Bump minimal Python versions after the last security stabilizations,
plus PyPy3 sysconfig bugfix.
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny
---
eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 12 +---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny
---
eclass/tests/python-utils-r1.sh | 18 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/tests/python-utils-r1.sh b/eclass/tests/python-utils-r1.sh
index 6abf10cadabd..6a1d2f98cbf9 100755
--- a/eclass/tests/python-utils-r1.sh
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny
---
eclass/distutils-r1.eclass | 19 ++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass b/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
index 6e8ff5467bdb..371d52bcb7ef 100644
--- a/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
+++
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny
---
eclass/distutils-r1.eclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass b/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
index 3064ba6a446c..6e8ff5467bdb 100644
--- a/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
+++ b/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
@@
Hi,
More patches to the last batch:
1. Fix build system package version output to work on cross (via passing
`-b` to best_version calls).
2. Add support for gpep517-12+ `--sysroot` option for better cross
support. Since this is only needed by some packages, we do not make
gpep-517-12+
Please do file a bug tracking this proposal, and reference the
discussion thread.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> What I'd like to do is to bump the limits.conf we ship with pam to
> following
>
> * hard nproc 16384
> * soft nproc 16384
> * hard
Hi,
On 11/12/2022 13.46, Sam James wrote:
You should still file a bug for two reasons:
1. Paper trail
2. sys-auth/pambase has another maintainer who*is* active :)
As for the question in your post, I'll have a think. Thanks!
I am not against creating a bug, I do see it however as inefficient
> On 11 Dec 2022, at 08:28, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to touch base on the topic of pam_limits and the defaults that we
> ended up with in Gentoo.
>
> [...]
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Unless there's strong opposition to not bump those 1024/4096 current
> defaults, I'd like
# Hans de Graaff (2022-12-11)
# ruby27-only package. No reverse dependencies.
# Last release in 2012. Removal in 30 days.
dev-ruby/log_buddy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
# Hans de Graaff (2022-12-11)
# ruby27-only package. No reverse dependencies.
# Last release in 2013. Removal in 30 days.
dev-ruby/nagios_analyzer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
# Hans de Graaff (2022-12-11)
# ruby27-only package. No reverse dependencies.
# Last release in 2009. Removal in 30 days.
dev-ruby/ntlm-http
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Hi,
I'd like to touch base on the topic of pam_limits and the defaults that
we ended up with in Gentoo.
Currently on default system installation without any modification to
/etc/security/limits.{conf,d/*} user will end up with limit o 1024 of
file descriptors and 4096 limit of threads.
# Hans de Graaff (2022-12-11)
# ruby27-only package. No reverse dependencies.
# Removal in 30 days.
dev-ruby/posix-spawn
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
13 matches
Mail list logo
