Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

[Kacper Kowalik]

On 04.05.2012 18:30, hasufell wrote:
> # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE
> # @DESCRIPTION:
> # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation.
> 
> By default this is deactivated which is inconvenient imo and results in
> pastes having minimum information.
> I have to tell users every time to recompile with CMAKE_VERBOSE=1 so
> that I have proper information on what is going on.
> 
> Are there any arguments against this being default?
> 
Hi,
It's been discussed previously here [1]
with nack from cmake-utils.eclass maintainers and general conclusion
that's too "expensive" to write to stdout :/
If you're gonna make it happen this time, I'll owe you a beer...
Cheers,
Kacper

[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_1b58b577fde07f7735ae6b9eb34885be.xml



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 05-05-2012 a las 09:49 +0200, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> On 04.05.2012 18:30, hasufell wrote:
> > # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE
> > # @DESCRIPTION:
> > # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation.
> > 
> > By default this is deactivated which is inconvenient imo and results in
> > pastes having minimum information.
> > I have to tell users every time to recompile with CMAKE_VERBOSE=1 so
> > that I have proper information on what is going on.
> > 
> > Are there any arguments against this being default?
> > 
> Hi,
> It's been discussed previously here [1]
> with nack from cmake-utils.eclass maintainers and general conclusion
> that's too "expensive" to write to stdout :/
> If you're gonna make it happen this time, I'll owe you a beer...
> Cheers,
> Kacper
> 
> [1]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_1b58b577fde07f7735ae6b9eb34885be.xml
> 

That would be a good step to get
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193

implemented some day ;)


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

[Zac Medico]

On 05/05/2012 12:49 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> On 04.05.2012 18:30, hasufell wrote:
>> # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE
>> # @DESCRIPTION:
>> # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation.
>>
>> By default this is deactivated which is inconvenient imo and results in
>> pastes having minimum information.
>> I have to tell users every time to recompile with CMAKE_VERBOSE=1 so
>> that I have proper information on what is going on.
>>
>> Are there any arguments against this being default?
>>
> Hi,
> It's been discussed previously here [1]
> with nack from cmake-utils.eclass maintainers and general conclusion
> that's too "expensive" to write to stdout :/
> If you're gonna make it happen this time, I'll owe you a beer...
> Cheers,
> Kacper
> 
> [1]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_1b58b577fde07f7735ae6b9eb34885be.xml

They should probably be using the emerge --quiet-build option if they're
concerned about the expense of build output going to the console.

Anyway, it seems like verbose would be a good default, with an option to
override it for people who enjoy watching build output scroll by in
their spare time.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

[Michael Weber]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 05/04/2012 09:37 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Johannes Huber 
> wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 14:41:42 schrieb Mike Gilbert:
>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, hasufell 
>>> wrote:
 
 I think that as an argument pro CMAKE_VERBOSE=1 because that
 would cover 100% instead of 95-99.
++

There was a similar rumor about VERBOSE=1 V=1 and the (`emerge -j 2`
induced emerge `--quiet-build`).

But build.log files will get larger and bugzie has this 1MB upload limit.
"File:  Enter the path to the file on your computer (1000 KB limit)
(or paste text as attachment)."

We should add an hint to atach compressed build logs (or raise this
limit).

> It would be nice to avoid having to wait for the user to respond
> with the updated build log.

Which may take ages and lead to "RESO/NEEDINFO". Not good.

Greetings,

   Michael

- --
Gentoo Dev
http://xmw.de/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+k+g8ACgkQknrdDGLu8JDmMAEAi8vT95lr5K2DkgxZUThy/Yh5
IgfVEVqpm+A3vcBgSZwA/A756k6/WVrJwh2lADr8Sly7hbOpoXYkTkHRO9iu/OVc
=cJST
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[gentoo-dev] Possible lastrite of sys-fs/rar2fs (waiting for upstream reaction)

[Samuli Suominen]

# Samuli Suominen  (05 May 2012)
# Broken with unrar-4.2.1 wrt upstream ticket of:
# http://code.google.com/p/rar2fs/issues/detail?id=10
# Either waiting for fixed release, or the package will
# be removed in 30 days
<=sys-fs/rar2fs-1.15.0

[gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Maxim Koltsov]

Hi,
I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
So my proposal is to remove it from
profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible lastrite of sys-fs/rar2fs (waiting for upstream reaction)

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Samuli Suominen  wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen  (05 May 2012)
> # Broken with unrar-4.2.1 wrt upstream ticket of:
> # http://code.google.com/p/rar2fs/issues/detail?id=10
> # Either waiting for fixed release, or the package will
> # be removed in 30 days
> <=sys-fs/rar2fs-1.15.0

Heh, last riting a package because of an unfixed issue that was only
reported today? You've got tree cleaning on the brain.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

[Richard Yao]

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 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 tree would need to include a userland in addition to a kernel.
> 
> Huh?  Don't you consider the kernel + glibc + xorg today a good "Linux
> stack"?  Isn't the "Android stack" another example of a good "Linux
> stack"?

glibc and xorg can run on top of Linux, but I would not call them a
Linux stack. glibc is the C standard library for the GNU operating
system while xorg is a windowing system intended for UNIX operating
systems. People have them working on top of Linux, but people have them
working on top of other kernels too. The Debian developers have both
components working on top of FreeBSD's kernel as well as HURD, which is
glibc's native kernel.

As for the Android stack, it is currently used on Linux, but nothing
prevents it from being used on other kernels. In specific, both Solaris
and FreeBSD the ability to run software built against the Linux kernel
ABI. If one were sufficiently motivated, it should be possible to run
the Android stack on either of them.

My understanding of a stack is that it generally includes a kernel, a
libc, a C compiler, an assembler, a linker, a bootloader, an init
system, a getty implementation, a command shell, a text editor and some
basic UNIX commands (e.g. cp, mv, rm). There is some userland software
in the Linux tree in ./usr and ./tools, but aside from the kernel, I
cannot find anything that constitutes a stack, or even a stack minus a
few components.

Plenty of regressions stem from using other projects' stacks on Linux.
The following regression was particularly painful:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638477

I would love to use the Linux stack on my Linux systems to avoid such
regressions, but I cannot find one. If one exists, please let me know.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible lastrite of sys-fs/rar2fs (waiting for upstream reaction)

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/05/2012 07:20 PM, Matt Turner wrote:

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Samuli Suominen  wrote:

# Samuli Suominen  (05 May 2012)
# Broken with unrar-4.2.1 wrt upstream ticket of:
# http://code.google.com/p/rar2fs/issues/detail?id=10
# Either waiting for fixed release, or the package will
# be removed in 30 days
<=sys-fs/rar2fs-1.15.0


Heh, last riting a package because of an unfixed issue that was only
reported today? You've got tree cleaning on the brain.



- It's broken on the same stabilization level, both unrar-4.2.1 and 
rar2fs-* are in ~arch; rar2fs was never stabilized.


- I'm the maintainer for rar2fs and have no time to fix it.

So absolutely, the correct step was done.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:02:05 -0700
Greg KH  wrote:
> And what are you going to do when dbus moves into the kernel itself
> (hint, it will be there soon)?

Why stop at dbus? Why isn't libxml2 in the kernel yet?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov  wrote:
> Hi,
> I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
> w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
> So my proposal is to remove it from
> profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?
>

So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
being on by default?

-A

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/05/2012 08:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov  wrote:

Hi,
I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
So my proposal is to remove it from
profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?



So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
being on by default?

-A



An answer to the "But, it has always been like this." is a matter of 
issuing a portage news item (glep 42)


(But yeah, I agree we need to be careful with changing the USE flags set 
globally by profiles)

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Maxim Koltsov]

2012/5/5 Alec Warner :
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
>> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
>> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
>> w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
>> So my proposal is to remove it from
>> profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?
>>
>
> So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
> being on by default?

Well, i just haven't thought about that. Maybe make news item or
something of this kind. But now when i see this simple removal implies
such consequences, i think i can just live with it, disabling manually
:)

> -A
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium bundled code

[Greg KH]

On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:02:05 -0700
> Greg KH  wrote:
> > And what are you going to do when dbus moves into the kernel itself
> > (hint, it will be there soon)?
> 
> Why stop at dbus? Why isn't libxml2 in the kernel yet?

