Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:01:52PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote > Is there a better way we can have our cake and eat it too? I'll admit > that a huge package.use on the minimal profile isn't a whole lot > better than a huge package.use on all the other profiles. > > Do we need another form of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:16 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > There are people who run servers on Gentoo, and don't particularly want > minimalism, then want a normal Linux system level of functionality (ie > upstream and/or sane defaults) without having to add dozens of USE > flags to random packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:06:33 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > > > Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, > > starts building their system. They start installing packages they > > want, only to find that half of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky > > wrote: > >> > >> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be > >> added to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:31 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > The desktop profile is going to do things like enable X11 support by > default. It isn't going to do things like enable bzip support in > ffmpeg (but not the new experimental codec that causes it to crash 25% > of the time, but which apparently

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:26:20PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:22 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > > > Also, how would this work with local USE flags as opposed to global > > flags? Would they be acceptable to have IUSE defaults? > > > > Exactly the same way as global flags: drop

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: >> >> Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts >> building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to >> find that half of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:22 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > Also, how would this work with local USE flags as opposed to global > flags? Would they be acceptable to have IUSE defaults? > Exactly the same way as global flags: drop an entry in the desktop profile's package.use.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:06:33PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > > > Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts > > building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to > > find that half of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added >>> to package.use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts > building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to > find that half of the package isn't there because no USE flags were > enabled. They have to enable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:11:26AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: > > 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. > > * Example: force the "unix" module for apache. Why provide a flag for something that is required anyway? And if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added >> to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, > > I'll go further and say that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 06:41 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. > > On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: >> " >> I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, >> only that the base profile should result in an

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 02/01/2017 10:46 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:55:17PM +, James Le Cuirot wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:39:34 -0600 >> William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've >>> been told that, to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:28 PM, james wrote: > On 02/02/2017 04:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> The problem is the new user experience. When somebody is new to >> Gentoo and not super-knowledgeable the first thing they're going to do >> is set up a desktop. Now, they might

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

On 02/01/2017 08:53 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 01/02/17 09:43 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:18:42PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: >>> W dniu 30.01.2017, pon o godzinie 14∶04 -0600, użytkownik William Hubbs >>> napisał: All, I have been looking at the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > > If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added > > to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 12:35 PM, james wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added >>> to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: > " > I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, > only that the base profile should result in an effectively-minimal set > of USE flags. Adding IUSE defaults is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 04:40 PM, David Seifert wrote: On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 15:35 -0500, james wrote: On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 04:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM, james wrote: I think that unikernels are something everyone should be aware of as they purport to be the latest trend in securing all sorts of systems. (a brief read). Not really for all sorts,

[gentoo-dev] virtualbox packages will get its hardened support removed within one week.

Hello all, due to some really ugly circumstances I will remove hardened support and all hardened related patches from virtualbox packages within one week unless some Gentoo dev steps up and starts maintaining the hardended support in those virtualbox packages. I never used hardened myself and do

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft

On 01/31/2017 09:08 AM, David Seifert wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 17:34 +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 01/31/2017 03:50 PM, Georg Rudoy wrote: >>> I'll make a new release of leechcraft itself and bump the version >>> to >>> that new one, so they'll naturally be dropped to unstable,

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 12:18:43 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 12:06 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > >> But more importantly, icedtea-bin was just one example that I had in > >> mind. There are hundreds of others in the tree. > > > > Sure, but some packages themselves

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, > only that the base profile should result in an effectively-minimal set > of USE flags. Adding IUSE defaults is essentially adding defaults to the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM, james wrote: > > I think that unikernels are something everyone should be aware of > as they purport to be the latest trend in securing all sorts of systems. > (a brief read). > Not really for all sorts, more for servers. Otherwise I get it,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, I'll go further and say that it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added > to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, I'll go further and say that it is unacceptably bad. > but if > (base ==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 12:23 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:11:26AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote > >> 2 To avoid an unsatisfied REQUIRED_USE by default. >> >> * Example: having a non-empty RUBY_TARGETS by default. > > What's wrong with having emerge spit out an error

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:11:26AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote > 2 To avoid an unsatisfied REQUIRED_USE by default. > > * Example: having a non-empty RUBY_TARGETS by default. What's wrong with having emerge spit out an error message, and telling the user that they need to set a flag

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 12:06 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > >> But more importantly, icedtea-bin was just one example that I had in >> mind. There are hundreds of others in the tree. > > Sure, but some packages themselves go against a minimalist approach due to > their own build requirements. You

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:27:20 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 11:18 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > If you look at dev-java/icedtea ebuild you will see > > > > # Gtk+ will move to COMMON_DEP in time; PR1982 > > > > I cannot find PR1982 referenced to link. But shows

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 11:18 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > If you look at dev-java/icedtea ebuild you will see > > # Gtk+ will move to COMMON_DEP in time; PR1982 > > I cannot find PR1982 referenced to link. But shows that it is needed and > causes > issues without being set. > I don't really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 11:08 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Which is simpler, a minimal profile that sets USE=-* and then lists a > few exceptions where that breaks in package.use, or an upstream > defaults profile (which becomes the basis for all the other profiles) > that has a 5000 line package.use file

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 11:09 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > Actually he's right. Java can obviously be used without GTK and that's > something we support but upstream hasn't taken the time to make it > possible to build without it. Apparently that isn't a trivial thing to > do. > > In my earlier mail, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13:40 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 11:09 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > Actually he's right. Java can obviously be used without GTK and that's > > something we support but upstream hasn't taken the time to make it > > possible to build without it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 10:53:08 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 10:36:51 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) > >> on a headless server? That

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:53:08 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 10:36:51 AM EST Michael Orlitzky > > wrote: > >> Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) > >> on a headless

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > The upstream defaults would > build on top of the minimal base profile, in plain old package.use. In > the profile is exactly where the upstream defaults belong in an > "upstream defaults" profile. > > I think (base ==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:06 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally guilty of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on by

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:51 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 10:36:51 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) >> on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in >> the base one. > > In that specific

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:52 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) >> on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in >> the base one. > > The base profile

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:36:51 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 10:06 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally > >> guilty of #3 and #4, but I now

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) > on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in > the base one. The base profile isn't "headless server" - it is just generic. Somebody

Re: [gentoo-dev] icedtea requiring X libs to build was -> Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 10:36:51 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) > on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in > the base one. In that specific case it cannot be avoided. Building is not the same as using.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:56 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Michael Orlitzky >> wrote: >> >> IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: >> >> 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. >> >> * Example: force the "unix" module for apache. >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:06 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally guilty >> of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see >> explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:06:02 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally > > guilty of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see > > explanations in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally guilty > of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see > explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on by default. This presumes that the goal is minimal system

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: > > 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. > >* Example: force the "unix" module for apache. > This is not what IUSE defaults are for, this should be

[gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. * Example: force the "unix" module for apache. 2 To avoid an unsatisfied REQUIRED_USE by default. * Example: having a non-empty RUBY_TARGETS by default. 3 To make Gentoo defaults

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-libs/safestr and dev-libs/xxl

# Michael Palimaka (02 Feb 2017) # Upstream missing. Ancient. Unmaintained. No revdeps. # Masked for removal in 30 days. dev-libs/safestr dev-libs/xxl