On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when
> bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and
> eventually removed from the tree.
What is the benefit from removing the old EAPIs?
>
> Take, f
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> I think you may miss the meaning of "should". It's not the same as
> "must".
Is it a policy or not? If it is a policy we can ignore at our own
discretion, then by all means pass it, and we can all do whatever we
like, as we already are.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
>> Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:59:07 schrieb hasufell:
>>> Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know
>>> any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every developer
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:02 +0100 as excerpted:
> Some minimum time/versions (say six months) before a PM drops support for
> it, on PM upgrades it starts warning about the coming drop of EAPI-X
> suppor
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
> virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of every
> single ebuild.
Every ebuild doesn't need all of those - that is the whole point. As
Duncan already pointed ou
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Let's say, we as in Gentoo decide that we're completely sick of keeping all
> that old code out there adjusted to newer and newer gcc versions that are more
> and more critical towards minor details of the c++ standards. So, we declar
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered
>> mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is to
>> have all the deps specified
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:51:08 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> Such a goals may be good for distributions like Exherbo which aim to
>> make everything perfect. I believe that Gentoo aims more around 'good
>> enough but at least realistic', instead
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Vaeth wrote:
> So in any case, for the _user_ an EAPI bump is (with the current EAPIs)
> always a benefit. This should be worth to establish the policy currently.
Your example only cited cases where an EAPI bump to 5 has a benefit.
If that is the case, I'm fine wit
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:03 AM, hasufell wrote:
> PMS is a fraction of what is to consider when writing an ebuild. It does
> not include QA policies, gentoo policies and whatnot.
True, although at least somebody bothers to write PMS down...
Much of the rest is word of mouth, posts on mailing lis
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so
> complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance...
Ok, it REALLY annoys me when people pull out this kind of a line
in an argument... If it i
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> The complexity would become:
> O((b + r + p) * P)
> b = amount of buildtime dependencies
> r = amount of runtime dependencies
> p = amount of post-dependencies
> P = amount of packages i need to apply the filter to
>
> Instead of just:
> O(b
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Uhm. O(n) == O(n/2). Anything assuming they're different is just wrong.
We're basically debating definitions. O notation is used to indicate
how algorithms scale and nobody uses O(n/2) and such as a result.
An algorithm that is twice as s
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> If there's really no reason, why would anyone bother to file a bug for
> it? It's better for developers than the must-bump policy, and better for
> users than what we have now.
What change is even being proposed? If there is an issue that
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> From a developer's perspective, it's obviously better to be able to do
> whatever you want. But for users it'd be nice to be able to request a
> bump to EAPI5 and not get told to buzz off.
It is easy. Don't ask for a bump to EAPI5. Ask f
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/11/2012 09:54 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> At the ebuild level, certainly, but that's one of the reasons for
>> EJOBS in the first place, so that it can be overridden consistently
>> within a phase, if necessary for the ebuild (regardles
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> I can agree that a server would probably want a static configuration,
> but all work stations do not use gnome, kde, etc.
>
Most do not run unix, but at work I can't think of any servers that
are using static configurations. They might be
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> So you would want to be re-CC'd when it is time to remove the vulnerable
> versions, I guess.
Isn't this done shortly after keywording is complete? I think the
concern is more about issuing GLSAs/etc, which apparently can happen
months o
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 13-09-2012 a las 15:48 +0200, Alex Legler escribió:
>> Sorta OT but a general thing: I think you should CC teams you want to
>> talk to and not only use the gentoo-systemd-flamewars^W^W-dev mailing
>> list where these teams might only f
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Alex Legler wrote:
> A general note: The request makes one wonder a bit how much you actually
> care about your package if a few emails disturb you. Arches, Security,
> and users reporting issues are trying to help you get the package into a
> good shape.
I suspec
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> >> > I kinda like jabberd.
>> >>
>> >> So step up and take on maintainership of that package.
>> >
>> > I would have, had I been a developer.
>>
>> You don't have to be a developer:
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pro
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 22:12 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> So what is the Zen of Gentoo?
>
> My set-up is better than your set-up ;-)
>
For the 80% solution there is Ubuntu. For the 99% solution there is
debian. For the other 1%, t
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> So, either we should only mark free software with the as-is label.
> Then it might help if the text was clarified as in the patch below.
>
> Or we continue marking random non-free stuff with as-is. Then we
> should IMHO remove as-is from our
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> - net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some
> parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I
> haven't checked in detail what gets installed).
