Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev > list to see. I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's consideration: "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. "On the differences between EAPI 0 and EAPI 1, a much smaller topic, it is complete and can stand as a full specification" Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such a statement can be made?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal complaint against you. Have a good day. lol. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at > all? The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of deps. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/linuxtv-dvb-apps: ChangeLog linuxtv-dvb-apps-1.1.1.20070924.ebuild
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:10:34 +0200
Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already wondered a while back:
> sed only fails if the file does not exist, but not if there was no
> replacement. Is there any way to force it to?
Off the top of my head...
sed -e '1{x;s/^/0/;x;ta;:a}'
-e 's/$STRING/$REPLACEMENT/'
-e 'Tb;x;s/^/1/;x;:b;${p;x;/^0/Q1;Q0};'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] more QA action
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:10:28 -0700 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > > Hello, > > > > 1. QAcanfix keyword > > Just wanted to remind you of the QAcanfix keyword, don't hesitate > > to use it more often as currently there are no open bugs marked > > with it, but also don't forget about the kittens and always give > > the maintainer a chance :) > What is this? It's a bugzilla keyword used to say that QA can fix the bug without the maintainer's intervention. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:06:32 +0200 _JusSx_ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a > bit I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I > think it's better not to install it... Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful piece of software. We're not debian. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200 Benjamin Judas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...which means that he has a documented history of trolling not only > on mailinglists but also in irc-channels; not only against developers > but also against volunteering users. So do most people on this list. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:00:55 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Alexander Gabert wrote: > > You left the project and it's your choice to continue working with > > it and on it. > > Nonono, you got it all wrong. > He didn't leave, he was fired [1]. Which means that he left, just that it wasn't his decision. Did you have anything resembling a point to make? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo/Alpha status
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:13:11 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > thanks for increasing the SNR. Pot, meet kettle. And yes, I know I'm doing the same. However, I'm not complaining about it, and I don't particularly care. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo/Alpha status
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:05:56 + "Jose Luis Rivero (YosWinK)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > P.D: for those of you worried out there: *NO*. Gentoo/Alpha is *not* > going to have a different default package manager than the rest of > Gentoo ;) ...yet. *flees* -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild > sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE="yes" globally, it does not mean that ebuilds > may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot > change in such a way that breaks this behaviour. The acceptance > question is relevant only for legitimate behaviour; things accepted > by fluke aren't considered accepted. However, the fact that Portage currently accepts it is tangentially related to the matter at hand, because it's a piece of code that may get confused by this sort of ambiguity. Fortunately it's (relatively speaking) trivial to fix, because the ambiguity only happens due to behaviour that shouldn't really be there. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An ebuild's PROVIDE list. According to PMS at least, PROVIDE only allows category/package, with no versioning. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You > don't know unless you actually check the tree. Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both accepted? Should there be? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:08:38 +0100 George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Was your behaviour wrong? Not particularly. Was it in bad taste? > Definitely. Could his email to the list stop others from making the > same mistakes? Hopefully. Bad taste depends entirely upon context and upon the people reading it. In the context that the original comment was made, everyone active at the time recognised it for what it was, so it wasn't bad taste. On this list, it is. The mistake was in taking a joke amongst a group of friends out of that context and into a much wider one full of people liable to get their panties in a twist. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning^2
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:22:04 +0200 "Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Common sense? Where the hell are you? Common sense abandoned Gentoo months ago. Maybe years. Unless it was the other way around, which seems more likely. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:29:02 +0200 Benjamin Judas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am sick of hearing such jokes. Then ignore them, and don't blow them out of proportion so that everyone else who didn't see them in its original context, and probably doesn't particularly want to, has to see them in the middle of a large thread on -dev. I really cannot see a single reason why starting this thread is/was a remotely good idea. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble
> 21:36 <@spb> next step is making paludis the officially supported > package manager on alpha This is what is known as a joke. Most people can recognise it as such. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [half-PROCTORS] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bye Gentoo!
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:58:00 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I take this as a compliment to Bryan, but then still you are implying > that most of the people here are not sane. Remember people, you can't compliment anyone now, because doing so implies that everyone else is less valuable than they are. Seriously, get a grip. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit > _p0". The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0 > greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered > equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0. OK, that change makes sense, and is in fact what PMS in its current wording requires. One or the other should be changed to match, and I think the PMS version at the moment makes more sense. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:02:30 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the tree Possibly, though I don't see a real reason for it. > or should be change the version comparison behavior so that > implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0? No. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [news-item] Paludis 0.24
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a g42 news item shouldn't be issued for minor syntax > changes in config files that could just as well handled completely > automatically in postinst/CONFIG_PROTECT. And these changes can't be handled that way, since paludis configs can and do exist in home directories as well as in /etc. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news items
Anyone have a reason why we can't start to put them in the tree? Portage support is, I'm told, coming in a month or so, and other package managers have supported glep42 for a while now. The format is well specified by the GLEP, so compatibility shouldn't be an issue. The one thing I can see needing to be decided first is an open question in the glep: do we want to put the news items straight into gentoo-x86, or a seperate repository that will be merged into the tree during the cvs->rsync process? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] tests
On Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:56 -0400 Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is one serious problem with this: Who's going to do the work to > figure all this out for the 11,000 odd packages in the tree? This > seems like a *huge* amount of work, work that I have no plan on doing > for the 100-odd packages I (help) maintain, let alone the 4-10 > different versions of each package. I highly doubt other maintainers > want to do this kind of work either. Last I heard the intention was to tie it to the EAPI=1 bump, so that packages can be updated one by one as they move to the newer eapi. Current (ie EAPI=0) ebuilds will continue to function as they have done. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] tests
On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700 Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first* > time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every > time the user installs a package? no. oh hell no. we don't seem to do > that much with the packages in our tree now, do we? Care to turn that into a reasoned argument rather than what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Best I can figure, the offered reason is "it needs to be blocked > before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further"- > which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there > already, and doesn't state *why* it needs to be blocked (just states > "it needs to be blocked"). It's better stated as "we need to put a hold on this so that a reasoned discussion can be had, and a decision made, before use becomes so widespread as to force the issue regardless of what is decided on technical merits." -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200 Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to > predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of > that one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is > definietly not an option. Try reading what he wrote. You can trivially switch to the longer _rc system; you'll just have to keep using it until the next release if you do. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it > be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting. There were three council members who happened to be around at the time, and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an interim decision. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Change in mentoring requirements
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:46:10 + "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have different > types of developers amongst us, so how do we count the 6 months > period? Let me explain more fully. At this point, I could mentor > someone into becoming a new moderator in the forums, but I don't > think anyone would support me being an ebuild dev mentor - not being > one myself yet. It's long been the case that individual projects can set additional criteria for recruits joining them -- I don't see why that shouldn't also apply to people mentoring recruits to join that project. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] PMS renewed call for comments
The open bug list is down to two, on which I want more input before resolving them. We could also use more eyes again to bring up any other issues before it's reckoned final. The PDF is still at http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf; anon SVN is still available at http://svn.attenuate.org/pms. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:25 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land > although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to > describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their > estimated completion date. Then we require this file to be updated > monthly. What do you think? I'm going to echo Mike here -- the additions are good, the forced update schedule not so good. However, there's something in the subject line not in the body which I also like: > and collect them as Gentoo current goals I wouldn't have chosen those words, but a list somewhere of all the new, shiny and/or important stuff people are working on could be nice if it can be done well. The GWN's future zone was a step in this direction but seems to have died off lately and never really (IMO) got enough material to realise the potential. Of course, this relies upon people in Gentoo actually doing new, shiny and/or important things first, before telling people about them. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400 Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some > malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the > entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as > well. The effects are far reaching and shared by everyone. If an > official package manager is outside of Gentoo's control, and the > maintainer(s) of that piece of software decide to do anything > malicious (examples: inject some dodgy code, remove documentation, > take out access to the repository, etc) for whatever reason (say, > they get pissed off at a few Gentoo people and decide that the entire > Gentoo community can be painted that way), then ... Gentoo developers can take the latest release of said package manager and continue development from that. That's the wonderful thing about the GPL, no? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:33:31 -0700 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The correct reply should of been. > "I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to > not make any cheap shots" That would have been a possible response. Another reasonable response would have been the one that he made, clarifying his original statement in case someone took offence where none was meant. If one reads the mails in a spirit of giving someone the benefit of the doubt rather than automatically thinking the worst, there's no reason this subthread needed to exist. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC) Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter, > while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion, > recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but > simply choosing a different route, making a different choice. Then you're reading the wrong implication into it, which can happen with any word you care to name. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit... Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would let us distribute them more evenly. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] ANN: PMS public release
The first public draft of PMS is open for comment. The PDF is at http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf, and will be updated periodically as changes are made. Anonymous SVN access to the LaTeX source is available; I won't give the URL here since most won't need it and I'd rather not run the risk of overloading the server. Find someone on IRC if you need it, which will probably be only if you are producing patches or reviewing changes just checked in. Any feedback should be via Bugzilla, in the PMS/EAPI component of Gentoo Hosted Projects, or IRC in #gentoo-pms on freenode. Based in part on feelings expressed by others in the past, and in part on the impossibility of tracking issues based in mailing list traffic, discussion would probably be best kept off the gentoo-dev list. Issues should be in Bugzilla, one issue per bug; any issues raised elsewhere will most likely be directed there. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] About testing applications
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:46:40 + "Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which is why I was saying there was no point in a ~/.config > directory... Generally speaking one lists the contents of one's home directory more often than one lists ~/.config. It moves the clutter to a place where it's not so noticeable, and is thus a good thing. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:00:51 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Understandable for sure. Thus not really putting any sort of time > frame on implementation. Maybe EAPI=1 or beyond. Up to others that > would implement it. Just was tossing it out there, providing some > feedback. EAPI doesn't help, at least not in its current form. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming > scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have > would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _pre or > whatever fits, but extending our naming scheme is unneeded and > pointless. And of course there is the issue of how older Portage releases will react to ebuild names that they don't understand. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:42:17 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My understanding was that the portage team can't move forward with a > new version until EAPI0 is done? They can't move forward with changes that break ebuild compatibility until EAPI-0 is documented and EAPI-1 can start to be defined. That's not to say that user-side changes which don't affect the ebuild interface can't happen. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100 Jakob Buchgraber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the > portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a > competing package management system. I think you underestimate just how much rewriting and refactoring would be required in order to produce something sane and scalable. Starting from scratch really was the only real option to get anywhere significant in a reasonable timeframe. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:44:37 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe was leaving anyway. Ask Joe to leave soon which saves every > single problem. Joe just does what he was going to do, you get what > you want and the company keeps on running smoothly. The company then > has the choice of making it known to you that it will not be > tolerated in the future. Except that making it known is that much harder because you've just tolerated it, and let them get what they wanted by doing so. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:35:14 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise > a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to > spite your face. I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics to get rid of someone you don't like won't work whoever uses them. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by > a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new > contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility. Perhaps not implausible in its strictest sense, as it could be done. It would, however, be a monumentally stupid idea in the general case, if said user happened to be a contributor upstream to widely-used packages, or happened to discover an important security bug in such a package. Leaving users without important applications, or vulnerable to security holes, because of what is essentially a personal dislike, is frankly a moronic proposition. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300 Mauricio Lima Pilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible, > which it isn't IMO. And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we can't use the linux kernel or bash? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming > it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and which he did fairly well. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 + "Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours > after 1200GMT? For all relevant purposes, yes. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: How others handle bad behaviour on mailinglists
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:35:03 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guess what sunshine? It's not just about you: > http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future The only possible conclusion I can see to draw from this post is that because distrowatch posts an uninformed article about how Gentoo is dying, you need to drag up a dead thread for no apparent reason. Please enlighten me if there's something I missed. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: How others handle bad behaviour on mailinglists
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:57:09 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And if you think the way you have carried on is anything approaching > decent, you clearly haven't read the guidelines... Can we stop now > please? Based on a cursory view of my gentoo-dev folder, we had stopped for a good five days until earlier today. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some council topics for March meeting
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:46:41 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except it's one that needs Paludis ready before it can be considered > complete. /me thinks are they really that clever? /me remembers > ciaranm's incredibly smart posts from ~2 years ago when he couldn't > stand being treated like a noob. Did you even read the thread before posting this? That particular conclusion jumped to by one person on misinterpreted a previous email has been debunked several times already. Oh, and bashing ciaranm doesn't make you cool. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some council topics for March meeting
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:00:09 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes so in a /technical/ sense he's the lead. You defer to his greater > knowledge. Or are you more political than technical? Nowhere did I say anything of the sort. Stop jumping to conclusions based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information. > Oh no of course not. Paludis is in fact being led in the most > appropriate political fashion, rather than the best technical > approach for the job. What does Paludis's leadership have to do with any of this? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Why this nonsense has to continue (Was: Some council topics for March meeting)
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:53:10 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Um I'm guessing that since you're at Uni, you knew you'd be in this > situation at this stage of your course. I wonder at how someone > clearly so gifted could have overlooked that matter when undertaking > such a vital project. What exactly are you saying that I overlooked? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Something positive! (was Re: Client-serve flags (again ;))
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:24:49 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > __ __ _ _ ___ _ > |__ / _ \| \/ |/ ___| | / ___|_ _/ _ \| _ \| | > / / | | | |\/| | | _| | \___ \ | || | | | |_) | | > / /| |_| | | | | |_| |_| ___) || || |_| | __/|_| > /\___/|_| |_|\(_) |/ |_| \___/|_| (_) Nice job of not polluting the list with noise there. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Something positive! (was Re: Client-serve flags (again ;))
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:34:41 + "Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh? Excuse me, but as I tried to indicate in another message, I'm as > much on YOUR side as anyone else's. Then stop continuing the thread. Everyone stop continuing the thread. It's over. Dead. Gone. Etc. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Something positive! (was Re: Client-serve flags (again ;))
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:15:56 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW it > wasn't the nature of the insult, it was just that there was an insult > at all I didn't see one. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Something positive! (was Re: Client-serve flags (again ;))
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:06:21 +0100 Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, I never understood why are certain people so touchy about > homosexuality, while others joke about it with their peers daily (and > very personally). The whole exchange made me think of http://xkcd.com/c65.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How others handle bad behaviour on mailinglists
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500 Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Always be parliamentary; > never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop". > 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or > Westminster'. If you've seen what goes on in the House of Commons on occasion, you'd know that those two are contradictory. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: gkrellm-plugin
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 19:04:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How is it that it should not be done? Is it because the file is > usually a symlink? Or because there is simply no need to do it? Because it's the package's licence. Guess where we already store licence information. > Who takes care of ECLASS now? The package manager. Who else? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:27:00 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a > party with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry > of what we allow. Everyone involved has a vested interest. If they weren't interested they wouldn't be involved. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:07:58 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off. Who defines 'impolite'? It's a cultural thing, and given that we have developers and users from all over the world, we span a lot of vastly different cultures. > 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the > discussion will be kicked off. And how do you judge whether someone is deliberately trying to harm the discussion or is just being careless with his wording or generally misguided? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:10 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and > what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline. > Notice that I used timeline, instead of deadline. It was done on > purpose really just to shut people the hell up. We're not out to get > anybody, we're just wanting to make sure we're all on track and moving > forward. And, now that what was actually meant has been clarified, I'll be more than happy to provide relevant information and answer questions the Council might have related to the matter. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:20:48 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, > I have no idea. A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft. > What the Council is interested > in is a specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible > package manager. Which is exactly what PMS is. > We asked for a specification. If the PMS > team is unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under > the terms we asked for it We're working to provide it. So far, I haven't been asked for it under any particular terms other than "at some point in the future, and we realise that it will take a while to finish". -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why this nonsense has to continue (Was: Some council topics for March meeting)
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:00:01 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thing I don't understand is why spb took it on when he knew he was > going to be out of commission with his Uni. I'm not out of commission. PMS is simply not at the top of my list of priorities at the moment. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK=/etc/env.d
No response means no objections means in it goes. On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:07:47 + Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can't remember whether I already mailed about this, but better safe > than sorry. Currently /etc/env.d is added to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK in > make.globals, and as far as i can tell nowhere in profiles. Anyone > object if I add it to base/make.defaults? > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I > couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and > I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) > PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly > removed from a dev role. He's not leading it. He's writing parts of it under my lead, despite the fact that he's probably better qualified technically than I am to lead it. > Again, you're not just submitting a patch but architecting the > strategic direction for package manager interoperability which has > strategic implications for Gentoo, and is more than just a > user-submitted "contribution." Nope. He's documenting the existing situation for package manager interoperability. Wherever PMS goes against existing practise it's been discussed either on -dev or with the portage developers past and present. Again, he's not influencing future direction this way. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official > Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege While this was no doubt true a while ago, a lot of people have been trying hard over the last year or more to make sure that it's not the case any more. Just because someone doesn't have a gentoo.org email address doesn't mean they don't have useful contributions, and shouldn't prevent them from helping where they can. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800 Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keep your spewing > on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues. Please do. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST) "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That > Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to > essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Gentoo, and any other parties, will have ample opportunity for input long before it gets finalised. Right now, though, soliciting comments from all and sundry will be more distracting than productive. We know it's currently incomplete and full of holes; we don't need to be told it. > >> Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be > >> reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be > >> managed by Gentoo developers only. If you want to make such a distinction, then it's managed by me, and I am a Gentoo developer. > Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are > talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I > have a feeling you would disagree with me. The second requirement is an ability to work effectively with the other people writing it. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:51:42 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gentoo projects are controlled by and generally run entirely by Gentoo > developers. You are not a Gentoo developer, yet you define the > direction of PMS and Paludis. Therefore, PMS and Paludis can't be > considered official Gentoo projects. (I'm picking this mail to respond to in lieu of the entire thread...) Paludis is not and never has been a Gentoo project. PMS is a Gentoo project with external contributors, and hence can't be hosted on Gentoo svn. I define the direction PMS takes, and I control its subversion repository; Ciaran just happens to be doing a lot of the actual work writing it. There is nothing Paludis specific in it; it defines that set of behaviour upon which ebuilds may rely, which is for obvious reasons a subset of what Portage currently supports. If Paludis supports something that Portage doesn't, then it can't be used in the tree and doesn't belong in PMS, at least until Portage grows the support and it can be put into a later EAPI revision. The only connection between PMS and Paludis is a correlation between the people writing each. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:28:56 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure, > and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a > Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be > treating it if it is a Gentoo project. It's controlled by me, and last I knew I was a Gentoo developer. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK=/etc/env.d
Can't remember whether I already mailed about this, but better safe than sorry. Currently /etc/env.d is added to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK in make.globals, and as far as i can tell nowhere in profiles. Anyone object if I add it to base/make.defaults? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Um I put it badly, sorry (i've had the flu) - I meant Chris in his > capacity of releng, catalyst etc. You only want to review, np. ++ to > moving ahead. And if he'd like to do so, I'll be happy to give him access to it. > The PMS will presumably be the definitive statement of what should > happen for *all* gentoo PMs, and it so happens that the people who > are doing it are mostly paludis devs, and sorry it won't be ready til > Paludis is. pfft. Noone said that. At present the only people working on it are also working on Paludis, but that can change should people take an interest. As for "it won't be ready til Paludis is", that's not what was stated -- what ciaranm said was that his personal priority will switch to getting PMS finished once paludis is ready. That doesn't mean that other people can't work on it and finish it before that, and I for one currently have PMS above Paludis on my priorities list and don't intend to wait for the latter. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100 Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am a bit unsure about what the goal for PMS is here. It does not > seem to be to document what a certain (the current?) version of > portage does, as the defacto standard. Instead you want to document > what portages *intention* is, or something like that. That obviously > sounds like an excellent idea, but as far as I know most of the PMS > contributors are also Paludis devs. Paludis, being an alternative to > portage, is *also* trying to handle ebuilds the way portage is > "intended" to handle them. So what I'm afraid of is that "by the time > that Paludis 1.0_pre is released" we will simultaneously see PMS > released to the public, and Paludis 1.0_pre supporting that PMS > perfectly, with all deviations on the part of portage (or pkgcore) > being considered "bugs" in their implementation of the specification. The intention is much as you initially surmised -- to describe portage's intended behaviour, or perhaps more accurately that subset of Portage's current behaviour which ebuilds and eclasses upon which are allowed to rely. Certainly by the time it is finished and sent to the Council for approval I expect whatever is the current Portage release to be compatible, and in most cases where I've deviated thus far from what Portage allows or does I've asked the current portage team whether it seems reasonable to do so. In some cases there are ebuilds in the tree relying upon behaviour that is not specified by PMS, or intended to be. These are the cases where only one or two packages rely upon undocumented and often unintentional by-products of Portage behaviour, and it seems more sensible to fix those few ebuilds instead of adding a lot of compatibility junk to the standard. A good example of this would be the recent -dev thread on global ebuild variables and pkg_setup. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:20:47 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This I understand. However, your previous comments (and spb's saying > he's busy with some other things) has made some people, myself > included, wonder if you could possibly use some more help. We aren't > talking about forcing you to take on certain people, but rather > seeing if you need people, period. We can come to an agreement on > who to add, if you require the help. The point being that manpower > should not be the limiting factor here in getting this done when > there are numerous people who are familiar enough with portage and > want to to help. If the right sort of people are interested in helping, then I for one won't refuse help. However, for fairly obvious reasons I don't want to give out access willy-nilly. Any good, experienced ebuild devs with a sufficient knowledge of everything relevant and a large degree of common sense who want to help out can find me on IRC. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:18:13 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As for Ciaran bashing Jakub, I can't help but nod (and gasp at > > some of Jakub's comments) - for quite some time now. > > Bashing on someone is always wrong. > Bashing on someone gets you banned. Tell that to Jakub. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] New developer: Richard Brown (rbrown)
Everybody say hi, or alternative greetings of your choice, to our new recruit, Richard Brown, who will be helping with various QA-related projects and possibly attempting to kick some life into the Ruby herd. He, in his own words, works and lives in Hampshire in the UK, doing a mix of website development and system administration, never having moved away after getting his degree. Has been using linux for 10 years, and gentoo for almost 3, and when not doing that he's spending time with his fiancée, reading or attempting to keep his pro status in wii bowling. He is also unable to use C++ pointer to member types in templates properly. Please welcome Richard to our ranks, or accuse him of being an evil cabalist (he works on Paludis, particularly maintaining its Ruby bindings), as you see fit. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:28:51 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You forgot to mention that the "small group" is either a subset of the > interested parties or is commissioned by them. Which doesn't appear to > be the case here. Given that people wouldn't be working on it if they weren't interested, it seems fairly obviously to be a subset of the interested parties. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have > created so far? > > I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS, > but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit > concerned. At this stage, individuals can ask for a copy, or for read access to the repository, if we think that their input is likely to be more productive than distracting. Once it is sufficiently complete, read access will be opened to the public and drafts will likely be sent to -dev for comment. For the same reasons that the repository isn't public, though, such drafts are currently given out on the understanding that they won't be distributed further. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled > notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status > update on it in council this coming month. Right now I'm placing a higher priority on getting a degree. It'll be done when it's done, which is not now. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] imagemagick-6.3.0.5 without truetype doesn't compile
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:37:55 +0200 "Mohammed Hagag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > emerging imagemagick-6.3.0.5 without truetype USE flag "which depends > on propritary corefonts" fails with compilation error. bugs.gentoo.org is your friend. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A Gentle Reminder
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:23:44 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh sure... Next time, blame me for Sept 11, keep amusing us by your > bullshit. If you like, I can say that you killed Jesus and were single-handedly responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Would that make you happy? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A Gentle Reminder
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:56:29 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wonder if there'd be a way of levaraging the glsa tags ...
>
> if ("remote" in ) screw over $ARCH in KEYWORDS
> -mike
If it's a security-unsupported arch we probably don't even care about
that enough to lose keywords. If a particular sysadmin does care about
security of his unsupported experimental systems, he can use his
package manager's capabilities to remove insecure packages rather than
us forcing it on everyone. When it comes to this sort of machine,
working beats secure but broken any day.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] A Gentle Reminder
If any of you were thinking of removing the latest stable version of a package, don't. Even if you're the package maintainer, even if there are open security bugs against it, even if someone has filed you a bug requesting that it be removed. If it's the latest stable version on any architecture, you don't remove it. If you do, we'll know, and we won't be happy. There. It's not that hard to understand, is it? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo standard UIDs
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:26:49 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I inquired about it several months back on irc, but can't recall the > details at this time. Pretty sure it's not implemented yet, but there > might be some efforts in that direction. http://svn.pioto.org/viewvc/creandus/ http://svn.pioto.org/viewvc/creandus-overlay/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] tr1 dependencies
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:36:33 +0100 Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Newbie idea : g++ and boost both provide virtual/tr1 > > Newbie question : besides the fact that you would have to rebuild > packages if you changed the virtual, is there anything painfully > obvious why that would be a bad idea ? And what exactly is required of a package providing virtual/tr1? If it has to implement the entirity of the TR, then g++-4.1 can't provide the virtual and the purpose is lost since the most used parts of the extension will be those provided by GCC. If, on the other hand, you require the virtual to provide only the parts currently implemented in g++, what happens in the future for packages that require other parts of the tr1 extension? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Abusing RESTRICT={no,}userpriv (was [RFC] ACCEPT_RESTRICT for questionable values of RESTRICT)
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:08:15 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Putting the portage user into the special group would mean that > somebody could steal the MySQL password - so do you > RESTRICT=userpriv, or fail the build? If someone can subvert Portage's build process they can root your system no matter what uid is used for the build itself. Userpriv and sandbox are not and cannot be security measures; they only guard against accidental breakage in makefiles, so that argument is relatively bogus since if malice is brought into the equation the portage user has effective root already. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Abusing RESTRICT={no,}userpriv (was [RFC] ACCEPT_RESTRICT for questionable values of RESTRICT)
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:36:06 + Tristan Heaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 00:53 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > They have to be able to read /usr/games/lib. In which case adding the portage user to the games group seems overall to be a better solution than requiring root privileges to build. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental > (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as > they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their > current config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause > about profile scope. Indeed. Personally, I quite like the idea of doing it that way, but I can see how others might not want to change it. The motivation for bringing this up came from writing PMS, which is why I'm only really concerned about profiles -- that document isn't concerned about user configuration, which is why I added the final clause. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Bennett wrote: > > The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get > > handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. > > Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent > > profile just as they can for USE. > > Did I misread what you said earlier? > > Stephen Bennett wrote: > > At present, > > from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which > > essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove > > them in subprofiles. "At present" -- that's the behaviour that I want to change by making them incremental. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:27:43 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd rather not make USE_EXPAND incremental if we can't subtract flags. > At present, we accomplish that by simply resetting the whole thing in > subprofiles. But the proposal seems to make impossible any subprofile > of a valid profile that wishes to negate a setting of the parent. I wrote: > > It would mean that all USE_EXPANDed variables get stacked in the > > same way that USE does. The base profile defines a set of defaults, > > which gets flags added to or removed from it in other profiles. The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent profile just as they can for USE. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is > added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's > entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to a smaller setting), > correct? It would mean that all USE_EXPANDed variables get stacked in the same way that USE does. The base profile defines a set of defaults, which gets flags added to or removed from it in other profiles. At present, from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove them in subprofiles. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is concerned? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] transition system loggers to 'adm' user/group
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:46:55 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > does syslog-ng and metalog have similar functionality? SYNOPSIS syslog-ng [ -dFsvVy ] [ -f ] [ -p ] [ -C ] [ -u ] [ -g ] ... -u , --group= Switch to user. I'd have to guess so. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Marking GPL-incompatible linkage?
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:51:24 +0100 Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How bout using RESTRICT? RESTRIC="bindist" or something, for the > unconditional violations? RESTRICT does not at present affect visibility of packages. I'd like to keep it that way. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GPL-2: > Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU > General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to > consider it licensed under any later version. > > GPL-2+: > Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General > Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version. > > Comments, ideas, proposals? >From a purist point of view, I'd be inclined to go with this route. Pragmatically though, given the number of packages that do have the "or later" clause compared to the number that don't, it might be simpler to split them into GPL-2 (implying "or later") and GPL-2-only. That's just a possible naming quibble though -- the idea I like. The suggestion to convert all GPL-2-or-later packages to || ( GPL-2 GPL-3 ) won't scale -- what happens when GPL-2.1 or GPL-3.1 appear? It's also an awful lot of work for something that is, when you get down to it, wrong. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Marking GPL-incompatible linkage?
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:22:54 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder if with ACCEPT_LICENSES it would be possible to get a way to > represent this issue, like a "unredistributable" fake license, > disabled during GRP building for instance, so that the packages > needing that license wouldn't be built in binary form and > redistributed by us. > > Any proposal on this issue? Well, we have a bindist USE flags for more or less this purpose -- it's hardly an optimal solution, but in this case from the sound of things the problematic linking could be disabled when building a binary distribution. Obviously though that doesn't work in the more general case where said linkage is not based on an optional dep, so something better would be useful. I'm not sure LICENSE is the right way forward here -- it would work with the currently proposed syntax, but seems somehow an abuse of the system. On the other hand, though, I don't have a better option to hand at the moment, and it is a licensing issue after all... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on sys-apps/portage
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:39:41 +0100 (MET)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Faulhammer) wrote:
> I maintain the three ELOG viewers app-portage/
> {elogviewer,kelogviewer,elgov} which need the ELOG feature found in
> Portage 2.1. So I think a dependency on that version is ok, as long
> as it isn't in base-profile.
Yeah. Read what I said. The dep is (semi-)valid at the moment, but I'd
like to change the base profile so that it isn't needed and can be
removed.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on system packages
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:35:34 + Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 + > Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Could you spell out that exception clause, please? > > It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something like > "Unless you know exactly why the rule is there, understand fully the > imp My mail client, touchpad, and right hand are retarded. That should read: "understand fully the implications of breaking it, and know why it's a good idea in this particular case." However, if you're in a position to be invoking that clause, you should know about it anyway. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on system packages
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could you spell out that exception clause, please? It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something like "Unless you know exactly why the rule is there, understand fully the imp -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies on system packages
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:22:52 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's seems to be needed sometimes b/c it does change the order of > generated deplist(emerge -e world). AFAIK some packages dep on zlib > b/c of that. If you don't know about the unwritten yet near universal exception clause then you shouldn't be invoking it. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Dependencies on system packages
And, on a more general note, don't bother depending on a package listed in base/packages. It's pointless and just create more noise. On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:11:17 +0000 Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a lot of packages in the tree which DEPEND on some version > of sys-apps/portage, mostly for historical reasons. Try to avoid doing > this in your packages where possible -- if it's a genuine dependency > then obviously it should be there, but if the dep is only in the > ebuild to avoid hitting a bug that was in portage-2.0.49-r3 (for > example), it's unnecessary now. I'm going to be removing some of > these redundant deps. > > On which note, the current base profile specifies portage-2.0.51.22 or > later -- can anyone see a reason not to require 2.1? There are a lot > of packages that dep on portage-2.1 for the "wrong" reasons above, > which I'd like to be able to clean up. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
