Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "Stable" Portage/Releases

2006-01-07 Thread Andrew Muraco
Chris Gianelloni wrote: To facilitate "enterprise" usage, we break up the releases into a "desktop" and "server" set. This means the current "default-linux/$arch/2006.0" profile would be "default-linux/$arch/2006.0/desktop" with a "default-linux/$arch/2006.0/server" profile, also. The stages w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "Stable" Portage/Releases

2006-01-07 Thread Andrew Muraco
Chris Gianelloni wrote: First off, let me just say that this was just an idea I'd cooked up a while back, so I am sure there's lots of holes in it for you guys to rip apart. Anyway, without further ado... The proposal is quite simple insofar as it requires no changes to portage, whatsoever (th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GLEP 42 (news) Round Seven

2006-01-07 Thread Ian Kester-Haney
On 1/8/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:18:20PM +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:> Duncan wrote:> > Because that code will be implemented in portage, and the portage dev> > likely to implement it said it was a superfluous reference. =8^) > >> > Still, I'd prefer it re

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-proxy/squid should be demoted to ~mips

2006-01-07 Thread Stuart Longland
Alin Nastac wrote: > Given the lack of interest manifested by mips team regarding > net-proxy/squid and its security bumps, I propose to remove the last > mips-stable version of this package - 2.5.10-r2 - marked as such by > hardave on September the 4th 2005. As a member of the MIPS team, I take o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stuart Herbert wrote: | I agree that some cleaning is needed (and some of my packages are | desperate for it!), but I'm totally opposed to this idea. I think the | idea of shutting up shop for three months (presumably with a "closed | for refurbishme

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-07 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:15:22 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I'm too late for this month, but want to put it on the table > before I forget about it. I'd appreciate a three months moratorium, > disallowing everyone to add new packages to the tree (despite new > dependencie

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-07 Thread Stuart Herbert
On 1/8/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I'm too late for this month, but want to put it on the table before I > forget about it. I'd appreciate a three months moratorium, disallowing > everyone to add new packages to the tree (despite new dependencies of > existing packages),

[gentoo-dev] DISTDIR ebuild changes.

2006-01-07 Thread Brian Harring
Yo. Shouldn't be an issue unless you're doing something crazy, but the DISTDIR var exported to ebuilds will now point to an intermediate directory; all files stated via SRC_URI will be symlinks pointing back to the actual file in DISTDIR. Why? Well prior to this modification, it was possible

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GLEP 42 (news) Round Seven

2006-01-07 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:18:20PM +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Duncan wrote: > > Because that code will be implemented in portage, and the portage dev > > likely to implement it said it was a superfluous reference. =8^) > > > > Still, I'd prefer it referenced just for definition's sake, but when t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-07 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:15:22AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:30, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > Keep in mind that every resubmission to the council for review must > > first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before > > being submitted as an agenda

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2006-01-07 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:30, Mike Frysinger wrote: > Keep in mind that every resubmission to the council for review must > first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before > being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the > meeting. Simply put, the g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 19: Gentoo Stable Portage Tree -- ideas

2006-01-07 Thread Stuart Herbert
Hi, On 1/6/06, Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Absolutely true. That said, there's relatively little resistance to the > concept of Enterprise Gentoo, as far as I know. There is substantial > resistance to anything that might add additional work to > already-overwhelmed package maint

Re: [gentoo-dev] X.Org 7.0 Release

2006-01-07 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 05:24:52PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:56:03PM +0530, Shyam Mani wrote: > > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/modular-x-howto.xml > > You mean: > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml > right? FYI, I converted over my n

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefaan wrote: | I don't use pmount myself, but my guess is that /media is just a | directory that contains mountpoints, and which remains at all time | writeable for root. /afs is not writeable when mounted, just like | /dev/cdrom etc... That's actu

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Stefaan
On 1/7/06, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefaan wrote: > > The obvious solution seems to do "keepdir", so portage would attempt > > to make the directory and put a .keep file in there. I say attempt, > > because the following problem will occur during an re-merge or > > upgrade, while

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Petteri Räty
Petteri Räty wrote: > Stefaan wrote: > >>Hi! >> >>I'm having an issue with the openafs-ebuild, and I don't see a >>solution for the moment. I wondered if someone on the list would: >> >>Prerequisite: >>The ebuild needs to create the /afs directory, and remove that same >>directory when it is unins

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Petteri Räty
Stefaan wrote: > Hi! > > I'm having an issue with the openafs-ebuild, and I don't see a > solution for the moment. I wondered if someone on the list would: > > Prerequisite: > The ebuild needs to create the /afs directory, and remove that same > directory when it is uninstalled. > > The obvious

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Joshua Baergen
Stefaan wrote: You suggest keeping the /afs dir, this would be an easy solution of course, but it does seem untidy, doesn't it? (Makes me think of the windows uninstallers saying "not all files could be removed, have a nice day") Ah, I of course didn't pay enough attention and didn't reali

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Stefaan
On 1/7/06, Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You could handle it the way the baselayout ebuild does. But baselayout also just creates the directories in pkg_postinst (if my interpretation of the ebuild is correct). The list is not kept, so when uninstalling baselayout the directories are

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Stefaan
On 1/7/06, Joshua Baergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why not just create the directory in ${D} or ${IMAGE} and let Portage > handle the rest? Do you really want to be removing /afs unconditionally > on unmerge? Because this results in this: (directory /t existed and /dev/cdrom was mounted to it

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Brian Jackson
You could handle it the way the baselayout ebuild does. --Iggy Stefaan wrote: Hi! I'm having an issue with the openafs-ebuild, and I don't see a solution for the moment. I wondered if someone on the list would: Prerequisite: The ebuild needs to create the /afs directory, and remove that same

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Joshua Baergen
Stefaan wrote: Prerequisite: The ebuild needs to create the /afs directory, and remove that same directory when it is uninstalled. Why not just create the directory in ${D} or ${IMAGE} and let Portage handle the rest? Do you really want to be removing /afs unconditionally on unmerge? Josh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GLEP 42 (news) Round Seven

2006-01-07 Thread Jan Kundrát
Duncan wrote: > Because that code will be implemented in portage, and the portage dev > likely to implement it said it was a superfluous reference. =8^) > > Still, I'd prefer it referenced just for definition's sake, but when the > portage dev says it isn't a superfluous reference, and that parti

[gentoo-dev] ebuilds creating mountpoints

2006-01-07 Thread Stefaan
Hi! I'm having an issue with the openafs-ebuild, and I don't see a solution for the moment. I wondered if someone on the list would: Prerequisite: The ebuild needs to create the /afs directory, and remove that same directory when it is uninstalled. The obvious solution seems to do "keepdir", so

[gentoo-dev] (Late) bugday announcement

2006-01-07 Thread kloeri
Hi all. Sorry about the late announcement but today is the monthly Bugday :) I hope we'll still see a lot of people turning up in #gentoo-bugs on irc.freenode.net to help squash some bugs and have a fun time with other gentoo users and/or devs. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Split definitions for an idiom

2006-01-07 Thread Duncan
Drake Wyrm posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:59:23 -0800: > http://qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=693 Apropos indeed. Thanks! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split definitions for an idiom

2006-01-07 Thread Drake Wyrm
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:26:44 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | That begs the question... > > No it doesn't. > > http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html > > | Curious users want to know! > > Perhaps said curious users should go and take