Uh, if we're distributing the sources, and they contain
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the LICENSE
> variable applies to the source tarball or to the files that the
> package installs on the user's system.
Hmm, if these aren't the same, then more likely than not somethin
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
>
> If "as-is" will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible
> license should I use instead for such packages?
HPND as long as the license meets the description within the file. If
you've been applying the logic you stated
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the
>> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this.
>
> I'm aware that we can't distinguish
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
wrote:
> Maybe someone with good cvs knowledge can contribute a hook for irker
> [1], so we can have #gentoo-commits flooding our irc clients again! :)
Why exactly are we still using cvs? Rather than building enhancements
for cvs, why not
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> I don't know to what depth this has been discussed in the past, but if
> you use git, you also get an HTTP transport, which has a useful
> feature: You could simplify updating the tree on end-users's machines
> by using caching proxy servers (op
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
wrote:
> Have you ever thought that people may be not really interested on this
> move? or don't have the time to work on it? or don't care enough to
> spend time on it? or just wants someone else to do the work?
>
I'd thought of every sing
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Why exactly are we still using cvs? Rather than building enhancements
>> for cvs, why not just migrate everything to git, and spend our time
>> building the git h
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
>
> And I suggest we stop here. We have a different mailing list for this
> and it's getting tiring.
Ok, looking at the archives as far as I can tell nobody is really
monitoring that list (a post requesting a status update went
unanswered
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Davide Pesavento wrote:
>
> Is it possible to disable the JIT engine?
Well, if you're going to wholesale disable functionality, how about
client-side rendering? It drives me nuts as it is REALLY SLOW!!!
That is, unless the graphics hardware is local to the client
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 5 October 2012 22:28, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> Should dev-lang/v8 get p.masked on x32 profile, or is there some better
>> way to handle it? What are your suggestions?
>
> From what Diego wrote about it, I would say we shouldn't spend
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> Sure. Preferences are great. Until said preferences mean that bugs that
> _are_ 100% valid get closed, repeatedly, without being looked at.
I can't speak to the specifics of whatever the elephant in the room
is, but keep in mind that w
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why you think
> having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many
> systems. like servers. the desktop and developer profiles are not
> appropriate.
I t
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
> profiles anyway?
Looking at the act
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> Indeed. Hardened server profile does not fit in all cases, some
> non-hardened server profile should exist, BUT without this warning(if
> it's usable, of course), and probably with better support.
Well, support is mainly a matter of people st
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
> include a description so that people know the intention of each one. the only
> marker we had before was implicitly in the name (".../server" and
> ".../desktop"
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> That's nice. Can we also add some basic policies on key format (key
> length, validity) and get a centrally-hosted keyring?
>
> Then it'd even make sense for us to start using the whole signing thing
> now :)
Well, if we're going to do that
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less
> using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is
> the advantage for a new ebuild to still rely on old src_compile phase
> instead of src_prepare/confi
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red
>> herring. The fact that there are packages written in Erlang in the
>> tree doe
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I didn't think eapi4 features were still "unfamiliar" to so many
> people... let's say, what about deprecating eapi1, 2 and 0 for newer
> ebuilds? Is eapi2 so unfamiliar also to not force it as older eapi for
> newer ebuilds (eapi3 changes loo
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Personally I see no major difficult in moving to eapi4, what exact
> difficult are you (I mean people still sticking with eapi0/1) seeing?
It is harder than cp. :)
If I write a new ebuild I would always target the most recent EAPI.
However,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> This is not about "having problems with handling eapi-X", this is just
> about limited time and the choice where to spend that time. If you do
> just a version bump, you often dont have to touch the ebuild at all,
> just copy, test, commit an
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Sentences in English not only need to end with a dot but also require a
> subject
> and a predicate.
Another repoman check? And don't forget the topic for Japanese.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> That time you think you are saving, will be need to be lost if, for
> example, some QA policy appears in the future to move to try to run
> tests in parallel when possible, or force verbose output.
So you're suggesting that I should invest 15
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Matthew Thode
wrote:
> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
> of licensing concerns.
>
> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/
That doesn't really look like a license to me. It seems to be more
like the terms of us
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I'm confident no one would
> attempt to block my adding eselect-bzip2 to the tree (aside from my poor
> coding skills),
++
> but would anyone be interested in blocking using lbzip2
> by default? It seems pretty safe and I've do
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> In particular, if I hear such an answer from anybody (be it for icu or
> something else, be it for a minor inconsistency or a total fuckup), I'll
> be requesting devrel to re-evaluate their commit rights, as they are
> missing the unders
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I expect that anyone and everyone who contribute to any open source
> project will do their damndest to contribute only "perfect" work.
Setting aside issues of tone, I want to touch on the more direct issue
of "quality" and "perfection."
I do
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> You're free to disagree and not become a developer. But with commit
> _rights_ come commit _responsibility_. If you commit something for
> somebody else, you're still responsible if it breaks somebody else's
> package, it doesn't exempt
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
>> out upstream.
>
> *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
> people who're usin
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>
> If you're going to file bugs "in a semi-automated manner", might as
> well try to assign to the correct maintainer?
How about a policy - no automated bugs may be logged to the bug
wranglers without their prior approval/review.
I wouldn'
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:18 AM, wrote:
> Maybe you should remember that non-devs simply /aren't allowed/ to
> assign bugs correctly...
>
> And if you look closer into these bugs, you might discover that jer
> instructed this guy to file separate bugs. (see #440178)
>
Fair points, and clearly th
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> eclass/ handling should go to repoman and the automated ChangeLog process,
> should be rather straight forward for knowing person.
Perhaps, but right now the policy is to update it, so do it. The
policy is also to post eclass changes for
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> He's right tho: the topic was "Why doesn't your tinderbox work with
> overlays?" Your response was to insult Arfrever and not actually answer
> the point.
Well, nobody is paying Diego to make a tinderbox that works with
overlays. He actual
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> One option that's been presented to me is to add restrict mirror (I
> don't think restricting fetch is needed, but meh what do I know). That
> sound acceptable?
The last time I looked at the ebuild that was already done. We have
no other ch
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> So you think we need to restrict fetch so we can let the user know about
> the licensing thing?
No. If a user wants Gentoo to help them stay on top of their licenses
there is already a mechanism for this - ACCEPT_LICENSE. The spotify
"licen
Wow, that's some kind of thread you started... :) I'll respond in
general to a bunch of stuff on this list by topic.
COUNCIL MEETING
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> So, that's a nice summary, but, what is the end result here?
>
Speaking as somebody who was there, but not
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
wrote:
> So, I really hope, that Gentoo will not obey RedHat's will and will not
> force SystemD as default init system, and not drop pretty OpenRC to
> trash. And I hope, that ryao's eudev will be most used (if not default)
> variant of
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
wrote:
> If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some
> disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't sponsored by
> Gentoo, but this udev-ng/eudev/whatever thing does the opposite and
> actually adver
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
wrote:
> Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
> being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and create
> a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any review of the
> council. I agree
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> So here is the question I'll pose. Is it worth all of that extra
> work for us to support separate /usr correctly, or should we just tell
> everyone to start using initramfs or, if they don't want to use
> initramfs and they are just using p
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
>> Hmm, pretty cool! Then I can create a stupid project, put it on gentoo
>> infra and claim it as being Gentoo sponsored. Good to know, thanks!
>>
>
> Just to make it clear
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of
> a file, although it is generally considered something that you really
> should not do at all (see your local copyright laws/rules for details.)
Agreed that removing the l
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law,
> and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "major
> change to add your copyright, and even then, there's an agreed apon
> standard to follow). Because
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
wrote:
> 18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
>> You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
>> other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
>
> So, why not to make /usr/bin -> ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bi
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
> PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I can't vouch for what the first issue that arose was, but I do
recall discussion that bluetooth keyboards
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> I'm glad someone else on this list finally realizes that udev did not break
> separate /usr on its own. I've been trying to explain this to people
> here for ages.
>
> It isn't just programs that use libraries in /usr/lib that are broken.
> A
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit
>
> I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within
> a file, or even a single line, all depending on things.
Yup - any creative expression is copyr
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> Debian / Ubuntu have a tool that basically does this. Its
> update-initramfs. I believe it is called from..the postinst of
> packages that are supposed to be in the initramfs? honestly I'd have
> to look up how they implemented it.
Not a ba
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and
>> remove my name from the copyright line" and then sue you for doing it?
>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
>> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
>> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
>> for any change.
>
> It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it
> resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone
> was supposed to sign a piece of paper agreeing to turn over all their
> floppy disks and monitors to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> Sorry Rich, are you freaking kidding me? Europe would need to change
> laws? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
>
> There's a very simple way to handle this and it doesn't require changing
> laws that are perfectly fine for most people living
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Anyway, the commit is gone, which is good, thank you for deleting the
> branch. Please be more careful about doing such things in the future.
> We really don't want to get the Foundation in trouble by doing this type
> of thing.
Honestly, much of
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> One of the functions of the foundation exists to handle legal matters.
> Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership
> over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a
> corporation would for its emplo
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 10:24 Fri 16 Nov , Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Justin wrote:
>> > does anybody like to setup an Organization[1] profile @ ohloh for Gentoo?
>>
>> I've shot them a message, let's see what happens.
>
> L
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> I dislike this territorialism. Why add a single point of failure to
>> package maintenance? (What if you or Pavel "disappear" for any reason?)
>>
> Sadly ( or not ;-) ) these are the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Moreover, the maintainers may have a few changes stashed for the next
> bump to avoid people rebuilding the package unnecessarily.
++
I know I sometimes keep bugs open for precisely this opportunity.
Sometimes I even have updated ebuilds/pat
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> .. For certain things, I think it would be very beneficial for this
> to be true (other dev's welcome to touch) across the tree. Maybe if
> there is enough general support for it, we should change our default
> of "never touch a maintain
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> From the point of view of the licencor, the licence is just as
> important as the code, so there are no trivial licence issues.
> As a trustee, I am unhappy with losing the traceability at all.
> Other trustees may have different opinions.
Not
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> But there _are_ trivial cases (e.g., most of the init script issues,
> bug 425702) where a simple ChangeLog entry would be enough for
> traceability.
I think something like that is best announced first, and then done if
there is no issue
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The key words are "serious" or "contact from the copyright holder."
Sorry - revise that a little:
1. Serious and they don't get a timely response from the maintainer
(or licenses@g.o).
or
2. Contact from the c
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> If you horribly break my package, you may hear about it, but you
> certainly won't get yelled at for fixing my bugs or bumping a package.
While I think there is a balance to be found, keep in mind that you as
the developer aren'
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> If you have a bug on bugzie that
> is more than a week old and it affects me, you can bet I will fix it and
> the notification you get will be the one from me closing your bug. If
> you have an issue with that maybe you should fi
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> along those lines, a news entry is probably not even necessary.
So, users will just suddenly have their binary change names, and will
need to manually move config files and update logrotate.d files (if in
use), and the only notice will be i
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:30 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:58:32PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> https://www.ohloh.net/orgs/gentoo
>
> I'm not a dev, and I haven't really been following this thread, but
> all the other organization summaries start out with something lik
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne Pá 30. listopadu 2012 20:37:22, Pacho Ramos napsal(a):
>> media-sound/logitechmediaserver-bin -> this package is "special", it's
>> maintained by a proxy maintainer but it was reassigned to
>> maintainer-needed instead of proxy-maint herd
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Bundling few libs and bundling 40 of them is bit of difference, will YOU do
> the audit?
We don't require security audits for packages to be in portage. Any
package can have a security problem, whether it is in a bundled lib or
otherwise. B
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> Look, if you want to make a policy about the stuff, then make a
> policy, get council approval, and write it down.
> Don't make up silly half-solutions.
Sure, but I'm not aware of any policy at all concerning packages that
contain bundled libra
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Only question is now what is a sane soft limit, before you go on and fix
> stuff.
> From a discussion in #gentoo-dev we thought 2-4 weeks depending on the
> severity of the bug is fine. Ofc this should exclude major changes or
> delicate packages
Lots of people wrote:
> Various good points.
Keep in mind that Gentoo users, even sysadmins, aren't expected to
read -dev. That means that when things like profile changes happen
they have no idea why, or what the impact will be.
That's why we have news. It seems like we put out all of about 3
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X)
> on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in
> the base one.
The base profile isn't "headless server" - it is just generic.
Somebody could create a he
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> The upstream defaults would
> build on top of the minimal base profile, in plain old package.use. In
> the profile is exactly where the upstream defaults belong in an
> "upstream defaults" profile.
>
> I think (base == minimal) is the si
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added
> to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad,
I'll go further and say that it is unacceptably bad.
> but if
> (base == upstream-defaults), then
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM, james wrote:
>
> I think that unikernels are something everyone should be aware of
> as they purport to be the latest trend in securing all sorts of systems.
> (a brief read).
>
Not really for all sorts, more for servers. Otherwise I get it, and
at this point now
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:28 PM, james wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 04:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> The problem is the new user experience. When somebody is new to
>> Gentoo and not super-knowledgeable the first thing they're going to do
>> is set up a desktop
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>>
>>> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added
>>> to package.u
201 - 300 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
