Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

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 look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as >> static builds. > > Robin, > > I'm cu

Re: [gentoo-dev] new category: games-adventure/

On 07/14/2013 07:47 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 14/07/2013 18:42, Peter Stuge wrote: >> I bet you a tasty beverage that it will grow over time! :) > > I don't believe in the future until I can see it. I'm pretty sure that's > the same thing that they said about app-antivirus at some point (

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item preceding net-print/cups-1.6 stabilization

On 06/29/2013 12:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > script to your default runlevel). By default cups-browsed uses the basically the functionality got split in a stand alone daemon?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: eselect init

On 06/22/2013 12:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > After talking with WilliamH yesterday, I have this opinion: > - Playing with /sbin/init (instead of /sbin/einit) has two interesting > advantages: > 1. For example, I now have init=/sbin/e4rat-preload in my grub.conf, if > I do a typo, it would fallback

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 06/21/2013 06:50 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > 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:

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 06/21/2013 05:23 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: > Fix the reason why the wrapper got broken then. > If the wrapper broke, it is most likely a symptom of a bigger problem. > > I think that sysvinit's /sbin/init should be renamed to /sbin/sysvinit > (or /bin/sysvinit?), anyway... > /bin/init lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

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) or with /sbin/einit. > Looks like mgorny has shown some problems on rel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Temporary DevRel actions for CoC violations

On 06/20/2013 05:53 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Does this mean the QA lead finally gets to suspend people who are > patently not suited for developing a stable distribution without > asking devrel? Because last time we got into the same judge, jury, > and executioner argument, which I guess was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Temporary DevRel actions for CoC violations

On 06/19/2013 09:15 PM, g...@malth.us wrote: > Sorry to hear you have such a low opinion of the socialization of Gentoo > developers. Since I'm not one of them, I'll just put forth my 2c in on > this, without fear of "consequences." Yet even users not behaving will get a friendly warning and migh

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] SRC_URI behaviour

On 06/16/2013 02:24 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > How about it we add a src_fetch phase, so that the VCS intricacies > can be delegated to ebuilds/eclasses (like they are now, but without > having to abuse src_unpack). If we include a way for src_fetch to > communicate changes in VCS revisions to the pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] SRC_URI behaviour

On 06/15/2013 05:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> The other thing is that would put a mandatory system requirement on >> layman which many of the devs would be opposed to. But, there is an open >> bug calling for it to be merged with portage...

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] SRC_URI behaviour

On 06/15/2013 02:34 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > 15.06.2013 18:50, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет: >> Over my dead CVS access. > Any reasonable/argumented objection? to put in different words: We do not want to use untraceable/transient/ephemeral sources for main ebuilds, live ebuilds are cor

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: eselect init

On 06/03/2013 02:37 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote > >> - eselect init will be opt-in ***FOR THE TIME BEING***, people can >> be left on their own tools if the want it > > This statement should bring the same reac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: eselect init

On 06/02/2013 08:20 PM, Steven J. Long wrote: > On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:15:37AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 06/01/2013 11:23 AM, Steven J. Long wrote: >>> That's not an argument for using a symlink switcher or the >>> equivalent across the board,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: eselect init

On 06/01/2013 11:23 AM, Steven J. Long wrote: > That's not an argument for using a symlink switcher or the > equivalent across the board, by any means. Your opinion. > Firstly, we should be recommending people install Gentoo with enough > flexibility to configure and use their system how they ch

[gentoo-dev] Re: inittab was: Re: Switchup-mode and boottime selector? Was: eselect init

On 05/30/2013 10:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Switchup-mode and boottime selector? Was: eselect init

On 05/29/2013 10:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> There are a couple of other possible approaches... >>> >>> 1) If the 2 systems can achieve peacefull co-existance (i.e. no >>> identically-named files with different contents) then simply

Re: [gentoo-dev] Separate boot/root already [WAS: eselect init]

On 05/28/2013 01:45 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > Out of sheer curiosity... is "bb-init" based on busybox? If so, a it IS busybox =) > separate partition would also prevent standard utilities from stomping > all over their busybox symlink equivalants. Add another entry to the > grub/lilo menu, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/28/13 6:19 AM, Michał Górny wrote: And you actually make the boot depend on: 1) valid /bin/sh If it doesn't exist you have a few order of magnitude bigger problem. 2) valid /etc/switch-init which would not interfere with boot process. I guess if you want to switch init system you need

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/26/13 4:58 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: The way it's being proposed (and please correct me if i'm wrong), the wrapper is a direct replacement binary (small C program) for all init systems, and would based on some configuration file or whatnot determine and exec the init system it's supposed t

