Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:47:59 +0800 Jason Zaman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 07:38:43AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > On 10/15/15 7:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Jason Zaman > > > wrote: > > >> Can you try

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Alexander Tsoy wrote: > > I was wrong. This patch was not merged upstream. It is still needed and > included in latest genpatches for 4.2: > > $ tar tf genpatches-4.2-6.base.tar.xz | grep XATTR > ./1500_XATTR_USER_PREFIX.patch I suspect what we

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:57:45AM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > anyone opposed to flipping this flag on by default ? > > > > reference: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/506198 > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/556408 > > No objection, but a bit

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On 10/15/15 7:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Jason Zaman wrote: Can you try this: # getfattr -d -m- /bin/ping security.capability=0sAQAAAgAgAAA= # setfattr -n user.test -v "foo" ./ping # setfattr -n user.pax.flags -v "me"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 07:38:43AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 10/15/15 7:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Jason Zaman wrote: > >> Can you try this: > >> > >> # getfattr -d -m- /bin/ping > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On 10/14/15 11:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: USE=xattr is needed nowadays to support: - filesystem caps (those things that let you drop set*id and generally improves system security w/little to no runtime overhead) - PaX file markings (replaces binutils ELF markings) - selinux we actually

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On 10/15/15 4:13 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:08:54 +0200 Tobias Klausmann wrote: Hi! On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On 10/15/15 4:08 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: Hi! On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long idea of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only > installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require > all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long idea of > releasing

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

Hi! On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Jason Zaman wrote: > Can you try this: > > # getfattr -d -m- /bin/ping > security.capability=0sAQAAAgAgAAA= > # setfattr -n user.test -v "foo" ./ping > # setfattr -n user.pax.flags -v "me" ./ping > # getfattr -d -m- /bin/ping >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > So it's not a BTRFS problem, but one of tmpfs. So I wondered if I > maybe had missed to activate xattr suport for tmpfs, but no: > > # zgrep -i tmpfs /proc/config.gz > CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y > CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:56:28 +0800 Jason Zaman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:57:45AM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > anyone opposed to flipping this flag on by default ? > > > > > > reference: > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On 10/14/15 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long idea of releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ? -mike i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On 10/15/15 6:32 AM, Duncan wrote: Tobias Klausmann posted on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:57:45 +0200 as excerpted: By now the messages are just an annoyance/spam to me, but I suspect this may be more of a problem for people who have lower pain thresholds. That could have been my post... all the way

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:58:01 +0300 Alexander Tsoy wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:47:59 +0800 > Jason Zaman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 07:38:43AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > > On 10/15/15 7:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > On Thu,

[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

Tobias Klausmann posted on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:57:45 +0200 as excerpted: > By now the messages are just an annoyance/spam to me, but I suspect this > may be more of a problem for people who have lower pain thresholds. That could have been my post... all the way down to and including the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Jason Zaman wrote: > > Can you try this: > > # getfattr -d -m- /bin/ping > security.capability=0sAQAAAgAgAAA= > # setfattr -n user.test -v "foo" ./ping > # setfattr -n user.pax.flags -v "me" ./ping > # getfattr -d -m-

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On 10/15/15 4:57 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: Hi! On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: anyone opposed to flipping this flag on by default ? reference: https://bugs.gentoo.org/506198 https://bugs.gentoo.org/556408 No objection, but a bit of a datapoint. I use btrfs on one of my machines,

[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

Alexander Tsoy posted on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:09:29 +0300 as excerpted: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:56:28 +0800 Jason Zaman > wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:57:45AM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > >

[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:39:55 -0400 as excerpted: > iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only > installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require all > systems include it ? or should this wait for the long idea of releasing >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

Hi! On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: > anyone opposed to flipping this flag on by default ? > > reference: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/506198 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/556408 No objection, but a bit of a datapoint. I use btrfs on one of my machines, and that filesystem (apparently)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

Hi! On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: > iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only > installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require > all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long idea of > releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:08:54 +0200 Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only > > installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require > > all systems

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

Andrew Udvare wrote: >> On 2015-10-14, at 23:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only >> installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require >> all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On 10/14/2015 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only > installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require > all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long idea of > releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ? >

[gentoo-dev] call for testers (obscure cgroups bugs in OpenRC)

All, There are some very obscure cgroups related bugs in OpenRC which I have never been able to reproduce [1] [2] [3]. There was a cgroup fix applied to OpenRC-0.18.3 which took care of several other cgroups-related bugs. Since I am unable to reproduce the bugs I have listed here and there has

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

i will drop iputils from @system: https://bugs.gentoo.org/563148 but not until our releases are sorted out: https://bugs.gentoo.org/393445 and i'll see if we can't get that sorted out sooner rather than later -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:36:59 -0400 as excerpted: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Alexander Tsoy > wrote: >> >> I was wrong. This patch was not merged upstream. It is still needed and >> included in latest genpatches for 4.2: >> >> $ tar tf

[gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

background: everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people want the initial stage tarball that we release and you install Gentoo from to not be completely sparse. we've got a bug for this topic: https://bugs.gentoo.org/393445 items to sort out: - should the list of packages be in catalyst or

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] cmake-utils.eclass: die if ninja is enabled but not installed

This could happen if ninja is manually enabled (eg. make.conf) but not installed --- eclass/cmake-utils.eclass | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass b/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass index 480cd09..012b13f 100644 --- a/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass +++

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] cmake-utils.eclass: die if ninja is enabled but not installed

Dnia 15 października 2015 17:44:47 CEST, Michael Palimaka napisał(a): >This could happen if ninja is manually enabled (eg. make.conf) but not >installed >--- > eclass/cmake-utils.eclass | 5 + > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >diff --git a/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

On 10/15/2015 03:26 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 10/14/2015 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it only >> installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about this to require >> all systems include it ? or should this wait for the long

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/10/15 06:57 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger > wrote: >> iputils is currently in @system for everyone. by default, it >> only installs `ping`. do we feel strongly enough about

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/15 3:15 PM, Zac Medico wrote: In portage, @world = @profile + @selected + @system, which means that @profile is protected from depclean since it's a part of @world. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=532224 I thought so but wasn't sure and was about to test. Both @system

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 01:45 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> What's probably desired is to create a stage3 profile which adds >> whatever extra stuff you want to @system, and to use the stage3 profile >> for to build stage3. After the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 15 Oct 2015 12:15, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > background: > > everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people want the initial stage > > tarball that we release and you install Gentoo from to not be completely > > sparse. we've got a bug for this

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > What's probably desired is to create a stage3 profile which adds > whatever extra stuff you want to @system, and to use the stage3 profile > for to build stage3. After the stage3 is built, catalyst could set some > other

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >>> Given the goals, having catalyst seed /var/lib/portage/world seems >>> pretty reasonable to me. >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 12:29 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 15/10/15 03:15 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 10/15/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> background: everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people >>> want the initial stage tarball that we release and you install >>> Gentoo from to not be

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Given the goals, having catalyst seed /var/lib/portage/world seems > pretty reasonable to me. Then the question becomes how. Does it diff @profile between the two profiles and put the extra stuff in @selected? Or, does

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 02:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 15 Oct 2015 12:15, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 10/15/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> background: >>> everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people want the initial stage >>> tarball that we release and you install Gentoo from to not be

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 01:29 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 10/15/15 4:14 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 10/15/2015 01:06 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>> On 10/15/15 3:15 PM, Zac Medico wrote: In portage, @world = @profile + @selected + @system, which means that @profile is protected from

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 02:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 10/15/15 5:20 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 10/15/2015 02:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> so if iputils is in @profile, and i do: >> emerge -C iputils >> i don't get the ugly warning about it being in @system, but if i do: >> emerge

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 01:06 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 10/15/15 3:15 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> >> In portage, @world = @profile + @selected + @system, which means that >> @profile is protected from depclean since it's a part of @world. >> >> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=532224 > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/15 4:14 PM, Zac Medico wrote: On 10/15/2015 01:06 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 10/15/15 3:15 PM, Zac Medico wrote: In portage, @world = @profile + @selected + @system, which means that @profile is protected from depclean since it's a part of @world. [1]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 02:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> The only change in moving it to @profile is the warning. > > What's the point of getting rid of the warning if the package is going > to get pulled back in on the next

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/15 6:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote: . The last time I checked, @system was not used for stage1. Catalyst used package.build instead. Has that changed? Sorry, yes it is. I forgot how that file was interpreted. I was thinking when I wrote my previous emails that it contained a list of

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> Given the goals, having catalyst seed /var/lib/portage/world seems >> pretty reasonable to me. > > Then the question becomes how. Does it diff @profile between the two >

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

For some reason I didn't receive the original email from Mike. I'll answer via Rich's email. Hopefully I won't be misinterpreting anything. On 10/15/15 1:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: items to sort out: - should the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/15 5:20 PM, Zac Medico wrote: On 10/15/2015 02:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: so if iputils is in @profile, and i do: emerge -C iputils i don't get the ugly warning about it being in @system, but if i do: emerge @world iputils comes back. i think that's OK actually since

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:34:22 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > background: > everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people want the initial > stage tarball that we release and you install Gentoo from to not be > completely sparse. we've got a bug for this topic: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers (obscure cgroups bugs in OpenRC)

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:17:39AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > There are some very obscure cgroups related bugs in OpenRC which I have > never been able to reproduce [1] [2] [3]. Disregard the second bug, it is a documentation issue possibly, but the first and third bugs are the ones

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] cmake-utils.eclass: die if ninja is enabled but not installed

On 16/10/15 03:04, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Dnia 15 października 2015 17:44:47 CEST, Michael Palimaka > napisał(a): >> This could happen if ninja is manually enabled (eg. make.conf) but not >> installed >> --- >> eclass/cmake-utils.eclass | 5 + >> 1 file changed, 5

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 15 Oct 2015 19:01, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:34:22 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > - should the packages list be in a new packages.default, or should we > > create a new set to hold it, or should we just go with @profile ? > > -> @profile has the advantage of already

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/10/15 03:15 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> background: everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people >> want the initial stage tarball that we release and you install >> Gentoo from to not be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] enable USE=xattr by default

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Alexander Tsoy wrote: >> >> I was wrong. This patch was not merged upstream. It is still needed and >> included in latest genpatches for 4.2: >> >> $ tar tf

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On 10/15/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > background: > everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people want the initial stage > tarball that we release and you install Gentoo from to not be completely > sparse. we've got a bug for this topic: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/393445 > > items

Re: [gentoo-dev] ironing out release tarballs

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > items to sort out: > - should the list of packages be in catalyst or profile-stacked content > -> imo it should be entirely in the profile ++ This would be really nice to combine with mix-ins so that instead of

[gentoo-portage-dev] gentoolkit.git repository reorganized

All: Due to historical reasons the gentoolkit git repository was organized with two branches, gentoolkit and gentoolkit-dev with master effectively being an empty branch. This was confusing to contributers and with git did not make a lot of sense. Over the last couple of days, I have done the