On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:24 PM, LTHR lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I want to start off by discussing your premise, before embarking on the
overall goals.
You wrote:
I'm with Gentoo for many years. For various reasons many techs were not
implemented and now Gentoo is in a kind of
Hello Alec,
Thursday, January 9, 2014, 12:12:18 PM, you wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:24 PM, LTHR lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I want to start off by discussing your premise, before embarking on the overall
goals.
You wrote:
I'm with Gentoo for many years. For various reasons
Due to bug 497262, I will mask the following packages for removal in 30 days.
net-libs/libguac-0.6.3
net-libs/libguac-0.7.0
net-libs/libguac-client-rdp-0.6.2
net-libs/libguac-client-rdp-0.7.0
net-libs/libguac-client-rdp-0.7.1
net-libs/libguac-client-vnc-0.6.1
net-libs/libguac-client-vnc-0.7.0
Hi,
you motivate your proposal by claiming the Gentoo Project stagnates which you
relate with its decline in popularity:
According to Linux Counter
http://web.archive.org/web/2012010100*/http://linuxcounter.net/distribut
ions/stats.html
In January 2012, Gentoo distro had 5.32%
In
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alex Xu alex_y...@yahoo.ca wrote:
Eww. Geographically-close files should be made available through
GENTOO_MIRRORS and the regular distfiles system.
I think you may be missing the point of this proposal, or are unaware of
how profiles/thirdpartymirrors and
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a small feature request, but it will require a modification to
PMS, so I describe it here.
The present thirdpartymirrors file is unwieldy, and difficult to manage
due to it's format with very long lines. It
Hello Christopher,
Thursday, January 9, 2014, 6:12:37 PM, you wrote:
you motivate your proposal by claiming the Gentoo Project stagnates which you
relate with its decline in popularity:
According to Linux Counter
http://web.archive.org/web/2012010100*/http://linuxcounter.net/distribut
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote:
According to distro watch:
...
According to Linux Counter
...
What are distro watch and linux counter and who cares what their opt-in
stats gathering says?
-most Gentoo users I've ever talked to
I think if you drop the
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:26:24 +0400
Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote:
For various reasons many techs were not implemented and now Gentoo
is in a
kind of stagnation.
What do you mean by that in particular?
Gentoo stopped.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298754
Hello Ben,
Thursday, January 9, 2014, 7:49:28 PM, you wrote:
True, thanks for noting that.
What are distro watch and linux counter and who cares what their opt-in
stats gathering says?
-most Gentoo users I've ever talked to
I think if you drop the premise Gentoo is dying, how do we fix
Hello Jeroen,
Thursday, January 9, 2014, 7:55:42 PM, you wrote:
I was expecting you a few hours earlier, Jeroen. I knew you
wouldn't resist a terrible temptation remembering the Python Bug
that I filed from the old kernel gentoo.
For your information this is a confirmed bug in Python right now
Igor posted on Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:44:02 +0400 as excerpted:
There is no data to tell what happens with Gentoo (to give that data is
one of the goals of the project). We only have some formal esteems from
unreliable sources.
According to distro watch:
In February 2012, Gentoo distro was
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:24:25 +0400
LTHR lanthrus...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
What do you think about implementing this:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7477494
I've system design in my head and could write it down with the
implementation details. Then may be we could all review
On Monday 09 December 2013 16:32:09 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 12/09/2013 02:21 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello
Is pam team still active? I wonder about this as, recently, we have
needed to go ahead and fix some
On 9 January 2014 20:20, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
well, the sep herd was kind of by design ... i didn't want it cluttering up
base-system@ and it is super convenient to abdicate all PAM decisions to a
single herd.
Yeah the problem has been that the herd has been fundamentally
On 01/09/2014 08:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 09 December 2013 16:32:09 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 12/09/2013 02:21 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello
Is pam team still active? I wonder about this as, recently, we
Hello Duncan,
Thursday, January 9, 2014, 9:59:50 PM, you wrote:
Thank you for the reply. I started to comment first... but it was more
philosophy a mature and grown up, experienced man and I don't think
I have right to comment it.
Statistically if you have more users the probability of the
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a bug to track this [1].
The affected Gcc version will be 4.8.2 and newer. Only amd64, x86, mips, ppc,
ppc64 and arm will be affected by this change.
You can turn off ssp by
On 01/09/2014 03:42 PM, Igor wrote:
Hello Duncan,
Thursday, January 9, 2014, 9:59:50 PM, you wrote:
Thank you for the reply. I started to comment first... but it was more
philosophy a mature and grown up, experienced man and I don't think
I have right to comment it.
Statistically if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 03:58 PM, Magnus Granberg wrote:
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a bug to track this [1].
The affected Gcc version will be 4.8.2 and newer. Only
El jue, 09-01-2014 a las 21:58 +0100, Magnus Granberg escribió:
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a bug to track this [1].
The affected Gcc version will be 4.8.2 and newer. Only amd64, x86, mips, ppc,
ppc64
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El jue, 09-01-2014 a las 21:58 +0100, Magnus Granberg escribió:
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a bug to track this [1].
The affected Gcc version will be 4.8.2 and newer.
torsdag 09 januari 2014 22.57.09 skrev Pacho Ramos:
El jue, 09-01-2014 a las 21:58 +0100, Magnus Granberg escribió:
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a bug to track this [1].
The affected Gcc version will
El jue, 09-01-2014 a las 17:06 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El jue, 09-01-2014 a las 21:58 +0100, Magnus Granberg escribió:
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 03:58 PM, Magnus Granberg wrote:
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a bug
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What are the advantages of disabling SSP to deserve that special
handling via USE flag or easily disabling it appending the flag?
