On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> It doesn't look like it's going to work so well without cpufrequtils.
> There's a new homepage with a few new releases at:
>
Are there any actual issues with cpufrequtils, beyond having a dead upstream?
I've been maintaining cpufreqd in
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 08-12-2014 a las 14:46 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> >
>> > It doesn't look like it's going to work so well without cpufrequtils.
>&
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> I thought we were generally agreed we wanted to get rid of herds.
>> The goal wasn't to rename them, but to get rid of them.
>
>> We could have
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-12-09, o godz. 12:59:26
> Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
>
>>
>> As the previously stated goal was to get rid of herds, I don't
>> understand why you want to reintroduce them as a value of the
>> type attribute. The existing herd elemen
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> This would be by far the easiest solution. Some herds already have an
> alias like this eg. freedesktop -> freedesktop-bugs. Much easier than
> mass-editing every single metadata.xml with what amounts to a cosmetic
> change.
>
I think w
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Сергей wrote:
> I see. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo-functions/pull/2 It is my pull
> request.
> Seems like these packages' maintainers are busy solving other problems now.
>
If this really gets in somebody's way they will just post a notice in
the affected pa
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 03:15:48PM +0300, Сергей wrote:
>> Today two bugs from 504116's dependencies were resolved and two other
>> bugs were removed from 504116's dependencies list. Thanks to
>> maintainers who decided to solve the problem!
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:04 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Matthias Maier wrote:
>> IMHO, maintaining a sensible set of old glibc versions of the last 5
>> years makes sense, and we should try to support it:
>
> We have a general policy in the distro that sa
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 12/22/14 10:39, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:04 AM, William Hubbs
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Matthias Maier wrote:
>>>>
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:11:01 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> [...]
>> (On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2,
>> 4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, 4.5.4,
>> 4.6.0, 4.6.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 17:20:31 schrieb Andrew Savchenko:
>
>> And please don't say "just fix it",
>
> I'm not saying "just fix it", I'm saying "... and of course you will happily
> join toolchain team and/or maintain the single g
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Because of that, i see no reason to keep the older versions of glibc
> around. This would also give us a chance to clean up the ebuilds without
> causing massive breakage. the eblits need to die.
>
Who is actually maintaining glibc, and w
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> The thing about stable gentoo-sources is that it shows that it's been
> tested, and ideally that testing's been done against the rdeps of the
> kernel package too (ie, external modules). ...
> That said, given the frequency of security u
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/01/15 02:57 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
>>
>> I understand your point. Maybe waiting a few days to auto stable
>> makes sense, because less than 7 days later, a new version with
>> bug/
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
> To summarize.
>
> In this instance, as this moment:
>
> 1. Only enter stable req bugs for 3.18 and 3.17.
I assume this bit is just a transition since we don't want to
downgrade from 3.17/18 to 3.14, and that once we get the next longterm
we'll
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Diamond wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:25:56 -0500
> Mike Pagano wrote:
>
>> Kernel versions are coming out 1-2 a week at this point.
>
> There's also a problem to upgrade kernel for a user every 1-2 week by
> hands using "make oldconfig" and reading smth like
> k
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> As a gentoo/~arch btrfs user myself and reasonably active on the btrfs
> list, I'd *never* recommend btrfs in anything like its current state to a
> gentoo-stable user. Just tonite, before I switched to this list I was on
> the
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:47 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> I am particularly concerned about packages with known security
> vulnerabilities staying in the main tree masked. If people want to keep
> using those packages, I don't want to stop them, but packages like this
> should not be in the main tr
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió:
> [...]
>> The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other
>> games like it) on Gentoo, and only on Gentoo, is that the games team
>> policy requires that all game
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> But I must admit I lost the track of this issue some time ago and I
> don't remember why the eclass is still allowed and then both policies
> are being used in parallel depending on the maintainer, that is the
> reason I haven't suggested the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> Of the remaining devs, only 16 keys total pass the GLEP 63
> requirements. More info can be found in the First-Use wiki page [4]
If you just create a gpg key with 5yr expiry and otherwise-default
options, typing a larger number into the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> But for the rest, yes, you don't need gkeys to create your key, It is
> just most people seem to know little about using gpg, so creating the
> template where you just filled out name, email, password, makes it easy.
Makes sense. I can alway
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> One issue with DSA/ElGamal is the requirement for a random k value
> while signing/encrypting,
Thanks - that was very informative. I guess the thing that makes me
more concerned about RSA is that Shor's algorithm makes it quite
po
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:44:46 +0100
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> Shor's would be effective against discrete logs (including ECC) as
>> well, so wouldn't be applicable to this selection. For post-quantum
>> asymmetric crypto we'd likely
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> So, i like your idea to stick stable to the LTS kernel. While it can
> lead to potential problems with some external modules(which are, for
> example, marked stable now but does not support 3.4 kernel) the majority
> of really stable external
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebuild in
> question and the subsequent addition of a pointless revision bump with
> no clue as to why it was removed or why the revision bump was required:
>
You'd probably do w
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
>
> Do not get me wrong, Patrick. You, as QA team member, can touch other's
> packages without prior noticing, if fixing serious issues involved. But
> with great power comes great responsibility. Please, use your power more
> wisely next time.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> repoman doesn't check reverse dependencies for the package you're
> working on.
>
Indeed, it doesn't even check forward dependencies which are blockers.
kmod-19 was just stabilized accidentally despite having a blocker on
all stable versi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:21:15 -0500
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The only (QA) problem I see is the pointless removal of the ebu
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:02:11 -0500
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> You're complaining about how somebody made a fix that they wouldn't
>> have had to make but for the commit you made without consulting with
&g
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:05:34 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Hello, developers.
>>
>> As you may recall, the main blocker for wide-establishment of
>> FEATURES=network-sandbox prohibiting network access within the build
>> environment is
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> The problem I see now is that people will have a hard time to actually
> switch, because unlike gnutls we cannot have openssl and libressl be
> installed at the same time.
>
I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
>> maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
>> filenames the same/etc such that the pack
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:37:09 +0100
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
>> > media-video/mplayer2 or media-video/mpv may be used as a more
>> > modern replacement.
>>
>> Don't recommend mplayer2, afaik it's dead.
>
> Also, I'd drop "modern" from there
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> The result of the current policy is that if you're waiting for the GLSA,
> unless it's _extreme_ priority (heartbleed level), on at least amd64,
> you're very often sitting there exposed for well over a week, and too
> often a
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-01-26, o godz. 12:15:49
> Peter Stuge napisał(a):
>
>> "the ffmpeg fork" above is very confusing because libav is the ffmpeg
>> fork, and I think what you mean here is simply "ffmpeg". I suggest:
>
> Well, you aren't correct which
On Jan 26, 2015 11:01 AM, "Peter Stuge" wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>
> > there wouldn't be an /etc/init.d, but rather a bazillion
> > /pkg/guid/etc/init.d directories or something like that
>
> I guess an abstraction akin to pkg-config could so
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
>
> A while back, Daniel Quinn asked what the Gentoo devs that follow
> the G+ Gentoo Account what they think of making it possible to
> thank/donate to Gentoo developers for their work on the
> Distribution:
>
Wow! Thanks! :)
>
> Note
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:06 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> When should ewarns vs news items be used to inform users about changes?
> I'm not asking for a policy, just thoughts about when one or the other
> should be used.
>
IMHO it is almost pointless to issue news this far after the event.
Just a
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> this is covered in the nfs-utils-1.3.1-r1 ebuild by ewarns; however, qa
> asked me to write a news item as well, so here it is.
>
There was a similar change in the systemd units (also mentioned in the
ewarns). It might make sense to add t
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> this is covered in the nfs-utils-1.3.1-r1 ebuild by ewarns; however, qa
>> asked me to write a news item as well, so here it is.
>>
>
> There wa
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> sys-apps/portage-2.2.16 is ready for release and is just waiting for the
> news announcement about the new plug-in sync system being used and the
> changes in it's operation.
>
> Attached is the news announcement for review.
You might want t
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> You can't fix crap code to both keep the old crap handling while still
> giving you new decent handling for the same config.
>
I think that makes sense, and certainly many upstreams have made
changes this large.
However, it does make sense
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 11:04:57
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" napisał(a):
>
>> I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal
>> biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus on
>> technical merits an
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
> actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??
>
I think this is an o
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:20 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> 57% is not "pretty strongly". It's a bit more than the half.
>
Sure, but libav as the default only got 5% of the vote. I think the
poll suffers from over-complexity. :)
I don't think we should be putting all of our stock in forum polls,
but
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Ben de Groot (yngwin):
>> yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33
>>
>> Added:stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog
>> Log:
>> Initial commit (bug #318337)
>>
>
>>
>> EAPI=5
>> inherit toolchain-funcs
>>
>
> This breaks co
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-06, o godz. 17:20:48
> hasufell napisał(a):
>
>> Rich Freeman:
>> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> >> Ben de Groot (yngwin):
>> >>>
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:06 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> The council just chose the worst way, because it didn't want to upset
> either party involved in the discussion.
>
The council simply upheld GLEP 39 - people don't HAVE to work with a
project team to work on packages. There is no QA policy tha
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> You are making it sound like there is some huge work to be done. There
> isn't. And no one has to step up to change the current situation, except
> the council.
Are we that politics driven now?
If you feel so strongly about it, then join the ga
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> The council has (at least implicitly) stated that people may stop using
> common eclasses that standardize stuff in gentoo if they don't like them
> (that includes python, ruby, perl... eclasses as well, FYI).
Maybe we should both step back a b
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Rich Freeman:
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>>
>>> The council has (at least implicitly) stated that people may stop using
>>> common eclasses that standardize stuff in gentoo if the
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:08 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> So let's summarize:
> * the council said it will deal with it
Cite? I just posted what the council ACTUALLY said, and this wasn't
on it. I'd re-post it, but I think it was only two posts ago for my
part.
>
> What we have now is:
> * the cou
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell wrote:
> A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care:
When did I claim to not care?
>> It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by the members of
>> the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12 months, and
>>
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Rich Freeman:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell
>> wrote:
>>> A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care:
>>
>> When did I claim to not care?
>>
>
> That's my in
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
>
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
>> complete bs.
>
> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has
> been
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> [...]
>
> Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
> used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
>
Yeah, let's not bring up the last
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
> As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
> action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as
> we think we can. Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the Attic --
> doe
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
> simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
> kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords
A published script might ease that, esp
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The
>> problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
>> lot of work as well. Maybe a
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
> Can we just have repoman directly fix the entry automatically since in
> itself is nearly-pointless?
>
That would leave the door open to somebody arguing that the line was
changed without their knowledge. Absent some kind of DCO that seem
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
> Keep the core git tree constantly rolling forward, have a dedicated branch get
> cut say, once a year (or less -- Debian is ~18mo?), another group of devs
> works
> on stabilizing that (and periodically cherrypicking from the master branc
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all
> copyright statements as they are in whatever form?
>
Obviously appealing for its simplicity. But, I can see some issues:
1. What if you want to import multipl
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Since gentoo lacks this sort of formal signed-off policy and in fact has
> yet to move to git where it could be most easily tracked and enforced
> (let alone such a policy created and formally agreed in the first place),
> th
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Justin (jlec) wrote:
>> This is part of the set of topics which we
>> cover outside the scope of the quizzes.
>
> A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit
> likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers - as f
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> The only things devs need to do with respect to copyright is follow
>> the law
>
> Ah, but which law? I understand that law in e.g. Germany does not
> permit non-natural persons to ow
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 02/19/2015 10:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On Thursday 19 February 2015 10:07:30 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2015 09:57 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 02/19/15 06:10, Mike Gilbert wrote: What saddens me the most
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:30 PM, hasufell wrote:
> * teams in gentoo are a mess, because they mostly "work" without much
> communication and are sort of a "badge" for people to randomly touch
> ebuilds they are not familiar with
So, this is also something I don't like about our present structure.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Please explain this proposal in more detail. If code review is
> supposed to be mandatory for each commit, this will effectively stop
> development. If it is supposed to be used as an auxiliary but
> not mandatory tool, e.g. when people ar
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht
wrote:
>
> * Gentoo is mainly splitted in two: the developers and the council.
>
A bit of an odd statement considering all the council members are
developers, and were elected by them.
If it seems like most devs are at odds with the Council, con
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 02/22/15 12:08, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
>>> * Fun is lost for a long time.
>>
>> This is is extremely false.
>
> It's a very subjective matter. I don't doubt that Gentoo is fun for
> some or many or even all devel
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:44 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 02/21/2015 10:16 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 21. Februar 2015, 20:16:31 schrieb hasufell:
>>
>>> What did the council say again about the functionality of the team?
>>> What's the argumentation to not do anything, except decid
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
>> What specific action are you advocating for which hasn't been done?
>>
>
> Start with enforcing GLEP39 which is still violated.
>
I said "specific" - what do you mean by "enforcing GLEP39?"
--
Rich
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> What is your preference? Let's agree on something and avoid unnecessary
> changes on bugzilla.
Out of curiousity, what makes the changes necessary in the first
place? It seems like an incredible amount of effort is going into
standar
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>
> It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate
> when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line
> to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the wiki, part
> of t
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> 0. What names for the tree/repository.
Suggestions:
gentoo-repo
gentoo-repository
gentoo-main
gentoo-repo-main
gentoo-repository-main
> 1. We have some namespaces in Git: proj, dev, priv, data, sites, exp; should
>the tree be in one
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> Calling it "gentoo" makes sense, because the entire tree is what makes
> gentoo. But since it's namespaced in ebuilds/ and because ebuilds/ might
> have other gentoo-official repos too, then perhaps "gentoo-main" makes more
> sense.
T
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Instead of trying to emphasize it's the main repository, we ought to
> drop the notion of 'main repository'. That was the goal of all changes
> in Portage, so stop trying to regress for the sake of good ol' times.
>
But, if the goal is to d
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Starting with 2015-03-29, we are enabling the true multilib support
>> on amd64 and masking the old emul-linux-x86 package sets for removal.
>> This change provides
>
> I'm not a native spe
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 16 March 2015 at 21:54, Юра Цимбалов wrote:
>>> That would be great, but it depends on getting newer mpv stable, while
>>> (s)mplayer2 is dead and broken right now.
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=mplayer2&list_id=27
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> It is that ebuild tree that is the core to
> what makes it a gentoo system.
>
I think this is really the heart of your argument and others who feel
"gentoo" is the best name for the repository.
I'm not going to argue against that here. I'm
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> the rdepend on app-shells/zs
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> * Hanno Böck schrieb am 27.03.15 um 15:33 Uhr:
>>
>>
>> "Certificates are too expensive"
>> Gentoo already has certs for all pages, so this is not an argument
>> here, but if this ever becomes an issue there are a number of CAs these
>> d
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 27 March 2015 at 19:14, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> StartSSL in fact refuses to revoke certificates even when people
>> publish their private keys publicly. If you buy a previously-used
>> domain you m
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 29.03.2015 19:39, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:41:33 +0200 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>> So I would like to propose that
>>>
>>> * support for Git access through https:// is activated,
>>>
>>> * Git access through h
(crossposting to -dev since this is fairly high-impact)
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 30/03/15 03:43, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I also have dev-qt/qtcore-4.8.5-r2 and some other qt packages installed
>> but I had no problems with that.
>>
>> I'm on gentoo sta
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Davide Pesavento wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> qt is a pretty significant package to have break with multilib, and
>> trying to run qt-5 on a stable system is already a nightmare with the
>> qtchoo
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:11:34AM +0200, Matthias Maier wrote:
>>
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> One point in favor of the current practice (installing add-on files
>> unconditionally) is the fact that you can basically do it for free - you
>> neither
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 07:49:32PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Not everybody uses logrotate, xinetd, cron.d, and so on. It still
>> makes sense to just install the files, since they passively sit there
>> doin
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> - Do we have a policy regarding enablement of drop-in config files?
> - If so, what is it? Where is it documented?
> - If not, do we need a policy and what should it be?
> - Keep in mind that any policy needs to be technically feasible to im
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> They're pretty much decided on allowing both openssl and libressl to be
> installed concurrently and for a given application to use one or the
> other. The specific method for that packaging system is what they call a
> prefix; basically i
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
>
> Since as you point out the two packages are vastly API compatible, it makes
> them ABI incompatible and conflicting.
++
If they really want to improve the security of function calls that
they consider inherently secure, they should ju
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:35 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> You are ranting at the wrong place. If you want to make a difference,
> take this to the openbsd mailing lists.
>
It seems unlikely that this would make much of a difference. I think
that allowing this package to create another ffmpeg vs libav
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Jason Zaman wrote:
> I dont think it can be fixed without getting rid of the $Header$ line.
> I'd be all for it, those lines seem like more trouble than its worth to me.
Those problems cause headaches all over the place. I'll be very happy
to see them go when we
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Argument about saving Gentoo Foundation financial resources by
> using hardware for CI for free is heard and taken. This is a
> serious one and I can't argue here. But frankly it looks like to me
> that we are just selling our freedom, slo
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> Why should we not be able to benefit from really good closed-source
>> CI tools that are offered for free to the open-source community?
>
> Because it may not be in line with Gentoo politics.
>
>
>> Jenkins, Buildbot
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Berntsen
wrote:
>
> On 17/04/15 16:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> The problem is double effort: previously one developer effort was
>> needed, now effort is doubled at least
> You have correctly identified the problem; in order to do things
> properly on
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> The best argument I have for why the quizzes being what they are is they
> require you to engage with gentoo staff in order to get them answered, and
> thus ensure you know how to ask questions.
>
That, and that you're able to interact with
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:15 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 04/17/2015 07:15 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Berntsen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/04/15 16:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>> The problem is double effort: pr
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 9:03 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> Having a proper review workflow/platform increases the contribution
> factor of the community. And not just that.
Define "contribution factor." If you mean the number of people
writing patches vs the number of people with commit access, I'll
a
1801 - 1900 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
