On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:06:42AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:55:23 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > > We want to make this easier towards the user, therefore doing heavy
> > > discussion to exhaust all the alternatives and maybe so
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:35:22AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Remember that eselect init is optional and an opt-in by emerging it,
> this is in no way suggested anywhere to become a default on all systems.
Ok, that's cool then, I just would hate to see it become a default.
William
signature
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:30:00AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Because it isn't just editing a file or rebuilding the kernel but also
> have a short trip in single mode to switch back and forth inittab.
inittab is only used by sysvinit and busybox init right?
If so, it is unfortunate that busybo
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:23:59PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:15:40 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:07:37PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > For the others, how large is the benefit of having them switchable?
>
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 08:00:22PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> If a switch only changes the default in a config file, a flag is
> useless.
Ok, maybe so in this case.
> If a switch toggles a feature that does not introduce additional
> dependencies, is small and can be toggled from within the ap
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 10:26:54PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-06-01, o godz. 15:20:32
> William Hubbs napisał(a):
>
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 08:00:22PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > If a switch toggles a feature that does not introduce additional
>
Hi Luca,
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Again you should read the whole thread, please do, the whole eselect
> init stuff should stay opt-in for the time being so all this discussion
> is close to pointless.
Can we please make this remain opt-in always? I too woul
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:43:41PM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> Gentoo developers have been resigning from the project because they got
> burned out by dealing with ad-hominems, insults, and flames. I do not see CoC
> enforcement as some sort of plot to enforce groupthink or silence debat
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:10:27PM +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:
> Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > - only init is currently handled by eselect-init, which is now using a
> > very small wrapper POSIX shell script to redirect the calls to the
> > currently running init
>
> How does say, switching inittab
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:16:36PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> There is a new version of eselect-init in the systemd-love overlay to play
> with.
> The new version saw the following major changes:
>
> - the /sbin/init (aka the symlink that eselect-init handles) can be
> changed to whatever on
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:39:59AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-06-20, o godz. 15:56:09
> William Hubbs napisał(a):
>
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:16:36PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > > There is a new version of eselect-init in the systemd-love ove
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:50:02PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 01:26 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation. But I think that, currently, the only
> > remaining "objection" is whether play with /sbin/init (that needs
> > sysvinit to be changed if I don't misremember) o
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:23:28PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > If eselect-init installs the wrapper as /sbin/einit, we don't have to
> > touch /sbin/init at all, then, the only thing someone would have to do
> > is to add an entry to their boot loader with init=/sbin/einit on the kcl
> > to use
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:23:51PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I think that sysvinit's /sbin/init should be renamed to /sbin/sysvinit
> (or /bin/sysvinit?), anyway...
Feel free to file a request with sysvinit upstream to see if they will
do this; I don't think we should be randomly renaming fi
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:13:33PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 21 June 2013 16:29, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-06-21, o godz. 10:16:10
> > William Hubbs napisał(a):
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:23:28PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> &
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:14:44AM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> A VC is a full commitment, and its attractiveness is often much higher
> _before_ you use it..
Agreed.
I have found that if I am on a voice chat with someone, say on skype, it
requires my full attention, especially since I use
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:32:12PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> How the /usr in other partition ended finally then? I though that, since
> there are a lot of things in / that rely in others in /usr, people were
> supposed to either use initramfs or busybox to get /usr mounted
Unfortunately it hasn'
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as
> static builds.
Robin,
I'm curious what the use case for keeping them as static bu
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:22:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 01/08/13 04:03, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to
> >> go and
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:32:56PM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Honestly, I don't think maintainers should be asked to justify
> > features unless they're actually causing some kind of conflict.
> >
> > If Robin wants to support US
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 06:01:50AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > If we want to continue supporting this, it will probably require custom
> > patches to udev, and kmod. Then we will have to make sure none of that
>
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 07:36:12PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 13:32:28
> Rich Freeman napisał(a):
>
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 17:17:35
> > > Luca Barbato napisał(a):
> &
All,
This message is an announcement and a reminder.
OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few days.
If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies: remember
that you might be subject to breakage.
I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:03:58PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2013 10:06 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" wrote:
> >
> > On 15:36 Fri 02 Aug , William Hubbs wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > This message is an announcement and a reminde
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Running the ~arch release version, OTOH, doesn't appear to significantly
> reduce the incidence of bugs compared to live-git, but there's a much
> bigger pile of changes in a release, and far less information about what
> they actually ar
All,
one thing that is going to be different about OpenRc-0.12 is the oldnet
scripts (net.* and /lib*/rc/net/*) are going to be split out into their
own package, gentoo-oldnet-0.1. This will be brought in by a pdepend
initially to make sure everyone who doesn't have newnet gets the
package.
Since
Hi all,
I'm splitting the thread because this is a separate subject.
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:59:56AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I do understand why Roy refer this as oldnet... but why in Gentoo do
> we keep the term old? The functionality of these script is huge, and
> is better than most di
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
> > systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
> > is
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 09:03:06PM -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> > Actually the pl
Doug and Brian, I'm going to reply in a little more detail.
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 21:03 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 10:15:35PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:01:40 -0400 as excerpted:
>
> > Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also suggests
> > itself.
>
> I like it, if it's not taken elsewhere and will thus cause problems.
Maybe, b
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 06:54:33PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 15:37 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Doug and Brian, I'm going to reply in a little more detail.
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
> naming ideas.
Rob
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for t
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:19:34AM -0500, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 10:16 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Also, I think we should stop spending a lot of time trying to keep it
> > working with openrc, we simply don't have resources to do that at the
> > moment (even Debian/Ubuntu people are
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:05:02PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
> On 08/08/13 11:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Honestly, we're probably getting to the point where we should offer a
> > choice of init systems in our handbook. It doesn't make sense for
> > Gnome users to go configuring openrc in the handb
d can go stable;
The community would only need to decide if we switch the default init
system to systemd. No one is proposing this.
Thanks for your time,
William Hubbs
Gentoo Developer and Council Member
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:51:15AM +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:
> wrote:
> > It would seem to make sense if the packages are unmasked conditionally
> s/ conditionally//
>
> > in the parent, or the linux profile, and then unmasked in the profiles
> > that need them. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:22:38PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> You just removed the upgrade path for users.
> >>
> >
> > Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alter
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 01:51:13PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/10/2013 01:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
> >
> > Using syst
I am splitting this to a separate thread, because it could become a
long thread pretty easily.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:14:00AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > I've been considering packaging systemd in sys-fs/udev with USE="systemd"
> >
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 02:44:09PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest of
> > my evidence, but What it boils down to is this. As a member of the
>
All,
I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to
know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
production servers on ~arch. I asked about it and was told that the
reason for this is bitrot in the s
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:03:35AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> > 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
> >>
> >> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
> >> between coul
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-08-31, o godz. 11:26:30
> Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
>
> > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > And time for a small update.
> >
> > In git-r3_checkout:
> >
> > git --no-pager diff --colo
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 08:58:07PM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> > "TW" == Tom Wijsman writes:
>
> TW> Also, please just call it git-3.eclass as it is a major change; any
> TW> other form of naming will introduce confusion (eg. -r1 < -2), also we
> TW> probably shouldn't change git-2.eclass as
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-09-01, o godz. 16:49:34
> William Hubbs napisał(a):
>
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 2013-08-31, o godz. 11:26:30
> > > Ulrich Mueller napisa
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:41:28PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-09-02, o godz. 14:21:52
> William Hubbs napisał(a):
>
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 2013-09-01, o godz. 16:49:34
> > > William Hubbs napisał(
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:25:19AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:21:52 -0500
> > William Hubbs wrote:
>
> >> I can see why someone might want to use escape codes for color
>
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:37:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 12:24:49
> Markos Chandras napisał(a):
>
> > On 3 September 2013 12:17, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 11:53:22
> > > Markos Chandras napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> On 3 September 2013 11:45,
All,
OpenRC currently has a public api, consisting of librc and libeinfo
(rc.h and einfo.h are the headers); however, I do not know of any
released software that uses these, so, if there is nothing, I am
considering making this code private to OpenRC and getting rid of the
API.
I will reconsider
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:04:06PM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 19:16 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > OpenRC currently has a public api, consisting of librc and libeinfo
> > (rc.h and einfo.h are the headers); however, I do n
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:47:04AM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 22:48 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:04:06PM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > > app-admin/openrc-settingsd uses various functions (rc_sys(),
>
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:59:57PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> openrc-settings will need to be kept if we ever want to implement:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480336
There may be other reasons to keep the api, that's why I put out the
question.
However, I thought the gnome team had a
All,
here is another question wrt OpenRC's api.
Currently we store two header files (rc.h and einfo.h) in /usr/include.
Since we have more than one include file, wouldn't it be standard
practice to store them in a sub directory of /usr/include?
Thanks,
William
signature.asc
Description: Digi
All,
this is a followup to the original message that started this thread.
A case has been made for librc, but not libeinfo. There could be reasons
to allow the librc functionality to stay around, but I'm not convinced
wrt libeinfo, especially since there are no consumers.
Does anyone see a reaso
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 03:21:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> IIRC we still don't have an openrc-replacement script in the tree for
> the /etc/init.d/function.sh symlink to target. Since libeinfo is
> already public, why not instead of making it private w
major issues with it.
On behalf of the council,
William
Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
In the meeting on 24-Sep-2013, the Gentoo Council agreed that all
preparations for
ill try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay focused
on the news item.
Here is the updated newsitem based on feedback I have received so far.
William
Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News
All,
here is my latest update, again based on feedback from the list.
It seems a bit long to me, but I'm not sure how to make it any shorter
if we include the information about why this is happening.
Thoughts?
William
Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:19:00PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 25/09/13 03:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems
> > that have /usr missing at boot time
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:22:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 24/09/13 02:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 03:21:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> Out of curiosity, what is
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 04:27:42PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:22:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >&
This should be the final version of the news item. If no one has any
issues, I will push it on 27-Sep utc.
Thanks,
William
Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Due to many upstream
All,
I missed a message on this thread some how, thanks to tomwij for
pointing this out.
Here is the final version of the news item.
Let me know if you have any issues. Otherwise this will be pushed on
27-Sep.
Thanks,
William
Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 05:39:44PM +, Duncan wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:10:49 -0500 as excerpted:
>
> > If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
> > currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
>
I just saw this today, because the original msg went to another mailbox,
but the reply showed up here on -dev.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 08:39:06AM -0400, Douglas Freed wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-09-13, o godz. 19:16:06
> > William H
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:40:04AM +0200, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 09/29/2013 11:41 PM, hasufell wrote:
> > It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
> > remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a
> > library, especially when this is a non-maintainer stab
All,
a couple of versions of openrc-0.12 have been in the tree for quite a
bit longer than 30 days with no major regressions.
OpenRC-0.12.2 was just added with a few more small fixes.
There are other packages in the tree which need this version to go
stable before they can, so I would like to st
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
If not, it seems like it would be pretty easy to make baselayout create
this symlink in the stages (I'm willing to do this work), but what
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 07:21:47AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
> > symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
> >
> > Are t
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:00:03AM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Вс, 13/10/2013 в 14:32 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
> > from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
> > symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
> >
> > Are there any remaining con
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:46:38AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 10:11 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That
> >> does not mean that we must support them too.
> >>
> >
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:47:08PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
*snip*
> Both of which are correct. That being said, I am not against making
> changes, but given that this is on the list, I would like to someone to
> provide a technical justification. Some key questions that justification
> should a
All,
I would like to remind everyone about the tracker for services that are
misusing "need net" in their OpenRC init scripts [1].
"need net" should be removed from our init scripts, because it is bogus
and breaks things. I also question the value of "use net", because the
same thinking applies,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:28:13PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
> > I agree with this sentiment. It's always been my view that the needs of
> > a package are driven by the package itself, not by the tree.
> >
> > Rationale: A package will bu
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
*snip*
> The other two cases need a clarification:
> 3) -netifrc -newnet: no network stack?!?
That's correct, you do not need one if you are using something like
networkmanager or dhcpcd in master mode.
> 4) netifrc newnet
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" wrote:
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wro
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 2013-12-03, at 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which
> > has the following rdepend settings:
> >
> > RDEPEND=" || (
> >
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 07:14:37PM -0600, mingdao wrote:
>
> Just curious why you don't also include net-misc/connman?
>
> wicd doesn't support nl80211 and isn't being developed upstream anymore, so
> it's just a matter of time before it's demise.
I didn't include connman only because I didn't k
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
> random package(s) a la binary-distribution style
What about the stages? Don't we need some form of net support in
stage 3?
William
signature.asc
Description
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
> >&g
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:36:37PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Thinking on this further, the same logic could be applied to
> sys-apps/openrc, and probably a few other packages that are not
> build/toolchain critical. I suppose we need to draw a sanity line
> somewhere. ^_^
I think what you are t
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:45:22AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >>> seems like a virtual th
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36P
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> 1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a
> USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pull anything in if they really
> don't want it.
We don't have to put this in @system at all. We could just have
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 03:34:59AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > I can see the argument in making the installation of a network manager
> > part of the handbook. We already have a whole page on how to set up
> > the network for the install CD itself assuming dhcp doesn't just
My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the
netifrc use flag on OpenRC is bogus. OpenRC doesn't need netifrc for any
reason.
I think if we are going to have a default network manager in the
stages we shou
All,
We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
which has a binary named "rc" as well[1].
My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be
unique.
I know at least one thing that
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> > a naming conflict they have. They have
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:28:09PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Markos Chandras posted on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:53:04 + as excerpted:
>
> > On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> >> On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My tho
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:09:16PM +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path
> for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately.
> I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename "rc" to "openrc" in
> their openrc package just b
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:41:10AM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 11/12/13 22:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the a
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> My thought is to rename
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:53:59PM +, Duncan wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted:
>
> > There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should
> > be changing runlevels.
>
> ???
>
> init 9 (or telin
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 05:56:33AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
> > default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the
>
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 08:47:01PM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> OK, I see what you mean.
> To be clear, I'm not ready to have a stage3 without netifrc. If / when we
> update catalyst so that the new stage3 is the sum of @system and
> additional packages, we can move netifrc to that
You make some good points. I'll answer your questions as best as I can,
but we can consider this thread closed. I will not try to put the
virtual in, but I will come back to the list soon and start another
thread.
In a nutshell, our networking is a beast, and we should try to simplify
it some how
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
The reason that gen_usr_ldscript exists is that we do not install
static libraries in /. I think the argument for this is that they
aren't needed at boot time. I would agree that they are not, but, given
all of the issues we have had in the past with gen_usr_ldscript, and
that issues keep coming u
501 - 600 of 1450 matches
Mail list logo