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/26/13 4:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 25/05/13 03:08 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: On 05/25/13 05:25, Peter Stuge wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: - init gets effectively switched only at boot/reboot Please not on reboot, because an unclean

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/27/13 12:58 AM, William Hubbs wrote: From what I just read, the difference is that busybox init ignores the runlevels specified in sysvinit inittab. Nope, it interprets the numbers in a different way. If that's the only difference, do we really need to modify the inittab at all? Yes, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/26/13 1:58 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:57:42 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper code. I can hardly even express this in words. It doesn't need to be in the wrapper, inittab is something read at boot only as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

On 5/26/13 3:35 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:59:34 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: You need to name a unit with @ suffix, like openvpn@.service: $ cat /etc/systemd/system/openvpn@.service [Service] Type=simple ExecStart=/usr/sbin/openvpn --user openvpn

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/26/13 2:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: You could've asked me that when I was still using OpenRC. I don't really want to grep the 40 scripts right now, and I don't think I have the worse cases installed here. Worth investigation, not by you, but those that loathe systemd should have a look and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

On 5/26/13 1:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote: I'd suspect this is mostly with the growing irritation of systemd haters who spawn endless threads about how they hate anything with 'systemd' name in it. Plus the people who try hard to port the mistakes of OpenRC init scripts to systemd services files.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

On 5/26/13 1:31 PM, Robert David wrote: Come on, it is 2013, wasting few inodes. I did not got these problems in the old good times with my 386 with 4mb ram and few MB hdd. Those with embedded system will mask many other files, not only systemd units (so they save one inode more with my approach,

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/26/13 12:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:55:24 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top priority) should be either a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

On 5/26/13 9:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: By the way, we should really keep the separation between systemd itself and the unit files. I agree that systemd is not the best thing we could have. But the unit file format is, er, good enough -- and has the advantage of eventually taking a lot of work fr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

On 5/26/13 9:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: As in, say, lastrite GNOME and tell users to switch to other distro? Or maybe everything using udev? Sounds much like the way to get the 'one distro' dream some people have. But wasn't the intent opposite? eudev was made on purpose to let people avoid sys

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top priority) should be either a symlink to the actual implementation or a wrapper such as our gcc one. I like better the latter since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

On 5/25/13 6:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. Seems that *upstream* had to a bit of work in order to support

Re: [gentoo-dev] Usage of dev-utils/ninja in ebuilds

On 5/25/13 9:17 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:48:30 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: For those unaware, dev-util/ninja is a make-replacement created by one of the Chromium guys at Google. Its focus is on making incremental builds of large software faster. I've no idea how this would

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, hasufell wrote: > Isn't eselect for cases where I might want to reconfigure something or > add configuration values such as for bash-completion, do testing with > java-vm or python implementations during development, switch opengl > implementation depending on the graphics d

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 05/25/2013 01:13 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El sáb, 25-05-2013 a las 11:54 +0200, Luca Barbato escribió: >> Hi, since the whole discussion got somehow sidetracked on where and if >> to install for everybody the rc system specific files for everybody >> (that should be an impl

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

On 05/25/2013 01:29 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > If you can't change options at boot time it's very simple to get > unbootable system. Just curious, who does such systems and > how root filesystem (+ it's mount options) is expected to be > found there? You write your bootargs in the kernel, if

[gentoo-dev] eselect init

Hi, since the whole discussion got somehow sidetracked on where and if to install for everybody the rc system specific files for everybody (that should be an implementation detail for the specific dohelper IMHO), I'm back to the other part of it: switching the actual init implementation. # WHY (no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/21/2013 09:03 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is >> pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems >> like a hack instead of something more robust. Why inclu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/15/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:13 +0200 > Luca Barbato wrote: > >> On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: >>> ... GNOME ... >> >> And given that the end-plan according to the guys is to kill the >> di

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/15/2013 05:03 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: >> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're >> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the >> features that systemd is alread

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: > Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're > currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the > features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained > state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files What if openrc/upstart/runit devs start harassing upstream in the same way? Strategically is great, but isn't exactly something nice to do. Probably people caring about alternatives s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/04/2013 03:05 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: > Long story short, we should: > 1) give up with cross compiler support in genkernel, which has been > anyway in a broken state for ages. Nobody is using it anyway. > 2) make possible to optionally use udev in the initramfs (compiling > just for it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/04/2013 03:12 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: > I just forgot the tricky part. > If future lvm versions are going to use udev more extensively (for eg: > storing more critical metadata in it), the net result will be that > mdev won't work anymore. This is why I wrote that lvm is working "by > mira

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On 05/01/2013 12:04 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: > PLEASE DO NOT START A FLAME WAR AND READ ON FIRST. > THIS IS NOT A POST AGAINST OPENRC. Amen > With the release of Sabayon 13.04 [1] and thanks to the efforts I put > into the systemd-love overlay [2], systemd has become much more > accessible and

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC

On 04/24/2013 06:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > it has been suggested that gentoo's oldnet scripts be split out into > their own package separate from OpenRC so that they can be developed > independently. I am looking at doing this for OpenRC 0.12, which I hope > to release soon. > > This

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

On 25/02/13 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote: > My point was just that: > 1. No, the fact that entire packages fail to build/operate using > -ffast-math is not a valid bug. >From your email the message was the opposite, maybe a not got lost? > 2. If individual packages DO carefully use -ffast-math and

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

On 25/02/13 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should >> be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser; >> but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should s

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

On 12/02/13 08:21, Ian Whyman wrote: > Guys, > > Can we not just have a developer wide vote or something? This > instance clearly not going to resole itself. It is a little bikeshed. Originally the virtual was ordered in a way, then ordered in another and now we are discussing which one is bette

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

On 11/02/13 22:33, Peter Stuge wrote: > Luca Barbato wrote: >> May I point you that ~10 people were the majority of what was FFmpeg, >> thus 10 people were enough to demote democratically the so called Leader >> and that guy got the name from Fabrice as his personal dec

Re: Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

Your whole email is derailing a bit from discussing the code at hand and it is going deep down on the people, I'd rather not get there since it gets totally unrelated the question at hand. On 11/02/13 14:49, Alexis Ballier wrote: > All of this because ~10 people cannot work together, well, really,

Discussing defaults (Was: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild)

On 11/02/13 03:01, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Sorry, I was away this week end... Not a problem, I should be reachable anytime today. > This is only because libav people do not care at all about what FFmpeg > defines, while FFmpeg seems to care more about its consumers and users > by trying to provid

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild

On 08/02/13 22:46, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:41:04 +0100 > Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > >> On Thursday 07 of February 2013 06:52:44 Peter Stuge wrote: >> >>> Tomáš Chvátal wrote: we as gentoo will provide both while preffered default will be what major distros use. >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-emulation/qemu-user mask

On 16/01/13 20:20, Luca Barbato wrote: > Again please do not mix qemu system emulation with qemu userspace > wrappers. They have different needs and requirements. qemu-user-1.2.2 in portage. I'll drop the mask as said before. We can discuss on irc or here on what's the bes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg

On 19/01/13 20:10, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > have a way to more simply exclude code that requires CODEC_ID_OPUS. Exclude in chrome or in libavcodec? The latter is a matter of adding --disable-decoder=opus and/or not --enable-libopus in the configure. lu

[gentoo-dev] Re: About dropping ppc-kernel herd

On 20/01/13 10:26, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Looks like no package is included in it, I think we should drop that > herd then > > Do you agree? > Agreed.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild

On 17/01/13 15:07, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:41:58 +0100 > Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > [...] >> So yes it works and should not pose any issues to user. I also >> announced it over blog to get people report more issues they find out >> so I can be really sure it works out. It turned

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild

On 16/01/13 22:31, Alexis Ballier wrote: > interesting, did they report it? OTOH, they switched _after_ the 2.0.5 > release which happens to be the latest one. Since vlc is probably the > ffmpeg/libav interface the most popular in the world (due to their > windows and mac builds), I'd like to see a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in virtual/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-9.ebuild ChangeLog ffmpeg-0.10.2-r1.ebuild

On 16/01/13 21:09, Alexis Ballier wrote: > More seriously: Why ? Who decided this ? I never pushed my weight over it before since as you are involved in FFmpeg directly, I am involved in Libav directly. Thus anything I say on this topic has a clear bias. Same goes for you. Tomas is not related t

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-emulation/qemu-user mask

On 12/01/13 05:45, Doug Goldstein wrote: > Just wanted to give everyone a heads up. app-emulation/qemu provides > all the functionality of app-emulation/qemu-user without all the > outstanding security bugs and issues the package has. For users using > a cross chroot, I encourage you to look at QEM

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg

On 16/01/13 12:54, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:10:12 -0800 > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > >> On 1/15/13 4:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:34:42 -0800 >>> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: I'm trying to make Chromium be more compatible with more versio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg

On 15/01/13 05:34, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I'm trying to make Chromium be more compatible with more versions of > ffmpeg: > > (although not stated there, that includes libav). > > Now the initial response t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig

On 02/01/13 13:11, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 01/01/13 23:01, Jeff Horelick wrote: >> I would like to propose a switch of the order of DEPENDs in >> virtual/pkgconfig to make dev-util/pkgconf[pkg-config] the default >> choice for new installations. >> >> dev-util/pkgconf has less external dependen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is /var/cache the right place for repositories?

