure out,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Steven J Long
wrote:
> The shifting nature of the arguments and the solutions makes me more
> uncomfortable that this hasn't been thought through even with the amount of
> feedback, and more importantly proper consideration to that feedback,
> required for a GLEP,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:23 +0100
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>> 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if you
>> declare it, please, as you said, exclude gcc/glibc and all package
>> from @system
>
> imho this has nothing
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it isn't just circular deps. it's also about breaking alternatives and
> useless bloat. adding "coreutils" to their depend because they execute `mv`,
> or "sed" because they execute `sed`, etc... is absolutely pointless. same
> goes for
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it is a problem. not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide
> replacement
> packages. busybox is just one example. the bsd/prefix guys go in even
> weirder
> directions.
Yup - hence my point about coreutils not being a good one
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:00:52 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 21:42:14 Michael Weber wrote:
>>> Um, what happend to the policy to not f*** around with stable ebuilds?
>>
I think ther
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if it's part of the implicit system dep, they absolutely need to defend their
> actions. you want to change the policy, then start a thread on it.
What policy? I don't see any written policy stating that you aren't
allowed to include sys
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:39:12 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> Maybe it would be enough to add a suggestion about --exclude in the
>> --newuse section of the emerge man page? I don't think this is confusing
>> enough
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM, justin wrote:
> We (members of the sci team) agreed to stick to the new versioning so we
> need a "pseudo-downgrade".
> For your help:
>
> echo ">=sci-libs/arpack-96" >> /etc/portage/package.mask
Wouldn't this be better-suited to a news item combined with a mask
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> On 1/27/12 8:45 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> Just implement it in a way that people can opt-in/opt-out on it.
>
> We already have an opt-in (hardened profile), and of course it can be
> implemented in a way which allows opt-out (I even
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Was reviewing http://dev.gentoo.org/devaway/ and I have seen there are a
> lot of obsolete messages. Could you take a look and verify don't have an
> old .away file in your homes ;) ?
Might not hurt to generally consider the usefulness of .aw
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> When you bump
> to a new ~arch version, please consider keeping at least one previous ~arch
> version around, so if people run into major issues they can at lease try the
> previously installed version to determine if it's your package at fault.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> So this setup is working and boots fine here. We might want to recomend
> dracut as initrd solution in case of separate usr.
I think it still needs some work, but it is getting there. I
documented my own solution at:
http://rich0gentoo.wo
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Any specific procedure to unstable a package? Specifically MythTV.
> While there's a lot of user interest in the package, there's just not
> enough dev help with the package to really keep it up to snuff to what
> could be considered stable.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> The problem is that users CCed on their bug reports have provided
> patches and fixes for them and would probably get angry if we punt them
> without even applying the patches to the tree (but I don't want to
> commit them as I cannot even test
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> While i'm not willing to maintain mythtv myself (as I don't use it
> (anymore)) or join the herd, what about contacting upstream as they
> already have their own overlay [1] and see if they'd like to "proxy
> maintain" the official Gentoo pac
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:34 PM William Hubbs wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:40:53AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:32 AM Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > > 2) we have a large infrastructure of rsync mirrors, which we do not for
> > > git.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:41 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> I would expect as much. But my primary argument would be key management
> related, it is simply impossible to present a raw copy of our repo to
> end-users and have them verify each commit
>
While related, I think that the questio
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:02 AM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2018 08:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Is safe git syncing implemented already? If not, maybe finish it first and
> > cover both with a single news item. Git is going to be more efficient here,
> > so people may want to lea
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 1:50 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2018 07:34 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > The patch is to do the verification before
> > checking it out so that if it fails the tree is left in a
> > last-known-good state (at least as seen by
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 2:31 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2018 08:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Again, the current portage support for git verification doesn't check
> > any developer keys.
>
> right, so why would it be material for a news item improvi
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:50 PM Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>
> Does Portage not call attention to critical updates?
>
> It used to make a special statement for a new stable Portage and strongly
> recommended that it be emerged first. It should probably do the same for
> openpgp-keys-gentoo-release.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:26 PM Alec Warner wrote:
>
> The former is probably 3 times easier than the latter.
> - Get testers to move their tree and report issues[0].
> - Change the stage3 defaults to be the new location.
> - Explicitly do nothing else.
>
> New installs will get the new location
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> > /usr/portage by default?
>
> > If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
>
> Please remind me, what was t
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:11 PM Johannes Huber wrote:
>
> Am 09.07.2018 um 20:05 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>
> >>>
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
> napisał:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations
> > > have been c
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:34 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>
++
If a user wants to migrate it is pretty easy to do. Update the
setting and do an mv, or don't do an mv in which case it will just
regenerate. I think /var/db/pkg
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:38 AM kuzetsa wrote:
>
> I think authorship is a good point / distinction, Mart.
>
> Authorship was never shown in dev-timeline for addresses
> which aren't @gentoo.org anyway. That's a separate issue,
> so this policy change shouldn't affect proxy-maint?
>
Might I sugge
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:14 AM kuzetsa wrote:
>
> Authorship was brought up by: [ Mart Raudsepp ]
>
> It's germane, and wanting clarity doesn't hurt:
Sure, and it was answered by mgorny 17 hours before your post,
pointing to the original email which did in fact specifically
reference the commi
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
> I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout
> for awhile.
>
I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general.
Maybe if some day somebody had a solution for a read-only /usr with
signature
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao wrote:
>
> On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to have
> on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints.
It makes sense to follow FHS. Sure, I can work around poor designs by
sticking mount points all over the pla
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao wrote:
>
> Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree
> is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of
> everything else in /usr.
