On 10/11/2011 10:59 PM, Graham Murray wrote:
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org writes:
On 10/11/2011 10:28 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
Francisco raised a possibly valid point in his original message: though
packages may not be currently used for anything, but they could contain
un-patched security
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:40:23 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I suggest
looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a lightweight
server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead of udev, and
some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/12/11 05:40, Walter Dnes wrote:
Hi all
The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I
suggest looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a
lightweight server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead
of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/12/11 02:44, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:52:42 +0100 Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about
pngcrush and what was discussed there. It is getting a little
bit
+# Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org (12 Oct 2011)
+# Upstream has moved to commercial development and
+# the latest version doesn't work with newer allegro.
+# Masked for removal on 2011
+# bug #369271
+games-roguelike/fargoal
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote
You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in
Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use,
remerge busybox. You must be sure to be using busybox-1.92.2 or later
for bug #83301.
Goodbye desktop users then.
We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
always had sys-apps/hal and sys-apps/dbus in /etc/portage/package.mask
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:05:15PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
Are you aware of the simple linuxrc approach that I suggested here?
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml
Thanks for the pointer. I've got a spare box kicking around that I'll
try this on.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a
Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in
Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions.
We should
On 10/12/2011 04:44 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:52:42 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about pngcrush
and what was discussed there. It is getting a little bit of a habit to
escalate minor problems to flames
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
That's probably why there's no mention in the docs other than the portage
manpage. Now that we have swift back, he's applying some much needed
attention to the docs tree and its coming back into shape. =:^)
I definitely agree
On 10/12/2011 07:10 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
That leads me to another concern. The defaults should be the safe
options, and the options should be to make the actions less safe.
In my thinking the most conservative options right now are either
emerge -uDN world or emerge -uDN --with-bdeps=y
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Goodbye desktop users then.
We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:09:49 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Goodbye desktop users then.
We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced,
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Goodbye desktop users then.
We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to
impose their deep
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
Isn't
On Sunday 02 October 2011 16:40:18 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch
systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because
of this.
yes,
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:26:12 Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a
Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in
Redhat's direction. Our community
On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
- The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now part of the toolchain
eclass, so
doesn't need to be ran by users anymore
Moreover, that should only be
В Втр, 11/10/2011 в 19:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not).
Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17
Oct and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where
QA should voice and
On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
readability. Simple example:
# bug #123456, foo, bar
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-foo.patch
# bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah
epatch
On Saturday 08 October 2011 18:57:23 James Cloos wrote:
SV == Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org writes:
SV - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds
SV from that version onwards should not be needed
That is not generally true.
I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:19:25 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
readability. Simple example:
# bug #123456, foo, bar
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-foo.patch
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
- The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now part of the toolchain
eclass, so
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:38:47 Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 08 October 2011 11:07:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
- The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:19:25 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
readability. Simple
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote:
If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \
admittedly, i hit this every once in a while, and with all the || die being
implicit, it doesn't get caught right away. fortunately latest portage will
issue a QA
2011/10/12 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote:
If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \
admittedly, i hit this every once in a while, and with all the || die being
implicit, it doesn't get caught right away.
Hmm for the command-not-found, it should be fatal not just warning I suppose.
I was not even aware of this fancy portage feature :)
Tom
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:57:45 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
2011/10/12 Mike Frysinger:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:44:53 Alec Warner wrote:
If I want to add a patch to the list I might forget to to add the \
admittedly, i hit this every once in a while, and with all the || die
being
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post.
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it,
then it is obviously not common.
The second time the package was removed was even without mask or
announcement.
well, it shouldn't have
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 17:42:47 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post.
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it,
then it is obviously not common.
you're mixing common with
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree
with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph.
The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:09:24AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote
You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in
Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use,
remerge busybox. You
On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree
with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph.
The
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:27:41 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the
tree with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:58:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the
tree with a
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:26:12 -0400 as excerpted:
My concern with something like dropping udev is that it would make us
different from every other desktop distro out there. I'm not aware of
any distro packaging Gnome/KDE without udev. Not having Redhat's
billions to me is
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
`apt-get upgrade`? If we hide the new defaults behind a target like
--upgrade, rather than change the defaults globally, then it allows
people's existing
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Thus, the point I'd make and that I believe you were making is not that
Gentoo can't be different, or we'd obviously be doing a binary distro
like everyone else, but that we pick the differences which we value
enough to
Zac Medico posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:09:56 -0700 as excerpted:
On 10/12/2011 07:10 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
The defaults should be [safe] and the options should [flexibly
allow less safety where judged necessary].
In my thinking the most conservative options right now are either
emerge
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
`apt-get upgrade`?
isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed`
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
`apt-get upgrade`?
isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed`
On 10/13/2011 03:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:58:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you changed the
On 10/13/2011 03:10 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
by splitting my reply, you
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:26:28 -0400 as excerpted:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
wrote:
isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade
@installed`
Well, you'd arguably at least need a -N in there.
Indeed.
Also, this
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:20:23 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
`apt-get upgrade`?
isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade
On Thursday 13 October 2011 01:33:07 Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:20:23 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
`apt-get upgrade`?
isn't that already done
50 matches
Mail list logo
