Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: euscan proof of concept (like debian's uscan)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Corentin Chary wrote: > 2011/4/27 Tomáš Chvátal : >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dne 27.4.2011 10:04, Corentin Chary napsal(a): >>> I updated http://euscan.iksaif.net yesterday. >>> >>> I also added some overlays, and I now use local portage portage trees >>> instead of system trees (a script to do that is available in >>> euscanwww/script). >>> >>> New features: >>> - Handle overlays correctly (special column for overlays) >>> - Add some charts (small bar charts in table, pies at the bottom) >>> - Less false positives with euscan >>> >>> I'll try to add "all time" line charts this week. >>> >>> Thanks, >> Found another issue, package stays there even if it was removed from the >> portage tree (kde-misc/plasmaboard is a good example). > > Good catch, I'll add a --purge option to scan-portage. Done, http://git.iksaif.net/?p=euscan.git;a=commitdiff;h=120ae425af82061fee4e0d7f18104595c551a144;hp=244e7d64fdc6ddeb31ad54dfcc415c50672bdebb -- Corentin Chary http://xf.iksaif.net
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk 3 preparation work
On 21/02/11 15:09, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Hi list, > > a quick mail to announce that the gnome team, in order to prepare for > gnome 3, started slotting a lot of gnome team managed packages. If you > find yourself using such a package, please update your ebuilds to use > slot notations or other EAPI compliant notation resulting in the same > effect. > > A non-exhaustive list of slotted libraries this far: gtk, gtksourceview, > gtk-engines, libwnck, ... > > We aim at including gtk:3 in the coming days, so please forgive us if we > get to your package before you read this mail. > > Hi, Could you please send an updated version of the package-to-slot list? And it would be still nice to have a script in order to check for needed slotting. thanks jsutin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtual for tftp server
> On Mon, 2 May 2011, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Ok, please take a look at net-misc/ris-linux. It's used for network
> installing windows, therefore user will need tftp, samba and friends,
> so i added them to RDEPEND for convinience. Do you think we must ask
> user to install them by hand by elog message?
If it's only few (let's say not more than three) packages that need
the dependency, they can easily use || ( ) in {,R}DEPEND. I wouldn't
create a virtual in such cases.
Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk 3 preparation work
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM, justin wrote: > On 21/02/11 15:09, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Could you please send an updated version of the package-to-slot list? http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/gnome/3.0/slotting/ Everything was fixed about a month ago — http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/70479 I still (irregularly) update the slotting lists in case people re-add packages without slots. However, the file list on that page is sufficient to discern which packages need to be depended on with a slot. > And it would be still nice to have a script in order to check for needed > slotting. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/69992 -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk 3 preparation work
On 02/05/11 09:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM, justin wrote: >> On 21/02/11 15:09, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >> Could you please send an updated version of the package-to-slot list? > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/gnome/3.0/slotting/ > > Everything was fixed about a month ago — > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/70479 > > I still (irregularly) update the slotting lists in case people re-add > packages without slots. However, the file list on that page is > sufficient to discern which packages need to be depended on with a > slot. > >> And it would be still nice to have a script in order to check for needed >> slotting. >> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/69992 > What about overlays? Could you provide a script that we can manually check them? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk 3 preparation work
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, justin wrote: > On 02/05/11 09:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM, justin wrote: >>> On 21/02/11 15:09, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >>> Could you please send an updated version of the package-to-slot list? >> >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/gnome/3.0/slotting/ >> >> Everything was fixed about a month ago — >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/70479 >> >> I still (irregularly) update the slotting lists in case people re-add >> packages without slots. However, the file list on that page is >> sufficient to discern which packages need to be depended on with a >> slot. >> >>> And it would be still nice to have a script in order to check for needed >>> slotting. >>> >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/69992 >> > > What about overlays? Could you provide a script that we can manually > check them? > To do that, you just need to remove the following line from the script: portdb.porttrees = [portage.settings['PORTDIR']] That'll make it check portage as well as the overlays. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs
2011-05-02 02:16:49 Markos Chandras napisał(a): > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote: > > > What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's > > > still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the > > > hazards > > > of a loss of integrity there aren't as high as with most of the tree > > > content. It'd require changes, but I don't believe they're out of line > > > with that required for the rest of the proposal. > > > > It means the only real trust that clients can level is on that key- > > since it will be the last signer (thus /the/ signer) across all pkgs. > > > > Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form, > > crack all signing keys and you've got the tree. > > > > Mind you this is ignoring eclasses, but getting eclasses sorted will > > be mildly pointless if the rest of the solution has been > > weakened/gutted since. > > > > Point is, it's not *just* about having a signature on it- it's about > > mapping the trust of that signature back, and sectioning/containing > > compromises. What y'all are suggesting guts that layered defense. > > ~brian > > Then the only choice here is to ignore Changelogs from Manifests and > live with that. You have your changelogs unprotected but you keep your > ebuilds safe(?). As I said, it is a balanced choice that has to be made. Generated ChangeLogs could contain server-side-generated signatures for themselves (gpg --sign --clearsign ChangeLog && mv ChangeLog.asc ChangeLog). (Manifests wouldn't contain entries for ChangeLogs.) -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Devmanual text on ChangeLogs
Le samedi 30 avril 2011 à 11:46 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit : > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html > > There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for > ChangeLog entries is. See: > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f829da2375f1ceab766a800913cc4998.xml > > I propose a simple new text: "Every commit should have an entry in > ChangeLog." If we eventually autogenerate them from git logs this would > happen any way (unless some kind of filtering system is in the middle) > so we could already start now. I think it's better to have more than > less information available to users. > > Regards, > Petteri > As in any other open source project, history (even of removed files) matters just as much as the outcome. Please make it a policy to always have a ChangeLog entry for any changes. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
