Re: [gentoo-dev] New USE_EXPAND flag for www-servers/monkeyd
On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 16:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > There are about 9 plugins for monkeyd similar to apache > which can be turned on/off by a configure switch. It makes sense to > follow the same logic as apache here. Indeed it does. Particularly if it avoids a non-obvious USE-flag that requires an explanation in metadata.xml, like the problem I had with VOICEMAIL_STORAGE in net-misc/asterisk. It took me 3 days to get a reply to that, so I'm replying even though I'm agreeing with you. Then again, perhaps I just want to see something else on this list then bickering... Regards, Tony V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Establishing Gentoo patch policy to keep our patches consistent and clean
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 20:08 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > What are your thoughts? Sensible document. Can we have it on the agenda for the council meeting please. It looks suitable for a yes/no vote, and I expect some guidance from the wider developer community in how they respond on the list. Regards, Tony V.
[gentoo-dev] Preliminary agenda -- Council meeting 2013-02-12
Good evening, Please note the preliminary agenda for the February 12 council meeting, to be held at 20:00 UTC. If you are appointing a proxy to attend in your stead, please make this known at least two hours before the meeting starts. 1) Roll call. 2) Open bug(s) with council involvement. For bug #383467 to be closed, the master ballots for 2011 & 2012 will need to be uploaded & linked. 3) Any other business from council members. 4) Open floor; input from the wider community. 5) Close of meeting; draft summary to be sent. Regards, Tony V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On Tue, 2013-01-01 at 16:01 -0500, Jeff Horelick wrote: > dev-util/pkgconf has less external dependencies, is lighter and is > faster than dev-util/pkgconfig while being now 100% compatible That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an implicit yes. Regards, Tony V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08
On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 21:05 -0600, Ben Kohler wrote: > This seems like a great time to deprecate & remove the unmaintained > server profile target, as has been previously discussed. Is this > doable or is that another issue to be tackled another day? I would not attach it to this bill just before the vote, no. It reminds me too much of how things are done in more corrupt environments. By all means raise it, but separately. And make sure that the discussion on it on -dev has died down please. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] gen_usr_ldscript & --libdir=/lib
On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 15:14 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > Go bring up the suggestion that the kernel should support direct > booting on lkml And be pointed at EFI_STUB functionality. Next? Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] gen_usr_ldscript & --libdir=/lib
On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the > council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an > initramfs, I am re-considering this. So now that the /usr-merge steamroller can not break systems through udev, because an alternative now exists... another way must be found? That seems rather immature. What must be forked next to keep this working? openrc? Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08
Good afternoon, In less than two weeks, on Tuesday January the 8th, the council will meet again. Now is the time to prepare & raise items that you feel should be put to a vote. Please reply to this e-mail with any suggested agenda items. Even if you have raised the issue on a mailing list before, please repeat it now to avoid it being missed. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Help on adapting cman init scripts to kernels with things built in instead of modules
On Sun, 2012-12-02 at 23:10 +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Arch team people think that this should be handled before but... how > should it be handled? I agree with the arch teams here. You can do something as mundane as: if [ -e /proc/modules ]; then COMPLICATED MODULE MADNESS fi Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 21:09 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Maybe Tony mismerged your changes into his? Thank you for your trust in me. cvs commit -m completed non-interactively, without notification of conflict or request to merge. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] RFC: VOICEMAIL_STORAGE as a USE_EXPAND for net-misc/asterisk
Good evening, As per bug #421037, there is a demand to make multiple voicemail storage backends switchable within the ebuild. The USE_EXPAND mechanism would automatically provide an explanation of the selections being made (as opposed to overloading USE=odbc in what seems to me a non-obvious way). The dev manual suggests this is presented for discussion, so here we are. Thoughts? Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On 14/05/12 16:44, hasufell wrote: > However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or > howtos) how to handle Werror. As can be judged by the title of my patches on the subject, I consider -Werror to be short-sighted at best and idiotic at worst. The next GCC version, which will add *loads* of warnings to anything that compiled cleanly before, is going to kill you. Remove it from the build system. It is one of those patches that will probably live downstream until the end of time, but that is acceptable. Regards, Tony V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] busybox[sep-usr] support for mounting /usr w/out hassle
On 30/04/12 05:31, William Hubbs wrote: > Correction here; as far as I know the council did not mandate > separate /usr without initramfs. They just said that separate /usr > is a supported configuration. Separate /usr is a supported configuration, which blocks the armwaving about "oh just use an initramfs then" as a solution. As apparently lessons about filesystem layout have been unlearned: Binaries that are essential for system boot, and must be available in single user mode go in /bin and /sbin, with their libraries in /lib. This allows for /usr to be: 1) marked read-only for NFS mounts, which some of us rely on 2) inside of an LVM2 container, allowing for / to be (very) small 3) on a squashfs filesystem, in order to save space My deployment relies on option 2, other sysadmins rely on option 1. Some of our users are very happy with option 3. Trying to second-guess my motivation, and trying to undo unanimous council votes simply because your opinion is different, really has to stop. I feel a lot better about vapier's pragmatic approach then I do about udev/systemd upstream's ability and motivation to support current systems. If you had any doubts about whether udev was part of the problem, consider what tarball you will have to extract it from in future. Regards, -- Tony Vroon Server systems manager London Internet Exchange Ltd, Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough, PE1 1DA Registered in England number 3137929 E-Mail: t...@linx.net
Re: [gentoo-dev] >= udev-182 tracker
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 14:53 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > Does this answer any fears about trying to force an untimely > stabilization? It certainly helps me sleep at night, yes. Any... inconveniences forced on me have to be fixed over 40 times. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] python.eclass EAPI 4 support, this gets really annoying
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 22:53 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > dev-vcs/git needs python eclasses to have EAPI4 so REQUIRED_USE can be > used to solve bug #353657. Similar problems in dev-vcs/subversion... Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest signing
On 29/09/11 16:02, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Is there any chance that we can agree to reject > unsigned manifests? Possibly a question for the Council to adjudicate? I am happy to back a mandatory signing policy for the main gentoo-x86 tree. This is a simple yes or no question that the council can vote on. Regards, Tony V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 23:18 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Well it would be something like priority based queue with maximum 60 > points value. > Each update after the month in main tree would get 0 points for > stabilisation, any-developer / maintainer would be able to add up to > 40 points to any package and security team members would be able to > add all 60 points. Security team/any developer would also have > possibility to add new packages to queue manualy. This sounds to me like you are trying to automate common sense. If you see packages that have good ~arch ebuilds that appear to be fermenting, please file a bug. Rumours of unresponsive arch teams have been greatly exaggerated! The worst that could happen is that a more exotic arch sees your bug and decides "sorry, we would rather unkeyword it" rather than "okay, we will stable that". Either way seems a valid outcome though? I can't speak for other arches than AMD64, but we are happy to receive more than the current influx of bugs, particularly if you are willing to take suggestions to heart (a lot of QA niggles get shaken out in AT reports lately). Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2010-12-05 23h59 UTC
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:12 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: > Seems valid. It was added and removed shortly after: > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-libs/libresample/?hideattic=0 That's real, yes. A user submission that compiled, installed and seemed tested. Unfortunately it was only tested properly on X86 32-bit; it compiled but then broke my Asterisk compile (missing -fPIC at the very least, probably more issues). I removed it from the tree, hopefully before it could reach any users. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-emulation/dynamips/files: dynamips-0.2.8_rc2-makefile.patch
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 16:48 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Should be right after CC instead Okay, rediffed, compile-tested & committed. Will do the same for recent commit on irda-utils. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going inactive
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 19:53 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > I've been too busy with other things to work on Gentoo for quite some > time and this isn't going to change now that I've just picked up new > study and work commitments. You will be missed Daniel. It was always pleasant working with you. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Two herds (and four extra?)
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 13:34 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > This is madness, people. Two herds and four separately mentioned > developers? This is madness. THIS IS HARDENED. > Why don't you join a herd? Go on, it's fun and you don't > have to be alone! This was originally done because we were bypassing a herd (lead) in getting our updates in. Toning it down is not a problem, would just blueness in the list address your concerns? > jer Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 17:45 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: > If possible I think we should try to keep stable keywords. So how can we > help? I'm not sure how I could help e.g. PPC - I don't have any hardware > I can test on, and I'm not aware of remotely accessible dev boxen. There are options, an older Playstation III with a faulty Blu-Ray drive is still usable as a PPC64 (32UL) test box. For developers that actively want to help, perhaps the arch teams can recommend hardware that is relatively easy to acquire and guaranteed to be supported/stable from a kernel point of view. I've done my best to supply an example. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite > slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a > package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of > the specific package obsolete and not worth to stabilize anymore. So you would suggest to be like Ubuntu and say "we can not be bothered to support any minority architectures anymore". This effectively disbands all architecture teams except AMD64 and X86; it should be subject to the same scrutiny (I suggest a council vote) as a GLEP or EAPI change. Personally I would like to hear stronger reasons then "it inconveniences me when a bug I file is open longer then a month" to destroy the current diversity of supported architectures (be it PowerPC or a prefix installation on OS X). Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Manifesto for council election
As you've seen, Chainsaw is on the list as a council candidate. I use Gentoo in a professional capacity, as a UNIX systems administrator for one of the largest internet exchanges in the world [1]. Right now, I administer 42 machines running non-multilib hardened AMD64. The topic of "Gentoo in the enterprise" surfaces from time to time on the mailing lists, but the current direction that Gentoo is taking seems to steer away from it. Should you elect me to the council, I will do my best to discourage the frequent usage of overlays. Not only can overlay ebuilds slip through the QA net that is frequently trawled through the main tree (and they often do), the ownership is not always clear. There is no central location to report bugs in overlay ebuilds. Last but not least, moving ebuilds out into overlays means that larger deployments like mine are unable to use them. One other problem that has appeared on my radar more then once lately. When developers lose motivation and stop committing to a package for which they are the sole maintainer it can take a considerable amount of time before this is dealt with in the form of a retirement bug or "last rites" e-mail. With a business dependency on some packages, that can be too long. I believe we should actively seek out such packages and see if another developer can be motivated to take the package over. Failing that, I believe no ebuild is a fairer situation then an outdated/stagnant ebuild with open bugs that are not looked at. Some automated QA processes like the tinderbox already help with this but without official recognition of these bugs as QA matters the full potential of it goes untapped. In writing this, I realise that some or all of what I have just written may be controversial to you. Can I ask that you speak with your vote and not in this mailing list. Regards, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon 1: https://www.linx.net/about/index.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2010/2011 - Nominations are now open
On Thu, 2010-06-05 at 16:36 +0200, Alex Legler wrote: > Chainsaw, Fauli and sping please. Thank you Alex. I accept. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy regarding the inactive members
On Sun, 2010-04-11 at 16:16 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > So the attendance to council meetings is enough to prove that a member > is active? 0_o Yes, since council meetings are where the crucial voting happens. Council members that fail to show up to meetings are not generating the output we have voted them in for. Any other opinions they display (be it on mailing lists, IRC, jabber, radio programs, TV shows) which do not result in a changed vote are irrelevant. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] g15 and freevo up for grabs
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:29 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > I use the above, and will take them. Please do feel free to take g15daemon & friends as well, I've not been able to provide them with the attention they deserve. > > media-plugins/audacious-g15-spectrum I'd rather just get this upstream in Audacious and have the ebuild disappear. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Revival: media-sound/ogg2mp3
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 11:03 -0700, James Ausmus wrote: > > I might be interested in taking maintainership of this +*ogg2mp3-0.5.1 (18 Jun 2009) + + 18 Jun 2009; -ogg2mp3-0.5.ebuild, + +ogg2mp3-0.5.1.ebuild, metadata.xml: + First release from new maintainer James Ausmus, updated metadata.xml, + removed old ebuild. + 18 Jun 2009; package.mask: + Undo removal mask for media-sound/ogg2mp3, new maintainer stepped up. James, thank you for your contribution to Gentoo Linux! :) metadata.xml is set up such that you will get CC'd on bugs filed in Gentoo. I've also added a changelog & doc section in the upstream tag. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/ogg2mp3
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 11:03 -0700, James Ausmus wrote: > I might be interested in taking maintainership of this Please let me know when the homepage and repository are ready. You would have to apply the 'prevent endian swapping' patch and roll a new tarball. Regards, Tony V. > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/ogg2mp3
# Tony Vroon (17 Jun 2009) # Dead homepage, upstream vows not to maintain it anymore. No sense packaging abandoned software. # Removal: July 17, 2009 media-sound/ogg2mp3 For bug #274123. Should you wish to rescue it, you will take sole maintainership and become upstream, providing a homepage. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding Nipper license to the tree
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 00:58 +0100, Mike Auty wrote: > So I'll leave the source version out of the tree, but I'd like thoughts > on using RPM as a solution? Also I don't know whether an exception > could be made for Gentoo, but equally I don't know how to phrase one of > them either (Gentoo Foundation or all Gentoo developers), so I'm > hesitant to ask. If anyone has any other ideas or possibilities, do let > me know. Thanks... Drop it from the tree entirely. Leave it to them to provide ebuilds. Obviously they do not want this software to be packaged by you, if they did they wouldn't put this intricate obstacle course in your way. Sometimes life can be so simple. > Mike 5:) Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding Nipper license to the tree
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:28 +0100, Mike Auty wrote: > but I thought I should ask what > the best course of action would be here? If it were my ebuild, I would not add the updates under the new, draconic license and either fork the GPL'd code or mask the package for removal. You can not in any way guarantee that a Gentoo user is non-commercial. Especially the patch clause would make ebuilds unsustainable. As you say the author personally, perhaps there is a sense of reason that you could appeal to. > Thanks, > Mike 5:) Regards. Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86 commit in app-mobilephone/smstools: ChangeLog smstools-2.2.20.ebuild
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 17:18 +0100, Torsten Veller wrote: > Remember pkg_preinst is called after src_install. Right, I'll change that back. It got in my way during unpack cycles. > BTW: ROOT should be respected in pkg_postinst too. I'll add that. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RTL8187B don't work on 2.6.26, but worked on 2.6.24
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 13:37 +0200, "Mateusz A. Mierzwiński" wrote: > Hi, > > I just want to know, what happen with 2.6.26 kernel sources? I've > installed (compiled and copy all KO's to kernel modules directory, run > init script loading modules) of RTL-8187B Wireless Card but error occured: This driver is in the kernel in 2.6.26; enable the in-kernel driver instead. Note also that you can not compile modules against 2.6.24 and expect them to work against 2.6.26 Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:14 -0400, Olivier Crête wrote: > I have a thinkpad with the right hardware, so I can take this one, did > you already pimp out your other thinkpad packages? I don't recall of other thinkpad packages that are still mine, but if you see my name on them, they're all yours. Thanks. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs
Good afternoon fellow developers, There are three ebuilds that I used to maintain that I no longer have the hardware for. I'm hoping that one of you could give them some love. Do assign the bugs to yourself, and please drop me from the relevant metadata.xml once you do. They are: media-video/nvidia-settings x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers sys-auth/thinkfinger I used to have a Fujitsu-Siemens Lifebook E8410-nVidia with a 8400M G, but have switched to a Lifebook S6410 that has Intel graphics. Previous to said Lifebooks, I used to own a ThinkPad X41. While my new laptops have a fingerprint scanner, it is not of the type that thinkfinger prefers. Regards, Tony V. (Chainsaw) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:16 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request? If it is for software where I am also upstream (Audacious for example), it does tend to annoy me when people try their utmost to file bug reports before I commit my ebuild. (I have yet to miss a release by more then 6 hours) > 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early > version bump requests? For things like the nVidia drivers I do welcome it. The time I can spend trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited. Just an idea: How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are welcome? It's more of an individual developer preference, but that seems the right place for it. Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-plugins/audacious-crossfade
# Tony Vroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (20 May 2008) # This package is unmaintained and is unstable for # Audacious 1.5.0; bug #222883. # Removal planned for June 30, 2008. media-plugins/audacious-crossfade Regards, Tony V. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