>
It is application metadata. It belongs in /var. No other pac
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:16 PM William Hubbs wrote:
>
> That is the other part of this debate, some are saying /var/lib, and
> others are saying /var/db.
>
> It turns out that /var/db is much more common than I thought it was
> (it exists in all *bsd variants at least), so that could be an arg
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:34 PM konsolebox wrote:
>
> I have /var/lib/gentoo/portage defined in repos.conf/gentoo.conf.
>
Regardless of the base directory location, I might suggest a path
dedicated to repositories, of which the main gentoo repo is just an
initial one, and overlays could be placed
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:47 PM Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> So, "portage" should not be a directory name in the new default path.
>
Well, in my examples I proposed it as that is the software that
created the path, but then again in the spirit of PMS portage isn't
the only PM.
So:
/var/lib/repos/gent
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:55 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> "Pertains to one specific host" doesn't seem to apply to the Gentoo
> repository though.
Sure it does. The state of the package repository on a Gentoo host
doesn't affect any other host.
Sure, that state is synced from someplace that man
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:30 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:55 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> Also, there is that strange requirement that the
> >> file hierarch
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:42 PM Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:51:17 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to propose adding USE=udev to our linux profiles (in
> > profiles/default/linux/make.defaults probably). This flag is already
> > enabled on desktop profile
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:58 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2018 01:06 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> >>
> >> * They can't be undone. It's next to impossible for me to undo
> >> USE=udev when set in a profile that is inherited by all others.
> >
> > You set USE=-udev in your make.conf.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:39 AM wrote:
>
>
> Why not introducing a new level in the hierarchy ? Something like "common"
> could be fit.
>
> default/linux/amd64/13.0
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common/desktop
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common/developer
> ...
>
> By
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:05 AM wrote:
>
> I’m not sure I was clear enough in what 13.0 would mean : basically, its
> current content would be
> delegated to common, and 13.0 would keep only things needed to have minimal
> breakages/conflicts.
> And we would keep the current directory-like inher
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM M. J. Everitt wrote:
>
> The hierarchy method is indeed flawed, it would be better to have
> something akin to USE flags for profiles (PROFLAGS?) .. so that you
> could mingle different aspects without replicating sections of the
> 'tree' to get the common configura
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2018 07:55 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > While I agree that setting USE=-udev isn't the same as leaving it to
> > package defaults, you further claim that setting this globally causes
> >
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:33 AM Zac Medico wrote:
>
> Sure, why not? So ^flag would mean that the flag state propagates from
> the settings in IUSE.
Presumably this could be overridden in subsequent profiles, or
/etc/portage. That is, one profile might set a flag, and another
profile could unset
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:06 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 11:39 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > You can run any system without udev, but you need to be very careful
> > about what Linux features you utilize and how you have the system
> > configured.
> >
> > Most Linux servers out
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:27 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 12:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe anybody suggested making Gentoo harder to customize.
> > This is just about setting reasonable defaults.
>
> For the (N+1)th time:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:49 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 07/24/2018 12:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> harder to customize, because you can't turn it off.
> >
> > This was already addressed in a previous comment - PMS can be modified
> > to nullify
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> I don't think the process needs to be simplified much more than this;
> each layer above has its purpose. However I do very much want to
> caution on making it more complicated, especially with the addition of
> syntax that allows settin
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:11 PM Dennis Schridde wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 20:57:09 CEST Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > > I don't think the process needs to be simplified much more than this;
> > &g
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:56 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC:
> >
> >/usr/portage -> /var/db/repos/gentoo
> >/usr/portage/distfiles -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/distfil
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 1:01 PM Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> Part of my frustration is that seemingly "anything open source related
> can be held in Gentoo" and I'm somewhat against that as I feel it
> dilutes the Gentoo mission. We are here to make a distribution, not
> maintain random libraries. If y
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:12 PM Richard Yao wrote:
>
>
> Prestige is good. We have prestige from our (myself and a few others) work in
> upstream ZFS and Gentoo is well respected there.
Sure, but ZFS on Linux isn't a Gentoo project.
I'm not saying people who are Gentoo devs can't also do other t
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 AM Ben Kohler wrote:
>
> 1) Adjust x86 profile defaults to drop the problematic -march=i686.
> This would be more in line with amd64 profiles (et al), which set no
> -march value so it can run on any hardware for this arch.
>
My knee-jerk reaction was that this is a b
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:27 PM R0b0t1 wrote:
>
> Even newer embedded i586 and i686 hardware isn't cost effective
> considering power consumption. When considering power it often does
> not even make sense to run donated hardware ~5 years old.
>
I was referring to running the x86 arch on hardware
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
> > Ben Kohler wrote:
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this?
> >
> > Or perhaps, a new (exp)
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 7:15 AM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 13:09 +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> > On 26/08/2018 12:53, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > The common issue here is that upstream COPYING files really do only
> > > talk about one of the versions. And then you get to vali
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:46 PM Michael Mol wrote:
>
> I can say that if the licenses are habitually misidentified, I could not use
> Gentoo's portage tree in my job without extensive and ongoing revalidation of
> the license metadata.
>
Keep in mind that we're just talking about GPL-2 vs 2+ and
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:50 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> So if you're using -Werror to prevent a
> "vulnerable" package from being installed, it doesn't work, and can
> actually be harmful if it prevents me from using a better compiler.
>
Whether or not the new compiler is better, i
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >
> > On 9/10/18 10:51 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built
> > > this configuration. None of the arch teams had bu
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM Jason Zaman wrote:
>
> Replying to a somewhat random post. There are two separate things here
> that people are discussing here but are not the same thing.
Three, really...
>
> 1) We want to know when a package has terrible warnings when installing
> it so we can
1601 - 1700 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