There are some cases where ssp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What are the advantages of disabling SSP to deserve that special
handling
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What are the advantages of disabling SSP to deserve that special
handling via USE flag or easily disabling it appending
On 01/09/2014 05:29 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What are the
On 01/09/2014 05:29 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What are the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 06:01 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
What are the advantages
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:11:28 -0500
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 03:58 PM, Magnus Granberg wrote:
Hi
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 06:09 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 01/09/2014 05:29 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014 04:57
On 01/09/2014 06:13 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 06:01 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 01/09/2014
Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2014, 00:26:03 schrieb Ryan Hill:
Please avoid noblah use flags.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/
ssp flag that defaults to on is fine.
This flag already exists and has always worked this way.
already exists and has always worked this
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:30:04AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2014, 00:26:03 schrieb Ryan Hill:
Please avoid noblah use flags.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/
ssp flag that defaults to on is fine.
This flag already
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:58:46 +0100
Magnus Granberg zo...@gentoo.org wrote:
- use hardened make_gcc_hard
+ if ( tc_version_is_at_least 4.8 || use hardened ) ! use vanilla ;
then
s/4.8/4.8.2
Or should we wait until the next release (4.8.3 or 4.9.0)? I think I'd
prefer it but I
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in
this case is does feel extra pointless.
Tend to agree, though one place I could see it being hypothetically
useful is if we need to set a
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:41:08 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:30:04AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2014, 00:26:03 schrieb Ryan Hill:
Please avoid noblah use flags.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:30:46 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz.
Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com writes:
The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure
rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.
I am curious about the slowness of emerge.
How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in
C/C++, or ideally, borrowing
Hey Igor,
Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com writes:
Jeroen, tell me how many users world wide do not prefer to upgrade Gentoo
on automated basis? There are important servers, and there are many
cases when after upgrade server stops. Do you remember that recent udev
change? And there are many
On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com writes:
The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure
rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.
I am curious about the slowness of emerge.
How about profile the portage and
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:16:47 +0900
hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com writes:
The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure
rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.
I am curious about the slowness of emerge.
Try a --backtrack=0
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com writes:
The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the
failure rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.
I
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:19:03 +0100
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Igor lanthrus...@gmail.com writes:
The ebuilds have approximately the same time to
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:52:16 -0800
Patrick McLean chutz...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:19:03 +0100
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or rather: What does it take to migrate parts of pkgcore into
portage?
Why not just switch to using pkgcore as the default package
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:58:46 +0100
Magnus Granberg zo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Some time ago we discussed that we should enable stack smashing
(-fstack-protector) by default. So we opened a bug to track this [1].
The affected Gcc version will be 4.8.2 and newer. Only amd64, x86, mips, ppc,
Dnia 2014-01-06, o godz. 20:20:03
Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
2.4. For stack repos/overlays:
2.4.1. No prefix: replace all prior mirrors from masters with new URLS in
this file.
2.4.2. - prefix: remove this URL from the list from masters.
2.4.2. + prefix: append this URL
Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 18:59:26
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in
this case is does feel extra pointless.
Tend to agree,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2014-01-06, o godz. 20:20:03
Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
2.4. For stack repos/overlays:
2.4.1. No prefix: replace all prior mirrors from masters with new URLS
in this file.
2.4.2. - prefix:
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 17:52 -0800, Patrick McLean wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:19:03 +0100
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Last I checked paludis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 07:12 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:41:08 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:30:04AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2014, 00:26:03 schrieb Ryan Hill:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 07:17 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:30:46 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500 Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash:
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org writes:
For python things you really want python or C instead of C++...
Well, we have boost-python to do python extensions in C++. And yes,
introducing boost as a dependency to portage is not cool.
I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part.
Yes,
I have mostly migrated the Portage project page to the wiki.
Please look it over, edit any errors you see (only gentoo devs have edit
capabilities).
I have started a couple sub-pages: Ongoing-TODO and Proposals
links:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage
First off, I know many of you think portage needs to do everything on
it's own. NO outside dependencies.
BUT! Please hear me out.
While working on many of gentoo's tools gentoolkit's equery, eclean,
enalyze, Layman, mirrorselect, etc.. I have found that there was a lot
of needless code
Am 09.01.2014 18:33, schrieb Brian Dolbec:
introduction
history of the plugin system
I fully agree with idea behind the plugin system. That is, to keep
things that are separate, separate. It probably wouldn't have occurred
to me to implement it that way (i.e. with auto-detection) but that's
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 09:33 -0800, Brian Dolbec wrote:
I have started a Proposals sub-page under the Portage project page in
the wiki. It has a link to a diagram I made showing how the plug-in
system is laid out. This thread will be used to discuss the proposal
and the details needed for
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Brian Dolbec dol...@gentoo.org wrote:
First off, I know many of you think portage needs to do everything on
it's own. NO outside dependencies.
BUT! Please hear me out.
While working on many of gentoo's tools gentoolkit's equery, eclean,
enalyze, Layman,
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 19:46 +0100, Sebastian Luther wrote:
The layout makes sense. Except the problems I see with where the
modules are installed (see later).
Not sure about module_spec yet.
[...]
The module_spec is a means to make available to the operational manager
what the module
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 11:15 -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
I think the opposition to this idea primarily falls on reliability.
There have been a number of hacks to portage over the years to keep it
functioning during upgrades of itself, even down to the non-standard
place where its .py files
63 matches
Mail list logo