Because kernel developers are merely crazy, not insane.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Jeff Horelick]

I didn't mention this last night (probably because I was EXTREMELY
tired), but the entire gentoo-x86 tree has been converted to the
virtual (Y!!! *kermitflail*). As long as you don't use any
overlays, you should now be able to switch your pkgconfig
implementation to pkgconf[pkg-config] or pkg-config-lite with no
problems.

Please give them (mainly pkgconf) a try and see if everything works. :D

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/05/2012 09:02 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:

I didn't mention this last night (probably because I was EXTREMELY
tired), but the entire gentoo-x86 tree has been converted to the
virtual (Y!!! *kermitflail*). As long as you don't use any
overlays, you should now be able to switch your pkgconfig
implementation to pkgconf[pkg-config] or pkg-config-lite with no
problems.


Same USE="pkg-config" is now available in dev-util/pkgconfig-openbsd if 
anyone is intrested in perl based version


It won't get KEYWORDS anytime soon, but I'm happily accepting patches 
that are forwarded to OpenBSD bug tracking system too




Please give them (mainly pkgconf) a try and see if everything works. :D

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 05 May 2012 13:10:10 Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> > I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
> > 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
> > default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
> > w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
> > So my proposal is to remove it from
> > profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?
> 
> So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
> being on by default?

move it from the desktop/ subdir to the versioned trees like 10.0/ and 
2008.0/, and eventually when we create a 11.0/, it'll no longer be the 
default.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] New category for (libre)office extensions: office-ext ?

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Hiya, 

there's a growing culture of libreoffice extensions, and (with the help of an 
eclass prepared by scarabeus) it would be nice to get some of them into the 
portage tree. Now we have to decide where to put them.

Suggestion: new category office-ext

What do you think?

Cheers, Andreas

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass: set default of CMAKE_VERBOSE=1

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 18:30:10 schrieb hasufell:
> # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CMAKE_VERBOSE
> # @DESCRIPTION:
> # Set to enable verbose messages during compilation.
> 
> By default this is deactivated which is inconvenient imo and results in
> pastes having minimum information.
> I have to tell users every time to recompile with CMAKE_VERBOSE=1 so
> that I have proper information on what is going on.
> 
> Are there any arguments against this being default?

I think the resistance against this more has to do with the output being more 
esthetically pleasing (yes I know this is not really a good point for us, but 
in general the cmake output is quite nice) than with "writing to stdout is 
expensive" (which was a joke in the previous thread).

That being said, it probably makes sense to change the default to =1, as it 
definitely helps debugging to see the build commands. 

@infra:
However, please raise the file size limit for bugzilla then, and if possible, 
please fix the use of compressed build logs. Right now, I would not recommend 
uploading a compressed log to bugzilla, because:
* I have not found a way to have firefox uncompress and display it correctly 
with one click (always have to download, save, ...)
* and often files end up double-compressed, i.e. save log.gz, gunzip, rename 
log to log.gz, gunzip :(

Cheers, Andreas

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for (libre)office extensions: office-ext ?

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 05/05/12 14:40, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 
> Hiya, 
> 
> there's a growing culture of libreoffice extensions, and (with the help of an 
> eclass prepared by scarabeus) it would be nice to get some of them into the 
> portage tree. Now we have to decide where to put them.
> 
> Suggestion: new category office-ext
> 
> What do you think?

No preference myself, but we already have e.g. app-emacs and www-apache
which (I guess?) reflect the fact that emacs lies under app-foo and
apache under www-bar.

That would suggest app-libreoffice?

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for (libre)office extensions: office-ext ?

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 20:40:47 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel"  wrote:

> there's a growing culture of libreoffice extensions, and (with the
> help of an eclass prepared by scarabeus) it would be nice to get some
> of them into the portage tree. Now we have to decide where to put
> them.
> 
> Suggestion: new category office-ext
> 
> What do you think?

office-plugins, to follow suit.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Markos Chandras]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/05/2012 06:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov
>  wrote:
>> Hi, I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected 
>> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among 
>> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more
>> users w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it. So my proposal is
>> to remove it from profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any
>> objections?
>> 
> 
> So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it 
> being on by default?
> 
> -A
> 
Users will note the use flag change when they run "emerge -uDN world"
and they will add it to their make.conf. I am also in favor of
dropping ldap from the desktop profiles.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=vd37
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for (libre)office extensions: office-ext ?

[Krzysztof Pawlik]

On 05/05/12 21:01, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 05/05/12 14:40, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>> Hiya, 
>>
>> there's a growing culture of libreoffice extensions, and (with the help of 
>> an 
>> eclass prepared by scarabeus) it would be nice to get some of them into the 
>> portage tree. Now we have to decide where to put them.
>>
>> Suggestion: new category office-ext
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> No preference myself, but we already have e.g. app-emacs and www-apache
> which (I guess?) reflect the fact that emacs lies under app-foo and
> apache under www-bar.
> 
> That would suggest app-libreoffice?

+1 on app-libreoffice if they are only for LibreOffice. Can those extensions
work with app-office/openoffice-bin?

-- 
Krzysztof Pawlikkey id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] About dropping webapps-unmaintained alias

[Markos Chandras]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 04/21/2012 11:51 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> It's simply pointing to maintainer-needed and no bug is assigned to
> it. If a webapp package is orphan, it should go to
> maintainer-needed directly I think
> 
> The same for webapps-request, that is a link to maintainer-wanted
> 
> Thanks :)
Do it ;)

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=GN0I
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)]

On May 5, 2012 3:14 PM, "Markos Chandras"  wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 05/05/2012 06:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi, I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
> >> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
> >> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more
> >> users w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it. So my proposal is
> >> to remove it from profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any
> >> objections?
> >>
> >
> > So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
> > being on by default?
> >
> > -A
> >
> Users will note the use flag change when they run "emerge -uDN world"
> and they will add it to their make.conf. I am also in favor of
> dropping ldap from the desktop profiles.

I don't like this change much. There are valid use cases for an ldap use
flag in the desktop profile that could break easily with this change.

Also, you could make the same case for adding -ldap to your make.conf
>
> - --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPpXuaAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCJUIP/iwaCfKl5VAQaecbeHD3UnsE
> bvQidUoVOSCEYUaMd7cjmMi2vGpQ5JbYFOedy/tsdiFmuL8ACL8WqtKgfd9j8VGX
> D+hK2QOGx6YKYYYG+QLbU0TaKa95pMK9eQibVeTu+1ptzI9TGUdmbm675FpTn4WL
> ibJAuVESJZWYnbH2rJf8OHCx1J/Re4vBGH9p8s/F8znzAaXcpTFi7HgObXXsVPLA
> AIgUWgsmEcHTQLq83Y79HJhF8h0Y2cUC57icc0ZnVzjHyF10ll//AsDhuFP2ToSp
> NBK+U4tc0NDBdrnyEYSEkEY1DXyXvKp4O6i9bbaFsVnj45Bf8sRPmjRBE2HOcyGJ
> WfZO+tVKnxOfeLeUQ+47jwHmMyyBb6t7YCgX71S17oqOqm+0aV/GmNHPYR9+HxQY
> h1sFHyrkQ8Yh9GtfOn4r6L0YdV2LDP13MaqnOUONwpLN7UWOvv2dhWQDY4iikomh
> 2nLPtHKmChu5HsRfNIRvOPYt4YGjZFtPX2BoKXveWwEsreeZG3Nr0SPIuKubAnKJ
> Sx1Up190ElkNPHdYLIemVOjBoe+R0AGs/QxjTfFhSGog1etWsS4Sm287wqdxkbQo
> HHwSG1zIVMyr7IZEuEOgyEVY9ZTmVA4vSaUPZIv5KLq5o3MdrvPHEkT29lPgcaUZ
> xssurey2d7C0S5j9//SL
> =vd37
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Dale]

Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
> 
> On May 5, 2012 3:14 PM, "Markos Chandras"  > wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 05/05/2012 06:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov
>> > mailto:maksbo...@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>> >> Hi, I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
>> >> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
>> >> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more
>> >> users w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it. So my proposal is
>> >> to remove it from profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any
>> >> objections?
>> >>
>> >
>> > So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
>> > being on by default?
>> >
>> > -A
>> >
>> Users will note the use flag change when they run "emerge -uDN world"
>> and they will add it to their make.conf. I am also in favor of
>> dropping ldap from the desktop profiles.
> 
> I don't like this change much. There are valid use cases for an ldap use
> flag in the desktop profile that could break easily with this change.
> 
> Also, you could make the same case for adding -ldap to your make.conf


Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the
change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I was
changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Michael Weber]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 05/05/2012 09:55 PM, Dale wrote:
> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the 
> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I
> was changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.

We should make emerge -v (display USE flags) non-optional.
Users should be trained to recognize the green/red use flag changes.

Do whatever you what, I've set make.conf:USE=ldap on machines relying
on it.

Michael
- --
Gentoo Dev
http://xmw.de/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+lkR4ACgkQknrdDGLu8JAOCgEAkb2E7jA8j5XFsxrZfBFQqIRt
Vy4W74nRfvLI5HT/N+sA/3SEZFOA94shWc98c9aYfPEQpSIJi402HuUZenTdPvEN
=ULqw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[gentoo-dev] remove cups from releases/make.defaults ?

[hasufell]

# grep ^USE /usr/portage/profiles/releases/make.defaults
USE="acl cups gdbm gpm nptl nptlonly sysfs unicode"

This is used by "/usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0" for
example, so I have "cups" in default NON-DESKTOP profile like it was a
mandatory useflag.

Is it? I don't even have a printer and expect that profile to be the
very minimum.

This would rather be a useflag for targets/desktop/make.defaults imo.

I see a similar discussion has happened 2 years ago, but I don't see a
solution there.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Francesco Riosa]

2012/5/5 Michael Weber :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 05/05/2012 09:55 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the
>> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I
>> was changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.
>
> We should make emerge -v (display USE flags) non-optional.
> Users should be trained to recognize the green/red use flag changes.

currently portage _does_ show use changed w/o -v, and show _all_ use
w/ -v, please leave it as is -v is way too verbose to see the changes
in a multi-package merge

> Do whatever you what, I've set make.conf:USE=ldap on machines relying
> on it.
> Michael

Mee too, that sum to zero machines tough

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for (libre)office extensions: office-ext ?

[Markos Chandras]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/05/2012 08:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2012 20:40:47 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel"
>  wrote:
> 
>> there's a growing culture of libreoffice extensions, and (with
>> the help of an eclass prepared by scarabeus) it would be nice to
>> get some of them into the portage tree. Now we have to decide
>> where to put them.
>> 
>> Suggestion: new category office-ext
>> 
>> What do you think?
> 
> office-plugins, to follow suit.
> 
This may be confusing as people would expect these plugins to work
with both {open,libre}office packages. If these plugins are just for
libreoffice then I would prefer app-libreoffice like other people have
already suggested

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=6GG+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Dale  wrote:
> Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
>> I don't like this change much. There are valid use cases for an ldap use
>> flag in the desktop profile that could break easily with this change.
>>

There are valid use cases for every USE flag in portage, otherwise
they wouldn't be there.  The fact that SOME people find ldap useful on
a desktop does not mean that it should be the default.

>
> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the
> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I was
> changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.

It has already been suggested that this be prefaced by a news item,
which would be completely sensible for just about any profile USE
change.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Dale]

Michael Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 05/05/2012 09:55 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the 
>> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I
>> was changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.
> 
> We should make emerge -v (display USE flags) non-optional.
> Users should be trained to recognize the green/red use flag changes.


I already have mine set that way.  I also try to watch for the changes
but sometimes the way the lines wrap I may miss one here and there.
That has bit me a couple times.  I sort of expect USE flags to stay the
same for the most part.  Profile changes are expected to change things
but I rarely change those.

I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
freaking out.

Dale

:-)  :-)


> 
> Do whatever you what, I've set make.conf:USE=ldap on machines relying
> on it.
> 
> Michael


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

[gentoo-dev] add global useflag: webkit

[hasufell]

# grep :webkit use.local.desc | wc -l
33

I would vote to make this a global useflag:

webkit - Adds support for the webkit library/module

Re: [gentoo-dev] add global useflag: webkit

[Ben]

On 6 May 2012 08:34, hasufell  wrote:
> # grep :webkit use.local.desc | wc -l
> 33
>
> I would vote to make this a global useflag:
>
> webkit - Adds support for the webkit library/module
>

IIRC this was already voted on ~2 years ago (before I retired). It's
just waiting for someone to implement it.
See also bug #285743.

Cheers,
Ben | yngwin

Re: [gentoo-dev] remove cups from releases/make.defaults ?

[Ben]

On 6 May 2012 04:45, hasufell  wrote:
> # grep ^USE /usr/portage/profiles/releases/make.defaults
> USE="acl cups gdbm gpm nptl nptlonly sysfs unicode"
>
> This is used by "/usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0" for
> example, so I have "cups" in default NON-DESKTOP profile like it was a
> mandatory useflag.
>
> Is it? I don't even have a printer and expect that profile to be the
> very minimum.
>
> This would rather be a useflag for targets/desktop/make.defaults imo.
>
> I see a similar discussion has happened 2 years ago, but I don't see a
> solution there.
>

I would argue (and I did 2 years ago) that it doesn't belong even in
the desktop profile. I'm certainly not the only desktop user who
hasn't had a printer in years.

Cheers,
Ben | yngwin

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Ben]

On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale  wrote:
> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
> same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
> doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
> freaking out.

Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more minimal profile.
What do you guys think?

Cheers,
Ben | yngwin

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Dale]

Ben wrote:
> On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale  wrote:
>> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
>> same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
>> doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
>> freaking out.
> 
> Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more minimal profile.
> What do you guys think?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben | yngwin
> 
> 



Me, I don't mind the change but please let us know if the current one is
changed.  Why not put this in for the 2012 or 11 profile?  Whatever
number comes next.  That way the users will know to look and have to
change to the new profile.

 I usually do a emerge -uvaDN world before I change profiles, then
change the profile and repeat with -a.  That is when I expect to see USE
flag changes and lots of other goodies that you devs do.  :-)

Someone mentioned a news item.  That would work but maybe a new and
fancy profile would work too.  Someone may want to make others changes
to while they are at it.

Just a thought.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Brian Dolbec]

On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 21:20 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale  wrote:
> >> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
> >> same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
> >> doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
> >> freaking out.
> > 
> > Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more minimal 
> > profile.
> > What do you guys think?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Ben | yngwin
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Me, I don't mind the change but please let us know if the current one is
> changed.  Why not put this in for the 2012 or 11 profile?  Whatever
> number comes next.  That way the users will know to look and have to
> change to the new profile.
> 
>  I usually do a emerge -uvaDN world before I change profiles, then
> change the profile and repeat with -a.  That is when I expect to see USE
> flag changes and lots of other goodies that you devs do.  :-)
> 
> Someone mentioned a news item.  That would work but maybe a new and
> fancy profile would work too.  Someone may want to make others changes
> to while they are at it.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

1) Yes, create a new profile for this change.

2) Create a news item stating the change in default behavior for this
new profile.

3) mention the tools available to help with migrating this change.  (see
below)


I created enalyze in gentoolkit for helping migrate changes like this
without breaking systems. It is also very useful for lost/broken
package.{use,keywords} files.  Both the analyze and rebuild sub-modules
of enalyze can show you how use flags are used for installed packages on
your system. The analyze module shows which flags are default/not and
the pkgs using them.  It can help you decide what you want set in
make.conf.  The rebuild module can generate a new package.{use,
keywords} file for you after considering the defaults and make.conf. In
this case for making profile or make.conf use flag changes so that
everything already installed will remain the same on your system for
upgrades/re-installs.

-- 
Brian Dolbec 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part