On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 1:35 PM Brian Evans wrote:
>
> On 2/8/2021 12:53 PM, Brian Evans wrote:
> > On 2/8/2021 6:19 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
> >> to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:02:43AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:56 AM Alessandro Barbieri
> wrote:
> >
> > Il Lun 8 Feb 2021, 12:19 Michał Górny ha scritto:
> >>
> >
> > Should we shed tears for those legacy architectures or move forward? Does
> > anyone really use
On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 18:56 +0100, Alessandro Barbieri wrote:
> Il Lun 8 Feb 2021, 12:19 Michał Górny ha scritto:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
> > to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
> > provide
On 2/8/2021 12:53 PM, Brian Evans wrote:
On 2/8/2021 6:19 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hi,
FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
provide LTS support or security fixes for the old versions.
On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 12:53 -0500, Brian Evans wrote:
> On 2/8/2021 6:19 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
> > to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
> > provide LTS support or security
John Helmert III wrote:
> > Until there's a relevant flaw that will remain unfixed or there is
> > significant incompatibility with infrastructure (recurse my argument)
> > no signs actually exist.
>
> Waiting until such a problem pops up and bites everyone before doing
> anything about it
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:56 AM Alessandro Barbieri
wrote:
>
> Il Lun 8 Feb 2021, 12:19 Michał Górny ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
>> to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
>> provide LTS
On 2/8/21 7:53 PM, Brian Evans wrote:
>
> AFAICT, it is just used to pull GPG sigs in gemato via
> dev-python/requests.
>
And it that's true, isn't this only relevant when syncing the tree using
rsync? So using git would still be viable?
-- juippis
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP
Il Lun 8 Feb 2021, 12:19 Michał Górny ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
> to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
> provide LTS support or security fixes for the old versions.
>
> Since cryptography is a
On 2/8/2021 6:19 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hi,
FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
provide LTS support or security fixes for the old versions.
Since cryptography is a very important
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:59 AM Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> Hanno Böck wrote:
> > > "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life.
> > > We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> > > everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
> >
> > I
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 02:59:45PM +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Hanno Böck wrote:
> > > "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life.
> > > We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> > > everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
>
Hanno Böck wrote:
> > "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life.
> > We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> > everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
>
> I read that as there will be one more gtk2 release and none after
On 2/8/21 2:27 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Not only that, but you will be dropping support for at least two of my
> machines that are literally incapable of building the 10+ GiB bundled
> rust package due to the amount of disk space and RAM required.
>
Pardon my intervention, but there is
On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 12:19 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Since cryptography is a very important package in the Python ecosystem,
> and it is an indirect dependency of Portage, this means that we will
> probably have to entirely drop support for architectures that are not
> supported by Rust.
>
> On 8 Feb 2021, at 11:19, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
> to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
> provide LTS support or security fixes for the old versions.
>
> Since cryptography is
On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:19:13 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
> to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
> provide LTS support or security fixes for the old versions.
>
>
>
> Honestly, I
El lun, 08-02-2021 a las 12:19 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
> Hi,
>
> FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
> to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
> provide LTS support or security fixes for the old versions.
>
> Since
Hi,
FYI the developers of dev-python/cryptography decided that Rust is going
to be mandatory for 1.5+ versions. It's unlikely that they're going to
provide LTS support or security fixes for the old versions.
Since cryptography is a very important package in the Python ecosystem,
and it is an
# Sergei Trofimovich (2020-02-08)
# Abandoned upstream. Was never ported from gtk-2.
# A possible alternative is media-gfx/geeqie (gqview fork).
# Removal in 3 months. Bug #769440.
media-gfx/gqview
--
Sergei
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:22:21 +
Peter Stuge wrote:
> "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life.
> We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
I read that as there will be one more
Peter Stuge wrote:
> We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
>
>
> The recommendation in the blog post is for application developers to
> port to 3 or 4, nothing more and nothing less.
Correction: It
Aisha Tammy wrote:
> We are now in the process of cleaning up GTK:2 ebuilds and moving the
> packages to use GTK:3 and drop GTK:2 support.
Quoting the blog post you linked to: (thanks for including the link!)
"It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life.
We will do one
> On 8 Feb 2021, at 00:52, Aisha Tammy wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> [snip]
> This transition is expected to take a long time so there shouldn't be a worry
> about sudden
> changes in packages. We are going to keep some of the more important old
> GTK:2 ebuilds,
> such as the CJK ebuilds, around as
24 matches
Mail list logo
