Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:26:32 -0500 Richard Yao wrote: > On 02/17/2016 02:01 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:18:46 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>> > >>> The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:06:29 -0700 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Well, maybe it's because you can talk to Python team, discuss and not > > get ignored by them. > > We've already established the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:05:33PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file > systems which happen to be pre-mounted from an initramfs [1].

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 02:01 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:18:46 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> >>> The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh when the list of PIDs using a >>> mountpoint includes "$$" which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 01:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Genkernel's initramfs generation was what we endorsed for the most >> part, until dracut came around. it's hard to say what "most" are >> doing but i expect dracut and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 12:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> Systemd installs that go back into the initramfs at shutdown are rare >> because there is a >> hook for the initramfs to tell systemd that it should re-exec it and very >> few

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

On 02/17/2016 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by >> sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was >> obvious. > > About the only

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Well, maybe it's because you can talk to Python team, discuss and not > get ignored by them. We've already established the same is true for the games team. I'm a living example of it and I can't imagine I'm the only

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/17/2016 04:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > [snip] > > If Lennart's single statement from 2014 is a reason to use eudev > instead of systemd-udevd, my statement from today is a more > important reason not to use eudev. > That's kind of a

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

Michał Górny schrieb: systemd and udev share the same codebase. You can no longer build udev without systemd. udev is only a sub-project of systemd now, hence the name "systemd-udevd". Of course, sure. But since you seem not to be able to understand basics: this *does not* mean Lennart is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:19:52 -0500 Rich Freeman > wrote: > >> Is dracut still not widely used? I know that it was all the >> fashion for a decade or two for every distro to build

[gentoo-dev] games.eclass deprecation - repoman warning in next portage release

Dear all, while we have taken a lot of time and called for feedback repeatedly, in the December 2015 meeting the council has decided (among other things, see [1]) * that /usr/games and /etc/games should not be used anymore * that games.eclass should not be used anymore * that games.eclass may

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > 1) NFS v4 shares can't be unmounted if server is unreachable (even > with -f). If filesystem (e.g. /home or /) contains such unmounted > mount points, it can't be unmounted as well, because it is still in > use. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:18:46 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > > The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh when the list of PIDs using a > > mountpoint includes "$$" which is shell shorthand for self. How can the > >

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

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by > sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was > obvious. About the only "system-breaking" change I'm aware of in udev over

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:08:30 -0700 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > I was stating the apparent state of facts. If people are told they're > > supposed to go with games team, use their eclass, follow their

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Genkernel's initramfs generation was what we endorsed for the most > part, until dracut came around. it's hard to say what "most" are > doing but i expect dracut and genkernel based initramfs's make up > the vast

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

On 02/17/2016 11:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:38:05 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Michał Górny schrieb: With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > I was stating the apparent state of facts. If people are told they're > supposed to go with games team, use their eclass, follow their > policies, that's how it looks to people. That's an entirely different point from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 17/02/16 12:30 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:19:52 -0500 Rich Freeman > wrote: > >> Is dracut still not widely used? I know that it was all the >> fashion for a decade or two for every distro to build

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:19:24 -0700 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:32:53 -0700 > > Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > > Not true. I've been maintaining games for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:19:52 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > Is dracut still not widely used? I know that it was all the fashion > for a decade or two for every distro to build their own initramfs, but > I don't get why anybody wouldn't just make the switch - it is far more >

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:32:53 -0700 > Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > Not true. I've been maintaining games for a decade and have never been > on > > the team. > > Quoting the previous documentation of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > Systemd installs that go back into the initramfs at shutdown are rare because > there is a > hook for the initramfs to tell systemd that it should re-exec it and very few > configurations > do that. Even fewer that do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:32:53 -0700 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > games team sole claim to games in gentoo. > > > > Not true. I've been maintaining games for a decade and have never been on > the team.

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

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:38:05 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: > >> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of > >> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. > > He's lead developer of

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

On 02/17/2016 09:54 AM, brettrse...@gmail.com wrote: > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: Ben Kohler > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:01:32 > To: > Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Wiki updates

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I wibbled the ongoing-todo-list[0] slightly. We should add any long-standing bugs to the "specific bugs" list, and we should try to come up with some low-hanging fruit to attract newcomers. [0]

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > developers who did what they cared about and ignored everything and > everyone else. > I don't know if I'm an exception to the rule, but I've always had fruitful interactions with the games team. I never felt they

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

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Ben Kohler Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:01:32 To: Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider On Wed,

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >>> >>> >>> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> >> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on >> Gentoo. systemd-udev does not. Consequently, eudev has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > William Hubbs posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:41:29 -0600 as excerpted: > >> What I'm trying to figure out is, what to do about re-mounting file >> systems read-only. >> >> How does systemd do this? I didn't find an

[gentoo-dev] BOINC needs maintainer

Hi, currently BOINC supposed to be maintained by the science team, but we are not really carrying about it. Is there anyone around whole likes to take this over? Thanks for your help, Justin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> >> The failure message comes from rc-mount.sh when the list of PIDs using a >> mountpoint includes "$$" which is shell shorthand for self. How

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:22:13PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> >>> The reason it exists is very vague to me; I think it has

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file > systems which happen to be pre-mounted

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for >> virtual/udev to have subdiscussions about kdbus. Practically

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

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > > I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for > virtual/udev to have subdiscussions about kdbus. Practically everyone on > the list thinks eudev is the best choice. > I think a lot of us appreciate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Initial shutdown is via two targets (as opposed to specific services), Since not everybody in this thread may be familiar with systemd, I'll just add a quick definition. When systemd says "target" - think "virtual

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:52 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:00:27 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > >>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile >> wrote:

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

On 17/02/16 13:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: >>> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of >>> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. >> He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd >>

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > >>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 >>> Chí-Thanh Christopher

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

Michał Górny schrieb: With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd codebase which has specific maintainers. systemd and udev share the

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

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:09:57 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: > >> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together > >> with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original): > >> > >> "we will

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:54:31 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > >>> On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 >>> Patrick Lauer wrote: >>>

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao napisał(a): >>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile >> wrote:

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

Michał Górny schrieb: In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original): "we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three options: a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate

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

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:58:51 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > > >

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the >> logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what

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

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 Richard Yao wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > >

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

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using > kdbus/bus1, and

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

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > >>> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using > >>> kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have > >>> to do the same thing anyway.

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

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the > logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what > the Linux ecosystem will be using going forward. > Uh, if we cared solely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 11:53:32 CET, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> napisał(a): >Michał Górny posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:47:06 +0100 as excerpted: > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:48:08 -0600 Ryan Hill >wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: intel-sdp-r1.eclass

On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 10:53 +, Duncan wrote: > Michał Górny posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:47:06 +0100 as excerpted: > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:48:08 -0600 Ryan Hill > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100 Michał Górny > > g> > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass policy

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 08:52:31 CET, Michael Sterrett napisał(a): >On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Michał Górny >wrote: > >> The games team was pretty much formed of two kinds of developers back >then. One kind was retired developers, the other kind was

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: supervise-daemon -- a lightweight openrc daemon supervisor

Daniel Campbell posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:30:45 -0800 as excerpted: > IMO you're over-thinking it. I read it as "As you were, then", which is > a common saying in the (American, at least) military advising one to > keep doing what they're doing, or return to a resting position. :) Yes.

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

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao napisał(a): >On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: >>> >>> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also >work >>> on an

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

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 09:17:37 CET, Patrick Lauer napisał(a): >On 02/17/2016 07:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there >won't be > any user-visible changes > > * udev upstream strongly discourages

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 16/02/16 19:05, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I have a bug that points out a significant issue with > /etc/init.d/mount-ro in OpenRC. > > Apparently, there are issues that cause it to not work properly for file > systems which happen to be pre-mounted from an initramfs [1]. Who is using

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

On 02/17/2016 07:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't be any user-visible changes * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd) since at least 2012 (see for example: