Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15/02/16 05:28, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate >> 'udev' > > i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened. i > don't think it changes my point. -mike > It wasn't necessarily

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate 'udev' i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened. i don't think it changes my point. -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/14/2016 10:53 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/14/2016 07:44 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: >> On Sunday 14 February 2016 13:18:30 Rich Freeman wrote: >>> Feel free to peruse the various list discussions and council >>> logs. Most of what you're

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15/02/16 02:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > >> > >> that's not true, nor is it the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:50:38PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the > > > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Why does any discussion revolving around systemd always turn out like this? For the record, I'm an OpenRC user and intend on keeping it that way for as long as i can. In that case i need udev to keep things working the way i want them to. So in the case that the systemd team makes udev

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2016-02-14 23:59 UTC

The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2016-02-14 23:59 UTC. Removals: app-office/passepartout 20160214-13:04 pacho 4e3a102 dev-ada/gtkada 20160214-13:04 pacho 4e3a102 dev-db/drizzle

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer >> wrote: >> > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change > > > the virtual back. One-line change. > > > > Which is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/14/2016 09:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 >> Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer >>> wrote: If, for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 February 2016 at 22:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and > develops against. > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. I honestly don't understand this argument that pops over and over. No

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the virtual

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Systemd users/developers should not mind what the default is as they > are forced to use one variant anyway, these users/developers should > not force their opinion upon others. Posting an opinion on a list isn't forcing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 22:31, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On 14 February 2016 at 22:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and > > develops against. > > > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > > I honestly don't understand this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 21:31, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > If, for any reason, eudev should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo. the problem is the project only has one pair of eyes. people have said all sorts of stuff but really, there's only one relevant

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being executed. > -mike > correct and i've been careful with libudev. anyhow, can we divert this away from udev/eudev. mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > > that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo. can you list the projects that utilize eudev ? the repo doesn't that i can see. it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the > > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being executed. > > correct and i've been careful with libudev. > > anyhow,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. >> >> that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo. > > can you list the projects that

Re: [gentoo-dev] libressl: proposing a new project and calling for help

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/14/2016 04:38 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We discussed the state of libressl today in the council. Proceeding > forward with that work, I'm going to propose a new project and getting > together a team. Much of the work

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:53:56 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: > I don't have time to follow every little change, so it's quite > annoying to reverse-engineer this change that apparently is a > compromise that no one actually wanted, and hasn't really been > finished yet. Sigh. Why

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/12/2016 11:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:07:10 +0100 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> On 02/12/2016 08:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Dear Ignorant Patrick, >> Hello human! Your politeness module seems to have crashed. > Please do not expect politeness

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On Sunday 14 February 2016 13:18:30 Rich Freeman wrote: > > Feel free to peruse the various list discussions and council logs. > Most of what you're bringing up has come up before. Thanks rich0, you seem to be reading my mind. This is turning into a severe case of "I didn't bother to speak up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/14/2016 07:44 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > On Sunday 14 February 2016 13:18:30 Rich Freeman wrote: >> Feel free to peruse the various list discussions and council logs. >> Most of what you're bringing up has come up before. > Thanks rich0, you seem to be reading my mind. > > This is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer > wrote: > > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change > > the virtual back. One-line change. > > Which is precisely the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/09/2016 01:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > >> And a lot of Gentoo is surprisingly simple: Like our use of bash >> scripts for recipies to build things, like using rsync to deploy/relay >> not just those recipies, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > The new schema collapses herd (err, project!) into maintainers (err, > sustainers ... staff ... linchpin?) > And maintainer is defined as: > > > Which means that only email is mandatory. So instead of search by name >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 15 February 2016 at 00:37, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Or JSON, or YAML, or whatever > is trendy now. I would love a JSON form. I tried doing my own stuff with XML and I gave up in the complexity factory I found myself building around it :( Just ... not YAML. The YAML spec is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/14/2016 02:16 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >> So what do you guys think of leaving behind empty stubs for compatibility >> and then simply filing a tracking bug blocked by any packages that removing >> herds broke? >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:37:33 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/11/2016 09:15 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Now instead of looking up [metadata.xml] -> (herd name) -> [herds.xml] > > -> email it goes backwards: > > [metadata.xml] -> (maintainer type=project) -> email ->

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/09/2016 10:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 18:27, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo >> community. outside of this community i get praise. > > In case my earlier messages stating a desire to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/14/2016 05:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the >> virtual back. One-line change. > Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/14/2016 02:16 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >>> So what do you guys think of leaving behind empty stubs for compatibility >>> and then

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the > virtual back. One-line change. Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching the default to eudev in the first place. -- Rich

[gentoo-dev] herds.xml removal (was: Re: Uncoordinated changes)

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: > It isn't entirely clear that anything is actually broken at the > moment, but if distributing an empty herds.xml file makes somebody's > life easier I have no objections. In fact, GLEP 67 implies that the herds.xml file is to be removed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

On 02/11/2016 09:15 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Now instead of looking up [metadata.xml] -> (herd name) -> [herds.xml] > -> email it goes backwards: > [metadata.xml] -> (maintainer type=project) -> email -> [projects.xml] > -> Project name > > Since this involves XML and python's ElementTree