Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

All, thinking about this further, There may not be a need to remove /etc/init.d/functions.sh as long as it is understood that this is part of OpenRc, not the gentoo base. In other words, tools that must work when OpenRc is not present should source /lib/gentoo/functions.sh, NOT /etc/init.d/funct

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:02:13PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 10/03/14 07:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > The quickest way to find things that will need this fix is to rm > > /etc/init.d/functions.sh and file bugs against things that

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:02:13 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 10/03/14 07:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > The quickest way to find things that will need this fix is to rm > > /etc/init.d/functions.sh and file bugs against things that break

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:08:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:14:58AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> ...why not? As you've said yourself, nothing related to openrc uses > >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh; if e

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:14:58AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> ...why not? As you've said yourself, nothing related to openrc uses >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh; if everything else in the tree is going to >> use the new gentoo-functions

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/03/14 12:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > The relevance is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is currently part > of OpenRc's public API, and semantic versioning has a very > specific description of how to deprecate functionality. > > If Gentoo nee

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/03/14 07:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > The quickest way to find things that will need this fix is to rm > /etc/init.d/functions.sh and file bugs against things that break > and make them block the tracker. ..is there a tracker bug currently?

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:14:58AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > yeah.. I scanned that bug, saw his arguments, but didn't see anything > afterwards that seemed to address his arguments (nor anything that > specifically addressed the removal of /etc/init.d/functions.sh as the > de-facto location)

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/03/14 09:10 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:10:42AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 10/03/14 07:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> for bug 373219 [1],

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:10:16PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 11/03/14 02:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny > > wrote: > >> Dnia 2014-03-10, o godz. 18:30:29 William Hubbs > >> napisał(a): >

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:10:42AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 10/03/14 07:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > for bug 373219 [1], we are working on providing a functions.sh that > > does not rely on OpenRc so that people who

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/03/14 02:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny > wrote: >> Dnia 2014-03-10, o godz. 18:30:29 William Hubbs >> napisał(a): >> >>> Also, do not add hard dependencies to your packages on >>> gentoo-functions

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-03-10, o godz. 18:30:29 > William Hubbs napisał(a): > >> Also, do not add hard dependencies to your packages on gentoo-functions. >> The goal is to add gentoo-functions to @system once it is stable. > > Why? I'm pretty sure we were

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

Dnia 2014-03-10, o godz. 18:30:29 William Hubbs napisał(a): > Also, do not add hard dependencies to your packages on gentoo-functions. > The goal is to add gentoo-functions to @system once it is stable. Why? I'm pretty sure we were working on having more explicit deps and less @system magic. Thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-functions is in the tree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/03/14 07:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > for bug 373219 [1], we are working on providing a functions.sh that > does not rely on OpenRc so that people who are not using OpenRc > can completely remove it from their systems. > > I can now

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-news: 2014: 2014-01-31-catalyst-head-changes.en.txt is missing it's gpg armour

> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Perhaps, since despite the GLEP always requiring it, it's only randomly > used: > ssuominen@null ~/Documents/gentoo-news $ find ./ -name '*.txt'|wc -l > 54 > ssuominen@null ~/Documents/gentoo-news $ find ./ -name '*.asc'|wc -l > 49 > ??? Simil

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-news: 2014: 2014-01-31-catalyst-head-changes.en.txt is missing it's gpg armour

On 25/02/14 16:05, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> 2014/2014-01-31-catalyst-head-changes.en.txt is missing it's gpg armour: >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:42#News_Item_Files > Maybe the git update hook could check if the armour is present? > > Ulri

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-news: 2014: 2014-01-31-catalyst-head-changes.en.txt is missing it's gpg armour

I'm confused, since when are news items signed? -A On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > 2014/2014-01-31-catalyst-head-changes.en.txt is missing it's gpg armour: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:42#News_Item_Files

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-news: 2014: 2014-01-31-catalyst-head-changes.en.txt is missing it's gpg armour

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: > 2014/2014-01-31-catalyst-head-changes.en.txt is missing it's gpg armour: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:42#News_Item_Files Maybe the git update hook could check if the armour is present? Ulrich pgpNmdtbMHoRF.pgp Description: PGP signatur

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM, yac wrote: > While you are it, it would be great if you could get some stats on > frequency of commits. Especially with reagrd to the planned cvs -> git > migration since this might cause some issues/inconvenience if the whole > portage will be one git repo. Oh, c

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:00 PM, yac wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:33:27 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > Ahoi, > > > > I've been looking for a clean git-converted gentoo-x86 repo for ... > > well ... mostly data mining as cvs / anoncvs.g.o is too slow for some > > things. > > > > While you

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:33:27 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ahoi, > > I've been looking for a clean git-converted gentoo-x86 repo for ... > well ... mostly data mining as cvs / anoncvs.g.o is too slow for some > things. > While you are it, it would be great if you could get some stats on frequen

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:33:27PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Ahoi, > > > > I've been looking for a clean git-converted gentoo-x86 repo for ... well > > ... mostly data mining as cvs / anoncvs.g.o is too slow for some things. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:33:27PM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ahoi, > > I've been looking for a clean git-converted gentoo-x86 repo for ... well > ... mostly data mining as cvs / anoncvs.g.o is too slow for some things. > > This has been needlessly challenging, which confuses me a bit. > > Fi

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ahoi, > > I've been looking for a clean git-converted gentoo-x86 repo for ... well > ... mostly data mining as cvs / anoncvs.g.o is too slow for some things. > > This has been needlessly challenging, which confuses me a bit. > > First, a lit

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 and git

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:33:27 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > and it'd be really useful to have the work-in-progress converted repo > online so that people can experiment with it. +1; have seen this come up a few times, would love to experiment some statistics over it myself to see if anything inter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Scire project - plans?

You know there are already projects like cfengine and puppet that seems to be way ahead. Also most of the links on the project page are not working anymore. On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 07:25:19 -0700 Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 17:15 +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: > > Hello, i just want to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Scire project - plans?

Sorry, I sent my last message before I read the rest of these, if anyone is interested in resurrecting it, that's awesome, feel free to hit me up with any questions about it and what we were doing. Thanks! Brian Dolbec wrote: >On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 17:15 +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: >> Hello, i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Scire project - plans?

Sorry, I sent my last message before I read the rest of these, if anyone is interested in resurrecting it, that's awesome, feel free to hit me up with any questions about it and what we were doing. Thanks! Brian Dolbec wrote: >On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 17:15 +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: >> Hello, i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Scire project - plans?

This project seems so interesting, if is possible i also would like to join. On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 17:15 +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: > Hello, i just want to raise question: should we add deprecation on > project page of Scire[1] or even remove this project entirely? Cause > project seems slightly ab

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Scire project - plans?

On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 17:15 +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: > Hello, i just want to raise question: should we add deprecation on > project page of Scire[1] or even remove this project entirely? Cause > project seems slightly abandonded, leader(agaffney) is in progress of > retiring[2], other project mem

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

On 9/30/13 1:31 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > Having a unstable eclass as toolchain-r1.eclass in tree might not be a > good idea compared to an overlay though. If that's the case, it should be pretty straightforward to create an overlay with that eclass, either under toolchain-r1 or just toolcha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" writes: > While I'm not nearly good enough to detail how this should happen > exactly, please, may I beg, do an eclass revision for this. There is an r1 candidate as Paweł initiated (bug 474358) > The fact that this hasn't been done clearly implies it is a lot of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

On 29/09/13 04:12, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > It's just a starting point, though. I still don't have a clear plan yet. > > After reading carefully the thread Ulrich pointed out, it seems that > refactoring ebuild/eclass is invevitable, which calls for an overlay to > carry it on. That would be m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2013 10:12 PM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" writes: > >> On 09/28/2013 03:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, heroxbd wrote: >>> I am revisiting this topic based on previous discussion

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" writes: > On 09/28/2013 03:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, heroxbd wrote: >> >>> I am revisiting this topic based on previous discussions[1,2,3]. >> >>> There seems to be a constant need for toolchain with a new EAPI. The >>> only block is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2013 03:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, heroxbd wrote: > >> I am revisiting this topic based on previous discussions[1,2,3]. > >> There seems to be a constant need for toolchain with a new EAPI. The >> only block is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Upgrade Guide and EAPI

> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, heroxbd wrote: > I am revisiting this topic based on previous discussions[1,2,3]. > There seems to be a constant need for toolchain with a new EAPI. The > only block is "how can we upgrade from an ancient system?", "don't > bump or the upgrade path will be break". Let'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On 18:52 Mon 08 Jul , Pavlos Ratis wrote: > As far as I can see, opinions about VCs are 50-50. However, I don't > see any disadvantages adding video hangouts to the project. VCs _are > not_ mandatory and doesn't replace any of our current communication > methods. You are not forced to participa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

As far as I can see, opinions about VCs are 50-50. However, I don't see any disadvantages adding video hangouts to the project. VCs _are not_ mandatory and doesn't replace any of our current communication methods. You are not forced to participate. It's all about choice. If there are no objections

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

Not to mention how do you actually log a hangout for the record instead of already having logs from an irc session or mailing list. On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > just opening a webcam and talking is just going to give an amateurish > feeling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > just opening a webcam and talking is just going to give an amateurish feeling ..as opposed to the very professional mailing list. //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

- Original Message - > From: Michael Palimaka > > On 26/06/2013 01:09, Egg Plant wrote: >> According to Pavlos Ratis proposal, it will be another channel of > communication. I am not protesting to setup an unofficial channel there. >> >> I am fearing that it will gradually become an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/25/2013 07:57 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2013.06.23 22:30, Pavlos Ratis wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Everyday we talk to each other about different kind of things >> related to Gentoo. IRC and MLs are the primary way of our >> communication, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On 2013.06.23 22:30, Pavlos Ratis wrote: > Hello all, > > Everyday we talk to each other about different kind of things related > to Gentoo. IRC and MLs are the primary way of our communication, but > this is only a text-based communication. I think sometimes it would > be > better to escape from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

- Original Message - > From: Michael Palimaka > > On 24/06/2013 07:30, Pavlos Ratis wrote: >>  That's why I'd like to propose Gentoo Hangouts. Gentoo Hangouts > will >>  be Google+  video Hangouts(video calls) held by teams or developers >>  independent of a team. The main goal is to ha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > It depends how you run it. We have teams having a video thing > open during the day with there geographically-diverse other team > members and it works well for them. For those teams, it also > improves cohesion. Geographically-diverse te

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

Hi! On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > I've worked on a VC system most of last year and I now go > through regular conferences... it's barely okay from a work > point of view, it takes lots of time to organize so you don't > want to do that every single day for sure. It depends how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:14:44AM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > A VC is a full commitment, and its attractiveness is often much higher > _before_ you use it.. Agreed. I have found that if I am on a voice chat with someone, say on skype, it requires my full attention, especially since I use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > And unlike IRC meetings, you can cannot multitask, say making your dinner > while discussing this or that feature. Honestly, that bit is a two-edged sword. I was just musing with the Trustees yesterday how it seems the meetings take fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

Pavlos, I understand what you mean, I'm just saying that organizing a real video conference takes its toil. And just opening a webcam and talking is just going to give an amateurish feeling that could be more detrimental than not. Can you please tell us if you have _any_ experience at all with VCi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Norman Rieß wrote: >> >> I do not see the benefit either, it seems like that kind of thing the PR >> department would come up with, which noone does actually like doing and >> everyone is glad when it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On 24.06.2013 12:01, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alex Legler schrieb: >> On 24.06.2013 08:31, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >>> I realise that by "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software"[0], what >>> is meant is the distribution and the source code. However, I think it >>> would be a bad e

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alex Legler schrieb: > On 24.06.2013 08:31, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >> I realise that by "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software"[0], what >> is meant is the distribution and the source code. However, I think it >> would be a bad example to use pr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On 24.06.2013 08:31, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > I realise that by "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software"[0], what > is meant is the distribution and the source code. However, I think it > would be a bad example to use proprietary software for development or > communication. So we shouldn't be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Norman Rieß wrote: > I do not see the benefit either, it seems like that kind of thing the PR > department would come up with, which noone does actually like doing and > everyone is glad when it's over and can go back to work. > I honestly wonder if Pavlos ever t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I realise that by "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software"[0], what is meant is the distribution and the source code. However, I think it would be a bad example to use proprietary software for development or communication. [0]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

Am 24.06.2013 00:15, schrieb Mike Gilbert: > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Pavlos Ratis wrote: >> It would be great to have teams introduce themselves and inform users in a >> more interactive way how to contribute and answer their questions. Finally as >> I said different other topics could be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

Pavlos Ratis wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò > wrote: > > Please, let's not try to make this something either mandated or recommended. > > It is absolutely optional and it's just a proposal. > However, I think it's worth a try. I think it would be a wonderfully valu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Please, let's not try to make this something either mandated or recommended. > It is absolutely optional and it's just a proposal. However, I think it's worth a try. Pavlos

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Pavlos Ratis wrote: > Except from a camera and a microphone requirement is a Google account and > www-client/google-talkplugin package which is already in the tree. > Or a modern smartphone with the relevant app. Personally, I have neither a camera nor mic attache

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Hangouts

Please, let's not try to make this something either mandated or recommended. I have a personal dislike for video tutorials which tend to take half an hour to explain something you'd read in ten minutes. Besides, not all of the developers speak English well enough — heck some people have trouble wr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Bugday

On 2013.02.27 00:39, Pavlos Ratis wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday event. > As most of the open source projects have their own bugday, I thought > it would be great to have this event back. For those who don't know, > its a monthly 24h eve

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Bugday

Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday > > event. > > I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to express my support. Yeah! Me too! :) //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Bugday

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 27/02/13 01:39, Pavlos Ratis wrote: > I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday > event. I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to express my support. I'm told that it is useful to be supportive of people and that they lik

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Bugday

On 2/26/13 4:39 PM, Pavlos Ratis wrote: > I would like to announce you a new try to 'revive' the Bugday event. This is excellent! Thank you for your work on this. > I have listed some maintainer-wanted and maintainer-need bugs and > Bugzilla admins also re-enabled the bugday flag. I would like to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Monday 31 December 2012 19:44:32 Rich Freeman wrote: > The certificates that Gentoo distributes have at least been vouched > for by somebody who is a part of our community, which is more than can > be said for most of the upstream certificates. mmm, Gentoo ships ca-certificates which comes dire

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On 1/1/13 2:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > IMO it would probably be good to limit our CA roots to Mozilla's > libnss selection by default and perhaps add a packaged selection of > secondary CA's (like CACert) for those who are so inclined. I think that's a good idea: make it easy to only use the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> The certificates that Gentoo distributes have at least been vouched >> for by somebody who is a part of our community, which is more than can >> be said for most of the upstream certifi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> The certificates that Gentoo distributes have at least been vouched >> for by somebody who is a part of our community, which is more than can >> be said for most of the upstream certifi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > The certificates that Gentoo distributes have at least been vouched > for by somebody who is a part of our community, which is more than can > be said for most of the upstream certificates. And you think "vouched for" by some community member

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Now before you reply, RTFA. Also note that while my own opinion > on the matter is irrelevant, I _do_ think that his concerns need > to be addressed, particularly the second half of his statement. SSL Certificate Authorities are a mess.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo and Root CAs

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:42:39 +0100 Tobias Klausmann wrote: > I _do_ think that his concerns need > to be addressed, particularly the second half of his statement. Whilst I agree that if it does debians system shouldn't undermine mozillas. I think the latest efforts are a pointless bandaid but I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

On 07-09-2012 10:52:10 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 09/07/2012 10:13 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > Could you give an example where implicit ${PV} as sub-slot would > > not do what you need? > > Can you point out a package for which SONAME/ABI/whatever changes > every time ${PV} changes? Probably

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/07/2012 10:13 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > Could you give an example where implicit ${PV} as sub-slot would > not do what you need? Can you point out a package for which SONAME/ABI/whatever changes every time ${PV} changes? Probably not. Is the r

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/09/12 01:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 06-09-2012 09:25:53 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> #1 - there is both a specification, and an initial >> implementation, AND a fork of the tree that is kept >> semi-up-to-date on my dev overlay. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

On 06-09-2012 09:25:53 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > #1 - there is both a specification, and an initial implementation, AND > a fork of the tree that is kept semi-up-to-date on my dev overlay. I was interested in a (formal) specification, not a proof of concept. > #2 - related to your question

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

On 09/06/2012 02:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > After reading this thread, I have seen numerous occasions where has been > asked what this proposal actually solves. Unless I've accidentially > skipped over it, the answer has yet to be given. It appears to me now > sub-slot is a feature that makes

[EDIT] Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/09/12 09:25 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > sub-slots is the 'some-identifier' part of > ${SLOT}/${some-identifier}. It doesn't have to *replate* to ${PV} > at all, and generally shouldn't. > > ..i have no idea what "replate" was supposed t

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/09/12 05:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > Replying to this email since it seems to be the discussion behind > the "sub-slot" feature proposed for EAPI 5. > > On 04-06-2012 23:26:18 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> This is why I think we should try

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

Replying to this email since it seems to be the discussion behind the "sub-slot" feature proposed for EAPI 5. On 04-06-2012 23:26:18 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > This is why I think we should try to push a bit my first suggestion for > the short term until "the perfect one" is ready as, until then,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo vs. upstream

