> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
kernel modules are only available in the form of ebuilds right
now, but they your data should be safe unless you go o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Have you tried ZFS? The kernel modules are in the portage tree and I
am maintaining a FAQ regarding the status of Gentoo ZFS support at github:
https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ
Data stored on ZFS is generally safe unless you go out o
> Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
> ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
> likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of people who are
> most likely to not be running Gentoo. There are a bazillion problems
> with btrfs
> Why would btrfs be inferior to ZFS on multiple disks? I can't see how
> its architecture would do any worse, and the planned features are
> superior to ZFS (which isn't to say that ZFS can't improve either).
ZFS uses ARC as its page replacement algorithm, which is superior to
the LRU page repla
> That isn't my understanding as far as raidz reshaping goes. You can
> create raidz's and add them to a zpool. You can add individual
> drives/partitions to zpools. You can remove any of these from a zpool
> at any time and have it move data into other storage areas. However,
> you can't resha
I am not a developer yet, but I would like to suggest some idea possibilities:
Minix port of Gentoo
Illumos port of Gentoo
LLVM/Clang System Compiler Support
ICC System Compiler Support (probably easier than LLVM/Clang)
Port of Gentoo/FreeBSD to amd64 (or other architectures)
Gentoo/FreeBSD KVM po
These must be maintained indefinitely to provide an upgrade path for
older Gentoo Linux installations. It is rare, but people do upgrade
old installs from time to time. Without some EAPI=1 packages, there is
no path for people to use to upgrade.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
On 03/12/12 11:57, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring wrote:
>> Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled
>> xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality
>> since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call
>
On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers
>> wrote:
>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite
>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc,
>>> et
On 03/14/12 16:55, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 01:03 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I do not have a separate /usr partition, however I agree with Joshua
>> Kinard's stance regarding the /usr move. The point of having a separate
>> /usr was to enable UNIX to exceed th
On 03/14/12 17:04, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:57:52PM +, David Leverton wrote:
>> Would anyone else like to continue with their own favourite
>> separate-/usr reason?
>
> Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
> and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes eve
On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:39:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> With that said, I have a few questions:
>>
>> 1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all?
>
> It has been pointed out before, why constantly repeat our
being merged will
> actually work :)
>
> greg k-h
I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:
On 03/14/12 17:05, Richard Yao wrote:
> In the meantime, it should be possible to create a global usr USE flag
>
On 03/14/12 19:44, Greg KH wrote:
> Now, to get back to what I said before, I'm done with this thread, it's
> going nowhere, and it seems I'm just making it worse, my apologies. For
> penance, I'll adopt the next abandoned package someone throws at me, any
> suggestions?
Bug #360513 needs work. S
On 03/14/12 20:36, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico wrote:
>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>
> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
> something to ma
On 03/14/12 21:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
>> Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:
>>
>
> Then go ahead and make
On 03/14/12 21:06, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 05:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 03/14/12 20:36, David Leverton wrote:
>>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>>>
On 03/15/12 08:40, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> I already looked in the tree and nothing really stands out as a suitable
> replacement for /dev management. mdev might, but it's part of busybox and
> not standalone as far as I know (at least, we don't have an independent
> package for it).
Busybox is in
On 03/15/12 08:34, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 19:27, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> 2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device?
>>>
>>> unionfs is still a "work in progress"
On 03/15/12 22:43, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> On 03/15/2012 10:41, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There's always mudev if you don't want to run udev, good luck with that.
>>
>>
>> Got a link? We don't have anything matching in the tree, and Google
Take your pick:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:01:19PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 03/15/12 22:43, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0
On 03/17/12 15:43, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 18 March 2012 08:33, Matt Turner wrote:
>> So you run set FEATURES=test to run a package's test suite during
>> keywording. Later, you emerge -vuNDa ... and portage wants to reemerge
>> that package with USE=-test.
>>
>> Can't we avoid this somehow? I pr
On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for use in
> other contexts without permission of the author.
Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 03/21/12 10:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
>>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
>>> use in other contexts without permission of the author.
>
>> Port
On 03/21/12 11:14, Justin wrote:
> On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
>>>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
>>>> use in other
On 03/27/12 14:34, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on
> *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished
> installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the
> advantages of a separate /usr/porta
On 03/27/12 15:13, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>
>> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
>> specific objections were.
>
>> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
>> chatting with another d
On 03/28/12 10:24, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>
>> Just use categories from repos?
>>
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/zlib-3.4.tar.bz2
>> /usr/portage/distfiles/zomg-soft/zomgawesomesoft-5.3.1.tar.
On 03/28/12 10:42, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/28/12 10:24, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>>
>>> Just use categories from repos?
>>>
>>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-devel/gcc-1.2.tar.bz2
>>> /usr/portage/distfiles/sys-libs/glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
>>>
On 03/28/12 03:16, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> But that's ok, because extensive studies have shown that the only possible
>> reasons for putting /usr/portage on its own partition are historical,
>> since everyone has an SSD now.
>>
>
> Yeah, r
On 03/27/12 15:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 03:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs
wrote: /var/cache/repositories/gen
Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
this is not the license used by the BSD project:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
In particular, the FreeBSD license removes the third clause and appends
"The views and conclusions contained in the software
On 03/28/12 20:27, Richard Yao wrote:
> Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
> this is not the license used by the BSD project:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
>
> In particular, the FreeBSD license removes the third
On 03/28/12 21:28, Tim Harder wrote:
> On 2012-03-28 Wed 17:31, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> Gentoo/FreeBSD is currently using the BSD license, but it seems that
>>> this is not the license used by the BSD project:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying
Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo
Linux. naota wrote an improvement that would be useful to send upstream.
However, the GPL-2 license poses a problem according to conversations
that I had in #gentoo-dev.
On 03/30/12 13:34, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:34:26 -0400
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
>> I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying
>> Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo
>> Linux. naota wrote an improvem
On 03/30/12 13:52, Richard Yao wrote:
> I want sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod to be BSD-2 licensed, but I do not expect
> the version that enters the portage tree to be BSD-2 licensed unless
> people clarify that it is okay to license ebuilds under something other
> than the GPL-2.
To clar
On 03/30/12 14:00, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> The improvement is to the ebuild itself. It is a variable containing a
>> list of directories upon which the module's build system depends.
>>
>> I
On 03/30/12 14:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I fail to understand what the license of the ebuild has to do with the
> license of the package itself.
It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
separate. This has to do with the license of the ebuild itself.
FreeBSD Ports
On 03/30/12 15:12, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If there are specific pains associated with not being able to submit
> patches upstream or such, please do point them out and I'm sure we'll
> consider what can be done to accommodate this. However, if this
> really is a one-off situation then we're probabl
On 03/30/12 16:19, Alec Warner wrote:
> I doubt you can get the content "re-licensed" under a different
> license. You may be able to convince folks to add an additional
> license (|| (GPL-2 BSD-2)). That way Gentoo keeps its GPL-2 and
> freebsd can have the code as BSD-2.
Dual-licensing is fine b
On 03/30/12 17:15, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Maybe it's time for Gentoo-2.0?
I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we
declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I think
claiming 2.0 would be merited, if only for the attention it would draw
at Phoronix.
I am running Gentoo on ZFS using the kernel modules from sys-kernel/spl
and sys-fs/zfs. If I put swap on ZFS, the kernel appears to deadlock
when it tries to use it. I am having trouble getting a backtrace.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could debug this?
signature.asc
Description: O
Thanks everyone for your extremely useful tips. I seem to have it
working now. The problem is that ZFS does memory allocations when asked
to write things.
A makeshift solution is to do `echo 524288 >
/proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes`. A more permanent fix will take more time
to produce, but at least I
On 04/23/12 06:16, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I don't really think this is necessary, but some people seem to.
>
> Looks fine?
>
> - Samuli
What is the plan for platforms that are not supported by libturbo?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 04/29/12 19:29, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 29/04/12 15:11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg-
>> config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
>
>> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable
On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
> Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
> going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
> base libaries of the Linux "stack".
I was under the impression that in order for there to be a Linux stack,
the Linux tre
On 05/04/12 21:33, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:27:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 05/04/12 20:58, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
>>> going to get worse and worse if people don't want
On 05/07/12 21:40, Steven J Long wrote:
> "The future of GNOME is as a Linux based OS. It is harmful to pretend
> that you are writing the OS core to work on any number of different
> kernels, user space subsystem combinations, and core libraries..
> Kernels just aren't that interesting. Linux is
On 05/29/12 04:43, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> I'm using usersync since a long time, how about add it too?
This is also a good idea. I second it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 05/29/12 18:11, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 05/29/2012 02:47 PM, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
>> On 29 May 2012 12:46, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> How about introducing e.g. FEATURES="nouserpriv", and make the current
>>> userpriv behavior the default?
>>
>> rootpriv instead of nouserpriv?
>
> What's the
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that UEFI Secure
Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is implemented in the UEFI
firmware and if we replace the firmware, Secure Boot issues disappear. With
that in mind, I believe we can solve the Secure Boot problem b
On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but
their development process is slow and their approach seems to make the
boot process more complicated than it needs to
On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> In theory, the kernel could be modified to only execute signed binaries
>> and portage could be modified to produce signed binaries. The user could
>> build a system that required everything to be signed with the private
>> key of his choice. A hardene
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
>> UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is
>> implemented in the UEFI firmw
Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
Automated epatch_user support
Parallel make checks
POSIX Shell compliance
Here are some explanations:
Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a
user does not
On 06/20/2012 04:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>>> I know that there is a great deal of discussion on th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
> wrote:
>> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a
>> great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not
On 06/20/2012 04:39 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
>
> Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
> the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao
> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
>>> wrote:
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao
> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
>>> wrote:
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2012 05:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:05:55 -0400 Richard Yao
> wrote:
>>>> The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
>>>
>>> But there is no spec, nor is there a d
greg k-h
>
You must not have read this, where I said that I realized that this is
infeasible:
On 06/20/2012 04:13 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't
>> going to be able to get a user to replace their B
http://www.coreboot.org/Screenshots
>
>
> Richard Yao wrote:
>> Core Boot is a Linux distribution.
> Sorry sir, but no.
>
> coreboot (one word, lowercase) is an open source BIOS replacement.
>
> Proprietary BIOSes do two things:
>
> 1. hardware initialization
>
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao wrote:
>>>> POSIX Shell compliance
>>> So f
On 06/21/2012 04:08 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:16:23 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> 3. How does getting a x86 system to boot differ from getting a MIPS
>> system or ARM system to boot? Does it only work because the vendors made
>> it work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/21/2012 11:00 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about
>> floppy drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa
>> devices, pci devices and pci express drives, etcetera, because
>>
On 06/21/2012 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Roy Bamford wrote:
>>
>>> So when you build a dud kernel and flash your BIOS with it, and we
>>> all build the odd dud, your motherboard is bricked.
>>
>> Any firmware modification has potential to
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao wrote:
>
>>>> POSIX Shell compliance
>&
On 06/22/2012 01:02 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:33:22 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about floppy
>> drives, hard drives, optical drives, usb devices, isa devices, pci
>> device
On 06/22/2012 01:10 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 01:02 AM, Duncan wrote:
>> Richard Yao posted on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:33:22 -0400 as excerpted:
>>
>>> A firmware replacement for the BIOS does not need to worry about floppy
>>> drives, hard drives, optical
On 06/25/2012 12:15 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> An official release of grub-2.00 should be coming pretty soon. I would
> like to keyword this for ~amd64 and ~x86 shortly after it hits the tree.
> I don't do much work on base system packages, so I would like some
> advice on how to make this as smooth
On 06/29/2012 02:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> It does copy all of the images to /boot so that the grub shell can be
>> used to install an MBR image. grub:2 no longer has an interactive
>> shell and grub2-install must be used. Therefore, copyi
On 06/29/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a
>>> special BIOS Boot Partition in order to
On 06/29/2012 05:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 06/29/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
I want to add freebsd_get_cpuarch() to freebsd.eclass. This will give us
a platform-independent way of generating MACHINE_CPUARCH, which will
make building FreeBSD components on other platforms (i.e. Linux and
Prefix) easier.
--- freebsd.eclass.old 2012-07-01 19:15:56.157277000 -0400
+++ freebsd.
There is a small error in this. It should be 's/return/echo/'.
On 07/01/2012 07:48 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I want to add freebsd_get_cpuarch() to freebsd.eclass. This will give us
> a platform-independent way of generating MACHINE_CPUARCH, which will
> make building FreeBSD
On 07/02/2012 10:54 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> hu? yes, as already pointed out, uname is not reliable when
> cross-compiling. You should use CHOST, and then you get tc-arch-kernel.
> See freebsd-lib ebuild for how it is handled.
>
> A.
>
In that case, it should be 'local arch=$(tc-arch-kernel)'
On 07/02/2012 02:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2012 13:37:53 Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 10:54 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> hu? yes, as already pointed out, uname is not reliable when
>>> cross-compiling. You should use CHOST, and then you
On 07/04/2012 07:58 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
>> The KBUILD_OUTPUT / O= option seems like the best solution to me
>> (especially so as I build three kernel images from a single sources
>> tree), and it works well, except that it sometimes doesn
On 07/13/2012 04:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 05:58:25AM +, Duncan wrote
>
>> They're seriously thinking about (and may be planning on) removing
>> that option from the kernel entirely, to keep people configuring
>> their first kernels from getting themselves in trouble,
ad it and I find it flawed. There is
absolutely no need for us to make this change.
Yours truly,
Richard Yao
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 07/17/2012 07:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:20:13PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
>> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
>> initramfs on people happily
On 07/17/2012 08:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
Lastly, don't tell me to read systemd's case for why we should break
people's systems. I have read it and I find it flawed. There is
absolutely no need for us to make this change.
>>>
>>> Without elaboration on why you find their case fl
On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basically starts happening
> on its own automatically if we DON'T do much. This is because
> upstream is the one pushing it.
Which upstre
On 07/17/2012 09:28 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 21:17, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
>>> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basi
On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
>> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advocating is
>> trying to follow upstream for individual packages.
On 07/18/2012 04:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:54:16 -0400
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> If somebody really is pushing for an all-o
On 07/18/2012 02:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> 1) There are no truly mature tools for automatically generating and
> installing an initramfs based on system requirements. Canek likes to
> recommend dracut, which still isn't marked stable. I've gotten stable
> genkernel to work reasonably, but its err
On 08/01/2012 11:27 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:13 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> - if people want nice build _output_ (not log), they can use --quiet-build
>>
>
> ++
>
> If you're going to spam the console with 10k lines of text, what's the
> harm in spamming it with 100k? I rea
On 08/08/2012 10:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
>> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are installing
>> them?! But I don't even use systemd. I don't want this
On 08/31/2012 04:03 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> For those who may not know, chromium-os currently uses a
> hard-host-depends ebuild as a workaround for our lack of HDEPEND support
> [1]. We could easily add HDEPEND in EAPI 5 if we want, since we already
> have a Portage patch attached to bug #317337 [2
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still sh
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law. It
> should be removed right now before someon
On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
>>> really? What happens when someone
On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
>>> that better not get merged into
On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
>>> that better not get mer
On 11/17/2012 11:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>
On 11/18/2012 12:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 17/11/2012 21:00, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
>> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
>> but we are doing AGILE development, so
On 11/18/2012 12:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> But you've made Gentoo the laughing stock of the Linux world over the
> past couple of days, and now you come up with this? Please get a clue,
> please.
Arguably, the fact that others forced our hand before we were ready lead
to the widespread at
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
