On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 06:57 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> But neither portage, nor the portage tree, nor any of our branding are
>> shipped with ChromeOS. Hence it's as much a Gentoo install as $company
>> that uses portage to build $image for their em
On Sunday, September 25, 2011 21:57:27 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> But neither portage, nor the portage tree, nor any of our branding are
> shipped with ChromeOS. Hence it's as much a Gentoo install as $company
> that uses portage to build $image for their embedded device, but
> doesn't leave any tra
On 09/25/2011 06:57 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2011 05:53:18 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> "Gentoo" is defined by portage and the portage tree. If we remove
>>> that, the end result is no different than compiling s
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2011 05:53:18 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> "Gentoo" is defined by portage and the portage tree. If we remove
>> that, the end result is no different than compiling stuff manually in
>> Slackware or by hand.
>
> which i
On Sunday, September 25, 2011 08:53:08 Rich Freeman wrote:
> However, I can't seem to find a chromeos-meta package in portage, and
> the fact that my chromeos laptop has some feature does me little good
> in getting my Gentoo desktop to do the same. At best ChromeOS is a
> fork of Gentoo, and the
On Sunday, September 25, 2011 05:53:18 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> I'm a bit concerned that the future of linux on the desktop is going to
> >> be one where your choices are things like
On 9/25/11 5:53 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Repeat this 100 times and you end up with a chromium tarball
> that consists of 90% redistributed 3rd-party libraries with subtle
> tweaks. However, can you really argue with Google's success with this
> approach.
At least in Gentoo we remove _most_ of th
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> This will be a big challenge for a smaller distro like Gentoo. Obviously we
>> can't just go write our own Wayland replacement, even if we did essentially
>> make our own "systemd" of so
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I'm a bit concerned that the future of linux on the desktop is going to be
>> one where your choices are things like Android, ChromeOS, Ubuntu, Gnome OS,
>> or a "KDE OS." Each one woul
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'm a bit concerned that the future of linux on the desktop is going to be
> one where your choices are things like Android, ChromeOS, Ubuntu, Gnome OS,
> or a "KDE OS." Each one would have its own package managers, repositories,
> distros, APIs
On 09/16/2011 14:06, Duncan wrote:
>
> Careful with the "extreme". As you no doubt realize by now, the udev
> folks apparently consider anyone wanting a separate /usr but not an initr*
> "extreme". That'd certainly apply double if said admin (since no simple
> "user" cares about such stuff,
The 18/09/11, Duncan wrote:
> > I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.
Insterstingly, Duncan just answered your question...
> Interesting question. I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread,
> either, and it bothered me too.
>From here:
> With a moment's thought, I
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted:
> > I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.
>
> Interesting question. I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread,
> either, and
Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 06:40:03 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> (The other reason I think systemd and udev might merge at some point,
>> or at least
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
> Except that Redhat and Centos use LVM by default. Which will also mean that
> "simple users" also end up using LVM.
> Then again, they also end up with an initr* and a generic kernel for
> everything under the sun.
> I haven't properly l
On Friday, September 16, 2011 06:06:35 PM Duncan wrote:
> Joost Roeleveld posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:36:27 +0200 as excerpted:
> > I agree, I just used this example to explain that it shouldn't be
> > necessary to force an initramfs on all users just because there is a
> > small group who wants
Joost Roeleveld posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:36:27 +0200 as excerpted:
> I agree, I just used this example to explain that it shouldn't be
> necessary to force an initramfs on all users just because there is a
> small group who wants to have an extreme setup.
Careful with the "extreme". As you
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> It may be that this is already sorted on the gnome side, or that all this
> talk of gnome-os is simply hot-air, but like I said, I'm a kde user, so I
> wouldn't know, tho I'm concerned about its implications for the rest of
>
Joost Roeleveld posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:33:18 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:31:45 PM Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> >
>> > Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list
>> > about the upcoming change wh
19 matches
Mail list logo