Rich Freeman wrote: > I suspect upstream would say that if you want a smooth desktop > experience you shouldn't be running Gentoo. To some degree they > probably even have a valid point. Yes and no.. I think it will always be possible to use Gentoo to create as smooth a desktop experience as any d

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

On 06/06/2012 02:59 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: >>> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with >>> revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages >>> with

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > > Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with > > revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages > > with tests)? > > I'd suggest a special ebuild phase

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/06/2012 01:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: >> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: >>> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with >>> revdep-rebuild (worst case: ad

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > > Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with > > revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages > > with tests)? > > I'd suggest a special ebuild phase

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 02:51 +0200, Michael Weber escribió: [...] > > [1] if you forget the -X on module-rebuild, you might no longer have > the virtualbox-modules version installed in the tree (no packages > satisfy ...). virtualbox does remove old versions real quick. > > The fun part comes w

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with > revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages > with tests)? I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like the pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase sugg

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/05/2012 02:44 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > "There's never anything important in all that text." - Anonymous > Gentoo User The bad part is, that even reading of these messages can result in a breakage. I update a bunch of machines with these

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:44:08 -0400 "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote: > "There's never anything important in all that text." - Anonymous > Gentoo User To be fair, most einfo and elog messages are useless spam. When elog was introduced, it was supposed to be o

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/04/2012 05:26 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Hello, will send this to gentoo-dev mailing list per Zac's > suggestion ;): > > ...They usually do a good job maintaining them, the only issue I > see they hit from time to time is forgetting to run JUST

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Mike Gilbert wrote: > Here is my interpretation: the council voted on the following > question: > The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a > supported configuration." > It did not decide the method that would be used to accomplish this. > A

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo CJK team empty, or anyone knows about ibus?

On Monday 02 April 2012 22:29:47 Naohiro Aota wrote: > Pacho Ramos writes: > >> > > Will CC cjk team then to let them know you are interested to join > >> > > (looks like there are four devs in cjk alias...) > > > > Any updates on this? > > I didn't notice him been working to return dev, I sent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo CJK team empty, or anyone knows about ibus?

Pacho Ramos writes: >> > > Will CC cjk team then to let them know you are interested to join (looks >> > > like there are four devs in cjk alias...) >> >> > > Any updates on this? I didn't notice him been working to return dev, I sent him invitation with ebuild-quizes :/. Then I got response f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo CJK team empty, or anyone knows about ibus?

El lun, 19-03-2012 a las 09:37 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > El lun, 19-03-2012 a las 13:32 +0900, Naohiro Aota escribió: > > Hi, > > > > It is great to hear Jack is willing to join cjk herd. I can help Jack > > working on cjk bugs. But, to be honest, I'm not familiar with recruiting > > process

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-news repository migrated to git

On 03/15/12 at 08:11PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:28:03 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > Seems that nobody has announced it yet: > > > > The gentoo-news repository has moved from subversion to git some time > > ago. New news items should be committed to git only, beca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo CJK team empty, or anyone knows about ibus?

On 19 March 2012 12:45, Naohiro Aota wrote: > Ben writes: > >> On 19 March 2012 01:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> >>> >>> Will CC cjk team then to let them know you are interested to join (looks >>> like there are four devs in cjk alias...) >> >> But none of them seem active... > > hmm, Matuu and I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo CJK team empty, or anyone knows about ibus?

El lun, 19-03-2012 a las 13:32 +0900, Naohiro Aota escribió: > Hi, > > It is great to hear Jack is willing to join cjk herd. I can help Jack > working on cjk bugs. But, to be honest, I'm not familiar with recruiting > process so I need some devs to do or to help me on the recruiting. > > Also I'v

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo CJK team empty, or anyone knows about ibus?

On 03/19/2012 04:34 AM, Ben wrote: On 19 March 2012 01:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: Will CC cjk team then to let them know you are interested to join (looks like there are four devs in cjk alias...) But none of them seem active... well I got answer (albeit too late) from 2 cjk developers but no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo CJK team empty, or anyone knows about ibus?

Ben writes: > On 19 March 2012 01:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> >> Will CC cjk team then to let them know you are interested to join (looks >> like there are four devs in cjk alias...) > > But none of them seem active... hmm, Matuu and I'm working on some bugs one-by-one... Are there any bugs you

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >