On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Jonas Stein wrote:
>
> If you maintain one of these packages, please fix the SRC_URI and
> HOMEPAGE variables.
>
It would probably be better if the output included the maintainer.
Hopefully this isn't using anything deprecated, but you should be able
to steal from
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:30 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> Apologies, getting ahead of myself here .. there must be a portage
> utility, but I've forgotten which one interrogates metadata .. I'll
> defer to a more authoritative source ...
>
There might be a command line utility if you're doing things
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:25:39 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if standards like USB incorporated some kind of GUID.
>> I ended up having to write a udev rule for a pl2303 RS232 adapter to
>> ti
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:02 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> The plan, once the first release is out, is to rewrite this utility
>> in a better language. I'm considering C, but if I am comfortable by
>> that time in Go or Rust, I may use o
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 11/08/2016 10:44 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2016 05:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Dustin C. Hatch wrote:
> On 2016-11-14 23:09, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:23:10 -0600
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have been working on splitting the tmpfiles functionality out of
>>> OpenRC [1], and I believe the new package
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 16/11/16 06:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> On 16/11/16 06:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:09:59PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> In cases where all USE flags combinations are not being tested, it is
> still recommended to test:
> * with all USE flags enabled
> * with all USE flags disabled
> * the default USE flag settings
>
I imagine that in practice only the la
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 17/11/16 20:16, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Michael Palimaka
>> wrote:
>>> * A leaf package such as {{package|kde-apps/kcalc}} may not require any
>>> runtime testing at a
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating banning runtime testing. I just
> think that, considering the state of the stable tree, we should consider
> very careful in which situations we actually gain value from it. That's
> for another threa
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> Realistically, software should ensure the directories it needs at
> runtime are created through their own code, but upstreams are lazy and
> so they don't bother because, hey, we can have this tmpfiles.d *.conf
> file to have the system
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
> For instance, the systemd-tmpfiles implementation has some
> features concerning btrfs which are not (yet) supported by
> opentmpfiles. Some users might want to use that features.
>
Well, this was the main reason I suggested that we could j
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:57:26 +
> "Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
>
>> - eg metadata.xml (nothing for user systems is impacted by it, other
>>than to give output about packages).
>
> Idle thought: Given there are classes of vulnerabilit
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Alice Ferrazzi wrote:
>>
>> What about maintainers that are away without writing it in their
>> maintainer bug ?
>> After how many days of no replay can be fair to touch their package ?
>
> If a developer
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote:
>
> I beg affiliated Gentoo developers to stay sane and be thinking not just
> about numbers of your commits, but also about community spirit and
> relationships. Of course inexperienced contributor gets things not right
> first. In such cases,
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> OT, who runs Gentoo
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 12:21:55 AM EST Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
>> There's also our downstream neighbors: Funtoo, Pentoo, Sabayon,
>> Calculate, Exherbo, etc
>
> Two of those are more of a splinter of the
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:08 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2016 2:10:27 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hi, everyone.
>>
>> I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being
>> started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different projects
>> that I'
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:20 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
>
> Which was one of the last articles Gentoo mentioned in on Distro watch, till I
> believe the OnHub router. Based around that topic, quoting Ciaran.
>
> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future
>
> Most interesting abo
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:47 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 9:33:00 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 12/03/2016 09:25 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> >> This is generally considered infeasible:
>> > I would not think such, just need a wrapper to run aroun
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 5:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> There is also the charitable donation and write off aspect. Which they may be
> able to do. But since Gentoo has never received official 501c6 status or any
> from the IRS. I am not sure if companies or anyone can actually write off a
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:24 PM, A. Wilcox wrote:
>
> The original intention wasn't to guess, but I see how PMS is more for
> things that are determined at run-time by the package manager rather
> than static variables.
>
To be clear, PMS is more about package manager behavior, and what
you're de
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:27 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>
> I do, but only usually if its the last package of an emerge because
> otherwise its lost many many thousands of lines upwards. Thank goodness
> for portage's savelog feature. - Actually that reminds me .. someone
> mentioned a useful tweak
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 20:49:02 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300
>> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Description how to test this package...
>> >
>>
>> Alternatively, why not have a metatag that just
>>
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an
>> associated category atoms?
>
> Sets /are/ still dependency specifications, in that reading, just like
>
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because it isn't
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> For security's sake, even mature software needs, at minimum, routine auditing.
> Unless someone's doing that work, the package should be considered for
> removal. (Call that reason #π, in honor of TeX.)
>
Are you suggesting that we should
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> Ideas like this is one reason I'm looking for a corpus of pros and cons for
> treecleaning. I don't see it as black and white. But having ideas like these
> brought up is at least useful.
>
Sure, and almost any rule has its exceptions. My t
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> In that, by making the submitter resolve it all, its either "good" or "bad"
>
> Instead of leaving the person doing the testing in a confused state about
> which packages
> are expected to be used.
>
Well, assuming that a human is actually
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> If packages had a field called "BUGS=" it could contain an array of
> bugs a package is known to contain, but can be conditionally avoided if
> you're careful.
>
> Packages with non-empty BUGS= fields would be treated as hard-masked
> for th
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> So my understanding of the status quo is that maintainers get to make the
> call with regard to what is reasonable to keep or drop. I'm loathe to add
> additional policy here; mostly because the expectation is that the
> maintainer has the mo
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>
> If gentoo-dev feel the need to set Reply-To in my place, then gentoo-
> dev-announce should do the same and not throw my mail into /dev/null,
> but into some regular moderation rules after setting the Reply-To
> itself then.
>
Not all repli
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval, L, 07.01.2017 kell 14:18, kirjutas Rich Freeman:
>>
>> Not all replies to gentoo-dev-announce should go to gentoo-dev. Some
>> belong on gentoo-project, or maybe even gentoo-nfp or some other less
&
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic infrastructure
> for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to keep it simple,
> and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able to start defining
> some mix-ins without
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I should point out that:
>>
>> 1) CI is detecting this kind of issues much faster than you are,
>> and reporting them both to the committer and to a *dedicated* mailing
>> list, so
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> You don't really have to care what UID/GID is assigned, because each
> user/group will only be created once and referenced by name (as $PN). By
> default, we could pick the first available UID in most packages.
I might be not following
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/27/2017 01:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't really seem like a problem though. Just have a table
>> somewhere (wiki?) to track who is using what UID/GID and encode those
>> defaults in
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> My first impression is that any package that doesn't care
> about its UID should default to "first available", but if that causes
> problems, then that's exactly the sort of use case I'm looking for.
>
The ones I listed before were filesy
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Patrick McLean wrote:
>
> I don't think we need to have stable UIDs/GIDs in the "normal" case of
> standalone users with a single Gentoo system at home.
Of course, but as you point out the enterprise case has more
sophisticated solutions. I think the case of some
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:13:53 -0600
> "A. Wilcox" wrote:
>
>> Having a file that user.eclass would use to map new users/groups to
>> IDs would be extremely beneficial to me. I was thinking about diving
>> in to that some time later, after
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/27/2017 11:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> It isn't like inconsistent UIDs are the end of the world. However,
>> IMO it still makes sense to at least try to standardize such things.
>> Real
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> And we should be keeping the @system essentials set required for new
> installations
> to be as minimal as possible without losing functionality.
>
Keep in mind that it is pretty safe to put openrc in package.provided,
well, as long as you
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:00 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>
> Are there any useful checks or behaviors of repoman that are missing
> from pkgcheck and pkgcommit?
Would it make sense to package pkgcommit or otherwise stick it
somewhere official? I know there is a copy on mgorny's github
repo/blog, but if
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:05 PM Sam James wrote:
> > On 5 Apr 2022, at 22:13, Jonas Stein wrote:
> >
> >> In other words, what are we actually getting by having _both_ SHA2-512
> >> and BLAKE2b for every file in every Manifest?
> >
> > Implementations are often broken and we have to expect zero da
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:29 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> Sort of. The security between infra and users relies on SHA2-512. The
> security between devs and infra relies on SHA-1. I guess the "full
> system" depends on both, but I've been focused on the more likely
> issue of a community-run mir
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 6:49 AM wrote:
>
> Is there some hook to emerge I can use where I can attach some code to
> run tests after each individual package when doing emerge @world ?
>
So, Portage has hooks, and that would work for any file being
installed normally (so would config protection and
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 7:21 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
> It had 3 states however:
> a) go ahead and touch it, no additional approvals needed
> b) please get a maintainer to approve it
> c) do not touch it
>
++
Though to be fair b is really no different from what just about
anybody can do via a
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:42 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
>
> It appears that we have at least two options here:
>
> A) Establish that the default is non-maintainer-commits-welcome, and
> introduce a metadata element.
>
> B) Declare the default to be unspecified and introduce two metadata
> element
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:11 AM Marek Szuba wrote:
>
> On 2022-07-25 15:35, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> > Please only do that based on proven merit and nothing else.
>
> https://pthree.org/2018/05/23/do-not-use-sha256crypt-sha512crypt-theyre-dangerous/
> , https://www.password-hashing.net/ , the fact
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 4:57 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> While then can not be modified, settings made in /usr/lib/systemd/system
> can be overridden by the sysadmin by placing a file in /etc/systemd/system.
>
> I am not aware of a reason why a package manger should install systemd
> configurati
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James wrote:
>
> > On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> >> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually
> >> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:34 PM John Helmert III wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 07:23:33PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Proprietary tools do contribute to this since they can
> > generate results that are harder to reproduce, but if they are clear
> > and accurate
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 7:48 AM m1027 wrote:
>
> When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for
> older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world
> updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc.
So, unless you're proposing some improvement this migh
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 9:13 AM orbea wrote:
>
> Protecting users from themselves can be a misfeature. Its better to
> educate and then let them freely choose than to play as their nanny.
>
TL;DR - it makes sense to unconditionally install prebuilt manpages,
but not to require pulling in dependen
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 2:40 PM Gerion Entrup wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2023, 01:09:30 CEST schrieb Oskari Pirhonen:
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 21:56:26 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > Developing it requires PMS work in addition to package manager
> > > development, because it int
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:54 PM Sam James wrote:
> juippis' whole email nails the issue, but I'd just like to add that
> there's kind of a baseline at ~400/~450 or so where everything below
> that is PRs for new packages or long-obsolete stuff nobody closed yet,
> or where we're waiting on the su
On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:34 AM Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> I'd like to add
>
> sec-keys/openpgp-keys-gentoo-release
>
> to @system - any objections?
>
> This is more of a formal request since portage already depends on it anyway,
> and
> the package is present in every stage3. However, it i
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 10:34 PM orbea wrote:
>
> Regardless the disappointment is a valid concern when Gentoo is willing
> to pull the rug up from under users feet under erroneous claims of the
> project being dead.
>
As a complete outsider, I think this conversation is focusing on the
wrong iss
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:36 AM Eddie Chapman wrote:
> in Gentoo. Have any of these 4 maintainers publicly said (anywhere) that
> they are not interested in being maintainers anymore (which is fine if
> that is the case)? We're not talking here about a lone maintainer of some
> peripheral package
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:50 PM Eddie Chapman wrote:
>
> if people want to run the damn thing just let them be!
If you keep using eudev, and you don't tell anybody about it, then
they won't even know. Nobody is keeping anybody from using eudev.
They're just not actively doing work to keep it w
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 1:39 PM Eddie Chapman wrote:
>
> If you don't like it, then just go and roll your own. Of course
> I know I (and anyone else) can do that. So then what's the point of
> discussing anything then?
This is a fair question, but I think you're missing how most FOSS work
gets do
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to
> look into formally addressing the related concerns.
> 1. Copyright concerns.
I do think it makes sense to consider some of this.
However, I feel like the proposal is r
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:50 PM Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>
> I know that GitHub Copilot can be limited to licenses, and even to just
> the current repository. Even though, I'm not sure that the copyright can
> be attributed to "me" and not the "AI" - so still gray area.
So, AI copyright is a bit of
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 3:06 AM Dale wrote:
>
> when I got to the part about it not likely to affect Gentoo, my level of
> concern dropped significantly. If this is still true, there's no need to be
> concerned.
"not likely" is the best way to characterize this. The exploit has
not been fully
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:57 AM Eddie Chapman wrote:
>
> No, this is the the bad actor *themselves* being a
> principal author of the software, working stealthily and in very
> sophisticated ways for years, to manoeuvrer themselves and their software
> into a position of trust in the ecosystem wh
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> I have never once been able to grab a portage snapshot and build a
> stage 1, 2, 3 series from it without encountering at least a couple of
> problems with the tree.
Ditto - the latest issue I've run into is: 443472. Probably won't
impact the
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Does it really have to be useflag? Can't we simply just install the
> file every time like we do with everything else? Logrotate/normal
> initscripts/etc/etc.
>
> There should be no issue with that if we install the service files
> every time,
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Second, the Portage tree snapshots are now installed through emerge-webrsync
> (which means the entire section on downloading the tarballs, checking
> integrity, extracting is now a single paragraph).
Uh, does emerge-webrsync have some kind
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Fernando Reyes
wrote:
> grub seems out of the questions because of licensing issues.
What licensing issues? Just distribute the source. If the Gentoo
Foundation goes into the hardware business and starts distributing
hardware that only boots Gentoo-signed grub b
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes
wrote:
> I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from
> using grub on the livedvd.
Well, if some perceived legal constraint is keeping us from doing
whatever seems to be technically most appropriate we should
investigat
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine
> with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side.
> There's a statement about this somewhere on their site if you are
> curious.
>
> The only one objectin
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 19:59, Greg KH wrote:
>> The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode,
>> sorry. You will have to disable it in order to boot a Gentoo image,
>> which is fine, but there's no reason why Gentoo can'
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 01:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> The shim might work, but I'd hardly call it "secure boot" if every
>> motherboard manufacturer and OEM in the world has the ability to sign
>> things, even
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> If there are more dummy packages then a separate category seems good
> idea (and thanks for that), but if mine is the only case then i don't
> see a reason for that
I'd prefer to not see a bunch of these, but having a single dummy
packag
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> +1 , the ability to install older versions of software or legacy
> software is one of the reasons I switched to Gentoo in the first
> place. There is of course a point when these packages can no longer
> be maintained, but until that hap
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> I, on the other hand, hope that this isn't an indication of Gentoo not being
> interested in systemd. I'm eagerly awaiting the moment where I can "emerge
> systemd" and just have it working.
Gentoo is a community - of which you are a
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> The systemd developers were in the middle of a transition to the LGPL
> from the GPL when we forked. We inherited the code in the middle of that
> transition and we see no reason to pursue a different course. Therefore,
> all future ch
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>
> eudev is a Gentoo project is not Gentoo. Same could be said for OpenRC.
>
OpenRC isn't a Gentoo project, at least, it wasn't in the past.
The social contract defines Gentoo as a collection of free knowledge,
which includes "free softwar
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> So it's probably a user exercise?
It already is a user exercise. A stage3 doesn't even contain the
/usr/portage directory - you manually create it per the handbook (or
more likely let tar/etc do it for you.
I also would like to see distfi
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> All trouble can be saved by asking user to recompile package with
> relevant flags on bug report, resolving the bug as NEEDINFO. Instead of
> forcing everybody out there using Gentoo to have additional XGb for
> debug, patching troublesome p
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> Outsource it to someone who has the knowledge and interest in doing
> this. The foundation has the funds to support it, and none of us
> actually have the time to invest in a complete webpage redesign.
Before we considered undertaking th
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> So please stop giving this stupid suggestion, which causes enough grief
> as it is without being repeated once again.
Uh, sure, insofar as it is possible to stop doing something that
you've done exactly once... :)
However, I've found
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Suppose the team in [1] above wrote the specification, who needs to
>> agree it?
>>
>
> I don't think the whole body of devs has to agree to it. The trustees
> definitely have to, sinc
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> > This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was
>> > pushed through that separate /usr without an init
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:25 AM, George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Thursday 20 December 2012 09:11:39 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > /var/cache/repositories/local<== the new location for a local overlay
>>
>> Also I wonder if local overlays should be in /var/cache? It might not
>> always be possible t
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> No one has proposed moving everything to /usr. At the minimum, we would
> still have /etc and /var in /, as well as various mountpoints. If we do
> move those to /usr, then we effectively renamed / to /usr, which is
> pointless. The absurdity o
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 20/12/2012 17:16, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> /var/cache/portage/distfiles
>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/gentoo
>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/{sunrise,kde,gnome,whatever,layman,grabs}
>> /var/db/portage/repositories/{non-cache
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 11:58 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> I didn't know that. Last I knew, stable portage had special-case
>> acceptance of @system and @world to prepare the way, but I hadn't seen
>> that full /etc/portage/sets/* and /var/lib/portage/world_sets
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 20/12/12 01:12 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
>> What about /usr/portage/licenses, for example? Some of the
>> licenses are required to be present on the system if the
>> corresponding software is installed. So users cannot legally remove
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> If only a small subset of licenses require it, then maybe we should just
> use dodoc on those licenses that require it. Saving all licenses could
> be overkill.
Seems like a reasonable compromise. I would think such licenses would
be rare.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I could MAYBE understand it if they're consuming some valuable
> resource that we need to free up by retiring them. But instead they
> get a nasty-gram about their impending retirement and decide if that's
> how they are to be treated that
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:32:25AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> 1. Are you party to any *copyright assignment* (eg FSF copyright assignment)?
>
> You need to rephrase this to be (in order for it to make any sense):
> Are you party to any *c
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 21 December 2012 17:36, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:21:57 +
>> Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Your tone is not appropriate for discussion. If you don't like the
>>> existing policy, bring it to the list with a bett
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/12/12 03:10 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
>> An init* needs to be kept in sync with the rest of the system as
>> well.
>
> Just to be clear, by "init*" you mean {initrd,initramfs} , correct?
Seems likely.
However, for the most part it
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 12/23/2012 02:06 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Markos Chandras
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see "free" as "dump a lot of orthogonally related packages on to
>> the herd that is listed but really the other he
On Dec 26, 2012 8:46 AM, "Eray Aslan" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 06:42:36AM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote:
> > Would it be prudent to coordinate Gentoo documentation changes with the
above?
>
> Ugh, I wasn't aware of any documentation that needs to be changed and a
> quick look/search did not t
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the
>> council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an
>> initramfs, I am re-considering this.
>
> So
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> There's no reason we /can't/ have a comparable process for CVS to
> eliminate needless slopping of files around in pastebins/emails, both
> of which are time consuming and not designed for doing exactly that.
>...
>(lots of descriptions of fan
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> As I and others have said on this list a thousdand times, moving
> everything to /usr never had anything to do with systemd and udev. This
> is a completely separate topic.
Understood. However, the whole request to not have to support a
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:49:50PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Understood. However, the whole request to not have to support a
>> separate /usr without an initramfs was brought up by the udev team.
>> If udev doesn&
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 15:14 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Go bring up the suggestion that the kernel should support direct
>> booting on lkml
>
> And be pointed at EFI_STUB functionality. Next?
I
701 - 800 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
