Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:44 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

I am working on it! Thanks! On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Lucas Ramage > wrote: > > What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist. > > The documentation should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Lucas Ramage wrote: > What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist. The documentation should be updated to say that with OpenRC 0.28 that you'll have to remount efivars as RW before you can install the bootloader

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

What needs to be changed for the bootloaders? I may be able to assist. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:44 PM, William Hubbs > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:44 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns > > about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns > about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly. > > Here is the newsitem covering this change. > > William > This will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 12:38 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. escribió: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:23:43 +0100 > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > > > On 12/07/17 17:07, Gordon Pettey wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] libva/libva-intel-driver/libva-utils ebuild relocation

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On śro, 2017-07-12 at 10:12 -0700, Daniel Charles wrote: >> Hello gentoo-dev's >> >> Checking on how gentoo is locating ebuild for these 3 packages I found >> that they're using different folders and overriding driver's

Re: [gentoo-dev] libva/libva-intel-driver/libva-utils ebuild relocation

On śro, 2017-07-12 at 10:12 -0700, Daniel Charles wrote: > Hello gentoo-dev's > > Checking on how gentoo is locating ebuild for these 3 packages I found > that they're using different folders and overriding driver's name > > x11-libs/libva > x11-libs/libva-intel-driver (overriding package name:

[gentoo-dev] libva/libva-intel-driver/libva-utils ebuild relocation

Hello gentoo-dev's Checking on how gentoo is locating ebuild for these 3 packages I found that they're using different folders and overriding driver's name x11-libs/libva x11-libs/libva-intel-driver (overriding package name: intel-vaapi-driver) media-video/libva-utils Since the project moved to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:23:43 +0100 "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > On 12/07/17 17:07, Gordon Pettey wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. > > > wrote: > > That is my point. That message is always there.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:07:00 -0500 Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > > That is my point. That message is always there. The chance that it > > is ignored is very high. > > > > > Stop signs on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 17:07, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. > > wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +1000 > Sam Jorna > wrote: > > > $ emerge -C apg >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +1000 > Sam Jorna wrote: > > > $ emerge -C apg > > * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, > > use > > * `emerge -pv --depclean ` to

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

On 12/07/17 16:42, William Hubbs wrote: > OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns > about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly. > > Here is the newsitem covering this change. > > William > Very sensible .. I seem to recall something about

[gentoo-dev] newsitem: openrc-0.28 mounts efivars read only

OpenRC 0.28 will mount efivars read only by default due to concerns about users bricking systems by writing to this filesystem unexpectedly. Here is the newsitem covering this change. William Title: Mounting efivars read only Author: William Hubbs Content-Type: text/plain

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 13/07/17 00:19, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > It is YOUR comments that are funny, and going in a circular argument > just to be argumentative and bringing nothing useful to the discussion. > Which should be over now that bugs are filed I'm not trying to be argumentative or antagonistic,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 09:13 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example > > > against build testing-based

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

10.07.2017 20:22, Agostino Sarubbo пишет: > Hi all. > > every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I always > see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. > Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put more > effort in amd64 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:40:11 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > If my concern in removing a package was whether it was a dependency, > it would make more sense to use --depclean in the first place. If I'm > using --unmerge, it's because I want the package unmerged regardless.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example > > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it > > should never reach the

[gentoo-dev] Future of Desktop-effects project

Hi. It is sad to say, but i have no time for compiz anymore. Personally, I do not use it anymore for around six months(i have migrated from KDE with compiz as WM to pure fluxbox on both of my workstations). And, to be honest, there is no progress in desktop-effects overlay either[1]. As i am

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 2017-07-12 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable >> package because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in >> most cases this will end with a rushed stabilization once a >> security bug was fixed in the package) or move a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it > should never reach the arch teams in the first place. This might be the crux of things, as long as

[gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/12/2017 07:26 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:> That presumes that the maintainer is the one calling for the > stabilization, and it is not an automated procedure simply due to 30 > days in ~arch. In this particular case, look for the number of bug > reports filed in Gentoo for the issue.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 12/07/17 16:06, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:49:14 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: >> >> I have trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night, let alone >> what I may or may not have merged a week, month or year ago, or what >> options I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:49:14 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > I have trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night, let alone > what I may or may not have merged a week, month or year ago, or what > options I used when merging it. And if you used --oneshot, it is