On 12/20/2012 07:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > The tree is a database. It belongs in /var/db/. > That's a good point. lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: eudev project announcement

On 12/17/12 2:25 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: On 12/17/12 11:40 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: So systemd still works with a separate /usr and you're continuing to spread misinformation. Demonstrating such behaviour while complaining abou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defaulting for debug information in profiles

On 12/17/2012 02:55 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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 a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: eudev project announcement

On 12/17/12 11:40 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: So systemd still works with a separate /usr and you're continuing to spread misinformation. Demonstrating such behaviour while complaining about the behaviour of upstream is IMO very ironic. No it does not, try by yourself please ^^ (or just issue and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving our/portage stuff to var

On 12/17/12 11:30 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:23:00 +0100 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 17/12/2012 11:19, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: I've always myself override these defaults in make.conf to point for /var/portage/ (not /var/lib because I never bothered enough how to make world

Re: [gentoo-dev] new global USE flag: orc

On 12/16/12 5:28 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: Currently, the "orc" local USE flag is used by 11 packages, 9 of them with identical descriptions. I think it's time to make it a global flag. I would suggest the following description: "Use dev-lang/orc for just-in-time optimization of array oper

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement

On 12/15/2012 05:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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. &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement

On 12/15/2012 01:48 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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 purs

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-irc/xchat

On 11/26/2012 01:16 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> along those lines, a news entry is probably not even necessary. > > So, users will just suddenly have their binary change names, and will > need to manually move config files and update logrota

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

On 11/18/2012 04:47 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > But yes, many more can't understand that... and neither do I. Then would be nice if everybody shuts up, let people play with their toys and if something useful happens evaluate the result. According to the people that asked me to help the whole

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

On 11/18/2012 04:34 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > To be honest, in my opinion, «killing of separate /usr» can reasonable > be continued by moving all it's content to / (/usr/bin -> /bin, /usr/lib > -> lib, and so on) in despite of all objections, as it was invented just > because of disk s

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Initial python-r1.eclass & distutils-r1.eclass

On 09/29/2012 12:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:00:18 +0200 > Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >> 2012/9/29 Michał Górny : >>> Hello, >>> >>> Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications I sent >>> earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, initial :P) eclasses >>> f

Re: [gentoo-dev] media-video/vlc looking for a new maintainer

On 09/19/2012 04:00 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > Thanks for all you have done maintaining VLC all those years. It is > undoubtedly one of the most popular and versatile video players out > there. I really hope someone steps up to become its new dedicated > maintainer. Given I'm in contact with upstre

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-multilib: wrapper eclass for multilib builds.

"Michał Górny" wrote: >It is a simple eclass using autotools out-of-source builds to build >packages for multiple ABIs when multilib is supported. > >Use case: xorg packages, ask Matt. >--- >gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 72 >+++ > 1 file changed, 72 inser

Re: [gentoo-dev] A more natural (human-friendly) syntax for dependencies

Alex Alexander wrote: >On Sep 22, 2012 8:25 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote: >> >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:11:48 +0300 >> Alex Alexander wrote: >> >> > On Sep 22, 2012 7:38 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote: >> > > >> > > emerge 'foo >= 1.1' 'bar < 1.0'? >> > > emerge foo '>=' 1.1 bar '<' 1.0? >> > >> > How is

Re: [gentoo-dev] A more natural (human-friendly) syntax for dependencies

No.

Re: [gentoo-dev] A more natural (human-friendly) syntax for dependencies

On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > The current dependency syntax: > > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION] > > suffers a few problems: I like the current one your proposal seems quite a problem for a large deal of usecases. > 1. It is not really human-friendl

Re: [gentoo-dev] supporting static-libs

On 09/22/2012 05:25 PM, hasufell wrote: > add_library(foostatic STATIC foo.cpp foo.h) > set_target_properties(foostatic PROPERTIES OUTPUT_NAME foo) > add_library(foo SHARED foo.cpp foo.h) Looks a bit kludgy but should work well as a macro, willing to contact upstream and/or ask cmake devs to incl

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: method of checking for cross compilation from ebuild functions

On 09/21/2012 06:06 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 09/20/2012 10:34 AM, Ambroz Bizjak wrote: >> The question now is, how should this method for checking >> --crosscompile be implemented? In particular, we have two options: >> >> - Environment variable. If so, how to call it? Possible names are >> CROSS

Re: [gentoo-dev] supporting static-libs

On 09/03/2012 10:54 PM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 02:15:40 hasufell wrote: >> Is there a reason not to support static-libs in an ebuild if the package >> supports it? >> >> It seems some developers don't care about this option. What's the gentoo >> policy on this? Isn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] A more natural (human-friendly) syntax for dependencies

On 09/22/2012 09:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > The current dependency syntax: > > [VERSION-OP] PACKAGE-NAME ["-" PACKAGE-VERSION] > > suffers a few problems: I like the current syntax. lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: netplugd and ifplugd support in OpenRc

On 9/10/12 11:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:26:10PM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote: On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 09:48 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: In researching this program, I have found that it and ifplugd, which is the alternative, have been unmaintained for years. Also Debian

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-emulation/qemu & app-emulation/qemu-kvm folding into one package

On 09/10/2012 03:55 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > Hey all, > > Just an announcement that app-emulation/qemu-kvm will be pkgmove'd to > app-emulation/qemu at some point this week. The app-emulation/qemu > ebuilds will effectively die and be replaced by the > app-emulation/qemu-kvm ebuilds. I've broug

Re: [gentoo-dev] Any official position from Gentoo about systemd, mdev and udev-static ?

On 08/28/2012 05:35 PM, Sylvain Alain wrote: > Hi everyone, I don't want to start a flamewar on that subject, but I would > like to know if there's any official position about the current situation. udev might or might not eventually get forked to avoid systemd borg-approach. mdev works fine for

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and see if there is something big left. boost and gnutls seem big enough already to spend some time to get those fixed before unlea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On 08/14/2012 09:14 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > But it means nothing for someone who wants to open a box, switch on > the power, and go online to $socialmediasite or $emailprovider. Sabayon does a decent job for them. lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global Systemd USE Flag

On 8/12/12 6:10 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: The gods heard your call, and have replied: Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop that support entirely. -- Lennart [1] [1] http://lists.fre

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On 08/10/2012 09:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > vdr is a first example which comes to my mind. They workaround program > configuration limitations and the init.d scripts become a complex > extra-configuration parser + plugin loader. Well, another thing here is > that upstream AFAIK is not willing to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 > Luca Barbato wrote: > >> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than >> libc is stupid and dangerous. > > But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much

Re: [gentoo-dev] pid 1 design

On 08/09/2012 04:02 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Luca Barbato wrote: >> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more >> than libc is stupid and dangerous. > > Why do you say? Because libc supposedly should be stable, other libraries are a bit more prone t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global Systemd USE Flag

On 08/09/2012 12:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0200 > Luca Barbato wrote: > >> On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what >>> the w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global Systemd USE Flag

On 08/09/2012 10:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > No. I meant to have 'GNU' tools with 'GNU' stripped. Isn't that what > the whole discussion is about? Changing names of tools just for > someone's liking? No, we are discussing about an upstream merging two unrelated projects assuring users that nothin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinion against /usr merge

On 07/18/2012 08:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > I don't think we should give more support to building a system from > a statically linked rescue suite tool. For people wanting to shave some seconds from their boot openrc using busybox is quite handy and should be used as default IMHO. lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-text/epdfview

On 08/07/2012 05:00 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > Hi, > > "Andreas K. Huettel" writes: > >> # Andreas K. Huettel (7 Aug 2012) >> # Many display bugs and compatibility problems, does not build with >> cups-1.6. >> # Upstream is dead. There's no real way to support this anymore. Masked for >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global Systemd USE Flag

On 08/08/2012 04:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Yes, and please remove all the occurrences of 'GNU' because I don't > like it. We have people working on a clang/freebsd gentoo, you might help them and use that. It sort of works fine. For a project Flameeyes replaced most of system using smaller alt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On 08/07/2012 09:00 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > I expect that in the not so long term, systemd will become an essential > user-space component of desktop Linux, just like crond, syslog, dbus, > udev or glibc. Sharing that code just makes sense, that allows As in completely optional and easily repla

Re: [gentoo-dev] UTF-8 locale by default

On 07/27/2012 07:24 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > yes, and i'm waiting on the POSIX group to formalize C.UTF-8. that's the > only > real option in my mind for making unicode the default. any other > amalgamations of various locales is ugly as sin. When they meet? I'd be fine with a pre-release

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >