Re: [gentoo-dev] REQUIRED_USE, global USE flags, user-friendliness...

On 01/28/2017 08:27 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:57:00PM -0500, james wrote Exactly:: simplify the flags, profiles and associated constructs down to the bare bones. Even embedded (arm/mips/etc) builds could benefit from a really minimized gentoo as a starting point.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 01/28/2017 10:23 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > > That's nonsense for reasons already mentioned by rich0. UIDs don't change > except in the case of an admin doing it manually. > It shouldn't be common, but it can and will happen once you put users in ebuilds. As an example, imagine an "echo"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 29/01/17 03:23, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Michael Orlitzky > wrote: > > On 01/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Honestly, I really will say "so what" here. :) > > > > I forgot to mention a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 01/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Honestly, I really will say "so what" here. :) > > > > I forgot to mention a few of the advantages of having really-fixed UIDs. > First, it makes the code simpler.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 29/01/17 01:56, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 01/27/2017 11:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> It isn't like inconsistent UIDs are the end of the world. However, >> IMO it still makes sense to at least try to standardize such things. >> Really, if you have a package always installing the same user

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 01/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Honestly, I really will say "so what" here. :) > I forgot to mention a few of the advantages of having really-fixed UIDs. First, it makes the code simpler. Yup, cool. It also lets us play a nice trick and use the UID as a subslot, so that if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 01/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Here's a problem I have no solution for. Suppose we tell everyone to >> pick a fixed UID for their user packages. I have a randomly assigned >> "tcpdump" user as UID 102 on my machine today. If we roll this out next >> week and the tcpdump

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 01/27/2017 11:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> It isn't like inconsistent UIDs are the end of the world. However, >> IMO it still makes sense to at least try to standardize such things. >> Really, if you have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 01/27/2017 11:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > It isn't like inconsistent UIDs are the end of the world. However, > IMO it still makes sense to at least try to standardize such things. > Really, if you have a package always installing the same user simply > sticking a default UID without any

Re: [gentoo-dev] REQUIRED_USE, global USE flags, user-friendliness...

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:57:00PM -0500, james wrote > > Exactly:: simplify the flags, profiles and associated constructs down to > the bare bones. Even embedded (arm/mips/etc) builds could benefit from a > really minimized gentoo as a starting point. Freedom to build and fork > Gentoo, per

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:28:45 + James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:37:52 -0800 > Patrick McLean wrote: > > > I don't think we need to have stable UIDs/GIDs in the "normal" case of > > standalone users with a single Gentoo system at home.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:13:53 -0600 > > "A. Wilcox" wrote: > > > >> Having a file that user.eclass would use to map

Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving profiles/profiles.desc and repoman checking

On 28/01/17 20:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2017, 20:32:54 CET schrieb M. J. Everitt: >> How does this compare/contrast/integrate with kent\n's proposal >> regarding "profiles.types"? > Oops. > > Sorry I'm a bit back in mailing list reading. I came up with this some time

Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving profiles/profiles.desc and repoman checking

Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2017, 20:32:54 CET schrieb M. J. Everitt: > > How does this compare/contrast/integrate with kent\n's proposal > regarding "profiles.types"? Oops. Sorry I'm a bit back in mailing list reading. I came up with this some time ago, and wanted to finally send it out. Will read

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:13:53 -0600 > "A. Wilcox" wrote: > >> Having a file that user.eclass would use to map new users/groups to >> IDs would be extremely beneficial to me. I was thinking about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving profiles/profiles.desc and repoman checking

On 28/01/17 20:01, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > So, things are a little bit messy right now. We have "stable arches", "arches > that are ~arch only (but occasional stable keywords can pop up and be > ignored)", "arches that are ~arch only". In addition, some are always checked > with repoman,

[gentoo-dev] Improving profiles/profiles.desc and repoman checking

So, things are a little bit messy right now. We have "stable arches", "arches that are ~arch only (but occasional stable keywords can pop up and be ignored)", "arches that are ~arch only". In addition, some are always checked with repoman, some only with -d or (hic sunt leones) -e flag. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:13:53 -0600 "A. Wilcox" wrote: > Having a file that user.eclass would use to map new users/groups to > IDs would be extremely beneficial to me. I was thinking about diving > in to that some time later, after the GLEP 70 work I'm doing, but if >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 27/01/17 20:37, Patrick McLean wrote: > I don't think we need to have stable UIDs/GIDs in the "normal" case > of standalone users with a single Gentoo system at home. The people > who need predictable UIDs/GIDs are the "enterprise" users or the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Cron <gmirror@dipper> /usr/local/bin/pidlock -s rsync-gen /bin/bash /usr/local/bin/mastermirror/rsync-gen.sh

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:20:10 + "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > I don't think anyone truly wants a /_desert_/ Rich, but perhaps you > meant a /*dessert*/ ?! You never know, he could be a giant sand worm, digging through the deserts of spice on Dune. pgpyt9mdKwDff.pgp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Just have a table somewhere (wiki?) to track who is using what UID/GID > and encode those defaults into the ebuild that creates those users. FYI, how Debian and Fedora do it: Debian policy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:37:52 -0800 Patrick McLean wrote: > I don't think we need to have stable UIDs/GIDs in the "normal" case of > standalone users with a single Gentoo system at home. The people who > need predictable UIDs/GIDs are the "enterprise" users or the home users

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: x11-drivers/ati-drivers, x11-libs/amd-adl-sdk, x11-libs/xvba-video

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 03:36:26 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > (Tho for anyone thinking about it, the rx460, aka polaris11, I purchased, > ended up being a poor choice as despite the hardware apparently > supporting 3840x2160@60Hz, the freedomware drivers at least, apparently

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: x11-drivers/ati-drivers, x11-libs/amd-adl-sdk, x11-libs/xvba-video

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:55:52 -0800 Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Matt Turner posted on Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:16:12 -0800 as excerpted: > > > >> # Matt Turner (26 Jan 2017) > >> # Dead and