Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

Am 01.06.2014 14:31, schrieb Tanstaafl: Wow, I've been mostly offline for a few days, and this morning when playing catch up on the news, learned that Truecrypt, one of my all time favorite apps, is no more. Well, considering the fact that Linux comes with its own bunch of encrytion possibili

[gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

Howdy, Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below correctly. So far, I've been using sys-power/upower. Attempting to update sys-power/upower seems to require sys-apps/systemd to be pulled in as a dependency, which I don't want to do. If I understand the change log below correctly

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:59:07 AM Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > Howdy, > > Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below correctly. > So far, I've been using sys-power/upower. Attempting to update > sys-power/upower seems to require sys-apps/systemd to be pulled in as a > dependency

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:11 + "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > now. Which is a lot better than to have it break by the lack thereof. > A proper solution would have been to have the upower ebuild > select systemd as a dependency ON

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:39:39 AM Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:11 + > > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > > now. > > Which is a lot better than to have it break by the lack thereof. > > > A proper solution wo

Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

On 6/3/2014 3:17 AM, Marc Stürmer wrote: So no loss at all if TrueCrypt would really cease to exist. Which totally misses the point of *how* it happened. But never mind... it was definitely off-topic for gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tuesday 03 June 2014 11:48:22 J. Roeleveld wrote: > Then the dependencies should have been fixed prior to making this stable. Actually, though it may be marked as stable, it isn't, by which I mean that I can't emerge -uaDvN world today - I get udev and systemd blocking each other. I ran anothe

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:30 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:59:07 AM Alexander Kapshuk wrote: >> >> Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below correctly. >> So far, I've been using sys-power/upower. Attempting to update >> sys-power/upower seems to require s

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

It is marked stable. Otherwise it wouldn't cause blockers because it attempts to force an installation of systemd. -- Joost On 3 June 2014 12:06:26 CEST, Peter Humphrey wrote: >On Tuesday 03 June 2014 11:48:22 J. Roeleveld wrote: > >> Then the dependencies should have been fixed prior to making

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:13 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > It is marked stable. Otherwise it wouldn't cause blockers because it > attempts to force an installation of systemd. The issue isn't really that upower requires systemd so much as that portage can't figure out that it makes more sense in this

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 03/06/14 14:30, J. Roeleveld wrote: > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > now. A proper solution would have been to have the upower ebuild > select systemd as a dependency ONLY when the systemd useflag is set. > And depend on upower-pm-utils when it is not set.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 03/06/14 14:48, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > Then the dependencies should have been fixed prior to making this stable. And that's exactly what happened.

Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

On Tuesday 03 Jun 2014 11:00:17 Tanstaafl wrote: > On 6/3/2014 3:17 AM, Marc Stürmer wrote: > > So no loss at all if TrueCrypt would really cease to exist. > > Which totally misses the point of *how* it happened. > > But never mind... it was definitely off-topic for gentoo. With a secret develo

[gentoo-user] Systemd upower

Hello, mean this i must install now systemd? What can do when i not want systemd. The system what i have is good, i want not change to systemd. [ebuild U ~] sys-devel/gettext-0.19 [0.18.3.2] USE="acl cxx ncurses nls openmp -cvs -doc -emacs -git -java -static-libs" 16,221 kB [ebuild R]

Re: [gentoo-user] How to extend the tmux status 'title' for each pane or window

On Tue, 3 June 2014, at 6:59 am, Mick wrote: >> … >> I have: >> >> … >> status-left "#[fg=blue]#T" >> … >> status-right "#[fg=blue][#S]" >> … >> > Thanks Stroller, > > On the left status bar I see this: > > [0] 0:bash* > > with one window open. As I create more windows it adds to it lik

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Silvio Siefke wrote: > Hello, > > mean this i must install now systemd? What can do when i not want systemd. > The system what i have is good, i want not change to systemd. > > [ebuild U ~] sys-devel/gettext-0.19 [0.18.3.2] USE="acl cxx ncurses nls > openmp -cv

[gentoo-user] Re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:19:00 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:30 AM, J. Roeleveld > wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:59:07 AM Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > >> > >> Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below > >> correctly. So far, I've been using sys-power

[gentoo-user] Re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:11 + "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > now. AIUI from , no one is maintaining systemd-independent power management anywhere upstream any more. As of now, t

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tuesday 03 June 2014 09:29:35 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > If I understood correctly, you need to: > > emerge -C sys-power/upower > emerge -1v sys-power/upower-pm-utils > > and then update world as usual. That worked for me - thanks Canek. Portage no longer tries to break a blockage circle,

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Tuesday 03 June 2014 09:29:35 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > >> If I understood correctly, you need to: >> >> emerge -C sys-power/upower >> emerge -1v sys-power/upower-pm-utils >> >> and then update world as usual. > > That worked for me - t

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 03/06/14 18:10, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> Maybe a news item explaining the switch of upower would help those who >> haven't >> blundered into this yet. > Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more > infrastructure migrates towards systemd. Perhaps a news item ev

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 09:29:35 -0500 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > If I understood correctly, you need to: > > emerge -C sys-power/upower > emerge -1v sys-power/upower-pm-utils > > and then update world as usual. Yes is correct, i has find out after read ebuilds from the packages which need upower

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 06/03/2014 02:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Sounds like the original poster had the right answer. Starting a > systemd flamewar is not helpful. > > "emerge -1 sys-power/upower-pm-utils" should fix this. > > However, this probably should have been a news item before going into > the stable tree..

[gentoo-user] Re: Systemd upower

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:14:56 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > (I think I'll be forced to write up some minimal news item just to > shut up the loud minority who can't be bothered to do anything > themselfs, like even read package ChangeLogs if they stumble upon > something manual.) I figured out w

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:26:48 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > Quick question though. What's the benefit of using '-1' there? So the > package doesn't get added to the world list? Or are there some extra > benefits? That is more than sufficient benefit. Having upower-pm-utils in @world could caus

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 03/06/2014 16:29, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Silvio Siefke wrote: >> Hello, >> >> mean this i must install now systemd? What can do when i not want systemd. >> The system what i have is good, i want not change to systemd. >> >> [ebuild U ~] sys-devel/gettex

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 6/3/2014 11:10 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more infrastructure migrates towards systemd. Perhaps a news item everytime it happens is unrealistic? Weren't you the one saying that those of us who were voicing concerns that

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 06/03/2014 06:46 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:26:48 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > >> Quick question though. What's the benefit of using '-1' there? So the >> package doesn't get added to the world list? Or are there some extra >> benefits? > That is more than sufficient

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 6/3/2014 11:10 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more >> infrastructure migrates towards systemd. Perhaps a news item everytime >> it happens is unrealistic? > > > Weren't y

Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

On Jun 2, 2014, at 18:29, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > On Monday, June 02, 2014 04:23:07 PM Matti Nykyri wrote: >> On Jun 2, 2014, at 17:52, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: >>> On Monday, June 02, 2014 03:23:03 PM Matti Nykyri wrote: On Jun 2, 2014, at 16:40, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > On Monday, June 0

Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 09:53:58 PM Matti Nykyri wrote: > On Jun 2, 2014, at 18:29, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > I actually meant the software side: > > - How to wipe the keys and then wipe the whole memory. > > The dm-crypt module inside kernel provides a crypt_wipe_key function that > wipes the

Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

On Jun 4, 2014, at 0:05, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 09:53:58 PM Matti Nykyri wrote: >> On Jun 2, 2014, at 18:29, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: >>> I actually meant the software side: >>> - How to wipe the keys and then wipe the whole memory. >> >> The dm-crypt module inside kerne

Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

Am 03.06.2014 12:00, schrieb Tanstaafl: So no loss at all if TrueCrypt would really cease to exist. Which totally misses the point of *how* it happened. How it happened is strange and you can make many theories about it. The more interesting question about it for sure is: why did many peopl

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 03/06/2014 18:48, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 6/3/2014 11:10 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more >> infrastructure migrates towards systemd. Perhaps a news item everytime >> it happens is unrealistic? > > Weren't you the one saying

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 03/06/2014 19:08, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > Who is "forcing" anything? pm-utils has been unmaintained FOR FIVE > YEARS. Any project that decides to stop using it is making just the > right decision; UPower just did the correct thing. And systemd had > *nothing* to do with it, except for prov

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

Am 03.06.2014 22:14, schrieb Alan McKinnon: This whole systemd thing looks awfully like the switch from a hosts file to DNS so many years ago. Not really. What many people bothers about systemd is that it is getting more and more a) a hard dependancy for software projects, e.g. like GNOME, a

Re: [gentoo-user] Demise of Truecrypt - surprised I haven't seen t his discussed here yet?

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:53:15PM +0300, Matti Nykyri wrote: > On Jun 4, 2014, at 0:05, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 09:53:58 PM Matti Nykyri wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 2014, at 18:29, "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > >>> I actually meant the software side: > >>> - How to wipe the ke

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 03/06/2014 23:01, Marc Stürmer wrote: > Am 03.06.2014 22:14, schrieb Alan McKinnon: >> This whole systemd thing looks awfully like the switch from a hosts file >> to DNS so many years ago. > > Not really. What many people bothers about systemd is that it is getting > more and more > > a) a har

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to Qt 5?

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 18:11:11 -0400 cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > James wrote: > > > john jdm.myzen.co.uk> writes: > > > > > > > lxqt is up and running in Gentoo. It's listed in packages. > > > The only problem I had was emerging lxqt-panel but just had to > > > change a > > use flag of lxqt-

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: [...] > Incidentally, what exactly is wrong with systemd writing a dhcp server & > client, and an ntp client? Is that project prohibited from writing such > software? Are they not allowed to do it? Does it break legal laws? Is > there an NDA or

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > [...] > > Incidentally, what exactly is wrong with systemd writing a dhcp server & > > client, and an ntp client? Is that project prohibited from writing such > > software? Are t

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 23:01:20 +0200, Marc Stürmer wrote: > Even Linus Torvalds himself ranted about the attitude of systemd's > developers at the beginning of May this year. Linus rants about everything and everyone, usually at least twice, once for and once against. It proves nothing beyond Linu

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 04/06/2014 00:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Alan McKinnon >> wrote: >> [...] >>> Incidentally, what exactly is wrong with systemd writing a dhcp server & >>> client, and an ntp client? Is that projec

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 04/06/2014 00:59, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 23:01:20 +0200, Marc Stürmer wrote: > >> Even Linus Torvalds himself ranted about the attitude of systemd's >> developers at the beginning of May this year. > > Linus rants about everything and everyone, usually at least twice, once

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Alan McKinnon >> wrote: >> [...] >> > Incidentally, what exactly is wrong with systemd writing a dhcp server & >> > client, and an ntp client?

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 04/06/2014 00:59, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 23:01:20 +0200, Marc Stürmer wrote: >> >>> Even Linus Torvalds himself ranted about the attitude of systemd's >>> developers at the beginning of May this year. >> >> Linus rants

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 6/3/2014 16:13, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Alan McKinnon >>> wrote: >>> [...] Incidentally, what exactly is wrong with systemd wri

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 01:06:52 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Once again, you do not understand the claim. > > If a user of Gentoo chooses to use non systemd profile, it means that > we need to make sure systemd will not be a valid option, ever. There is no such thing as a "non systemd profile" on Ge

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 06/03/2014 07:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote: > FWIW, on my system, I had to mask "sys-apps/gentoo-systemd-integration" > for it to merge the udev update w/o trying to pull in systemd, et al. i > didn't deep dive on what was trying to pull that in, but masking it > (plus a ton of other stuff I have

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: > On 06/03/2014 07:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote: > >> FWIW, on my system, I had to mask "sys-apps/gentoo-systemd-integration" >> for it to merge the udev update w/o trying to pull in systemd, et al. i >> didn't deep dive on what was trying to pull

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 06/03/2014 11:14 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 03/06/14 18:10, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>> Maybe a news item explaining the switch of upower would help those who >>> haven't >>> blundered into this yet. >> Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more >> infrast

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 06/03/2014 01:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > Who is "forcing" anything? pm-utils has been unmaintained FOR FIVE > YEARS. Any project that decides to stop using it is making just the > right decision; UPower just did the correct thing. And systemd had > *nothing* to do with it, except for p

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 06/03/2014 09:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: >> On 06/03/2014 07:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote: >> >>> FWIW, on my system, I had to mask "sys-apps/gentoo-systemd-integration" >>> for it to merge the udev update w/o trying to pull in systemd,

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 06/03/2014 09:48 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: On 06/03/2014 09:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: On 06/03/2014 07:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote: FWIW, on my system, I had to mask "sys-apps/gentoo-systemd-integration" for it to merge the udev u

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Greg Woodbury wrote: > On 06/03/2014 01:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> Who is "forcing" anything? pm-utils has been unmaintained FOR FIVE >> YEARS. Any project that decides to stop using it is making just the >> right decision; UPower just did the correct thi

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: > On 06/03/2014 09:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: >>> On 06/03/2014 07:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote: >>> FWIW, on my system, I had to mask "sys-apps/gentoo-systemd-integration"

[gentoo-user] udev/systemd-blocker

Hi, while updateing I got this blocker: (sys-fs/udev-212-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by >=sys-fs/udev-208-r1:0/0[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,gudev,introspection?,static-libs?] (>=sys-fs/udev-208-r1:0/0[abi_x86_64(

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 06/03/2014 09:57 PM, Michael Cook wrote: > On 06/03/2014 09:48 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: >> On 06/03/2014 09:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Dutch Ingraham wrote: On 06/03/2014 07:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote: > FWIW, on my system, I had to mask >

Re: [gentoo-user] udev/systemd-blocker

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:11 PM, wrote: > > Hi, > > while updateing I got this blocker: > > > (sys-fs/udev-212-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by > > >=sys-fs/udev-208-r1:0/0[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,gudev,introspectio

Re: [gentoo-user] udev/systemd-blocker

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/04/2014 12:11 PM, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: > while updateing I got this blocker: In short, sys-power/upower has changed to no longer support the unmaintained sys-power/pm-tools and instead depend on systemd. To remain using upower with pm-u

Re: [gentoo-user] udev/systemd-blocker

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/04/2014 12:21 PM, wraeth wrote: > If you prefer, you could install systemd (note that having it installed > doesn't necessarily mean you use systemd as your init system) - see [1]. May help if I include my reference links... :| [1] - https:/

Re: [gentoo-user] udev/systemd-blocker

wraeth [14-06-04 04:24]: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 06/04/2014 12:21 PM, wraeth wrote: > > If you prefer, you could install systemd (note that having it installed > > doesn't necessarily mean you use systemd as your init system) - see [1]. > > May help if I inclu

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 04/06/14 02:13, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> systemd should not be visible at any time, nor its implications. > Nobody is here to deal with other people's OCD. > > +1 your assesment in this threads seems to be accurate otherwise too, I'm glad not everyone has lost their mind over _a word_ li

Re: [gentoo-user] Systemd upower

On 04/06/14 05:17, Dutch Ingraham wrote: > No, "sys-fs/udev" is not masked, but an update is indicated in the > emerge above. That's a good catch, the MATE stuff is from the overlay. > Unfortunately, the xfce stuff is not, so even if the overlay currency > was an issue, I'll still be showing som