Re: [gentoo-dev] Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:57 AM Eddie Chapman wrote: > > No, this is the the bad actor *themselves* being a > principal author of the software, working stealthily and in very > sophisticated ways for years, to manoeuvrer themselves and their software > into a position of trust in the ecosystem

Re: [gentoo-dev] Current unavoidable use of xz utils in Gentoo

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 3:06 AM Dale wrote: > > when I got to the part about it not likely to affect Gentoo, my level of > concern dropped significantly. If this is still true, there's no need to be > concerned. "not likely" is the best way to characterize this. The exploit has not been

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:50 PM Arthur Zamarin wrote: > > I know that GitHub Copilot can be limited to licenses, and even to just > the current repository. Even though, I'm not sure that the copyright can > be attributed to "me" and not the "AI" - so still gray area. So, AI copyright is a bit of

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. > 1. Copyright concerns. I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. However, I feel like the proposal is

Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 1:39 PM Eddie Chapman wrote: > > If you don't like it, then just go and roll your own. Of course > I know I (and anyone else) can do that. So then what's the point of > discussing anything then? This is a fair question, but I think you're missing how most FOSS work gets

Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:50 PM Eddie Chapman wrote: > > if people want to run the damn thing just let them be! If you keep using eudev, and you don't tell anybody about it, then they won't even know. Nobody is keeping anybody from using eudev. They're just not actively doing work to keep it

Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:36 AM Eddie Chapman wrote: > in Gentoo. Have any of these 4 maintainers publicly said (anywhere) that > they are not interested in being maintainers anymore (which is fine if > that is the case)? We're not talking here about a lone maintainer of some > peripheral

Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 10:34 PM orbea wrote: > > Regardless the disappointment is a valid concern when Gentoo is willing > to pull the rug up from under users feet under erroneous claims of the > project being dead. > As a complete outsider, I think this conversation is focusing on the wrong

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding sec-keys/openpgp-keys-gentoo-release to @system

On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:34 AM Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > I'd like to add > > sec-keys/openpgp-keys-gentoo-release > > to @system - any objections? > > This is more of a formal request since portage already depends on it anyway, > and > the package is present in every stage3. However, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Massive Github PR Queue

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:54 PM Sam James wrote: > juippis' whole email nails the issue, but I'd just like to add that > there's kind of a baseline at ~400/~450 or so where everything below > that is PRs for new packages or long-obsolete stuff nobody closed yet, > or where we're waiting on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] EGO_SUM (was: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 2:40 PM Gerion Entrup wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2023, 01:09:30 CEST schrieb Oskari Pirhonen: > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 21:56:26 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > > > > Developing it requires PMS work in addition to package manager > > > development, because it

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA PG 0305 (manpages must always be installed) discussion

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 9:13 AM orbea wrote: > > Protecting users from themselves can be a misfeature. Its better to > educate and then let them freely choose than to play as their nanny. > TL;DR - it makes sense to unconditionally install prebuilt manpages, but not to require pulling in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo LTS or: proper backward compatibility?

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 7:48 AM m1027 wrote: > > When we create apps on Gentoo they become easily incompatible for > older Gentoo systems in production where unattended remote world > updates are risky. This is due to new glibc, openssl-3 etc. So, unless you're proposing some improvement this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Disturbing state of arch testing in Gentoo

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:34 PM John Helmert III wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 07:23:33PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Proprietary tools do contribute to this since they can > > generate results that are harder to reproduce, but if they are clear > > and accurate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Disturbing state of arch testing in Gentoo

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James wrote: > > > On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > >> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually > >> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Encouraging using hardening options in systemd units

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 4:57 AM Florian Schmaus wrote: > > While then can not be modified, settings made in /usr/lib/systemd/system > can be overridden by the sysadmin by placing a file in /etc/systemd/system. > > I am not aware of a reason why a package manger should install systemd >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching default password hashes from sha512 to yescrypt

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:11 AM Marek Szuba wrote: > > On 2022-07-25 15:35, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > Please only do that based on proven merit and nothing else. > > https://pthree.org/2018/05/23/do-not-use-sha256crypt-sha512crypt-theyre-dangerous/ > , https://www.password-hashing.net/ , the fact

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:42 AM Florian Schmaus wrote: > > > It appears that we have at least two options here: > > A) Establish that the default is non-maintainer-commits-welcome, and > introduce a metadata element. > > B) Declare the default to be unspecified and introduce two metadata >

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 7:21 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > It had 3 states however: > a) go ahead and touch it, no additional approvals needed > b) please get a maintainer to approve it > c) do not touch it > ++ Though to be fair b is really no different from what just about anybody can do via

Re: [gentoo-dev] packages touching files in /dev

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 6:49 AM wrote: > > Is there some hook to emerge I can use where I can attach some code to > run tests after each individual package when doing emerge @world ? > So, Portage has hooks, and that would work for any file being installed normally (so would config protection

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Normaliser function for distfiles

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:32 AM Markus Walter wrote: > > On Tue, 17 May 2022 14:14:57 +0200, > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:37 PM Markus Walter > > wrote: > > > > > > My use case is the following: I would like to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Normaliser function for distfiles

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:37 PM Markus Walter wrote: > > My use case is the following: I would like to improve the gs-elpa program > and provide a precomputed overlay for melpa. However the melpa distfiles are > rebuilt everyday and cause checksum failures. However the only thing > changing are

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: use only one hash function in manifest files

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:29 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Sort of. The security between infra and users relies on SHA2-512. The > security between devs and infra relies on SHA-1. I guess the "full > system" depends on both, but I've been focused on the more likely > issue of a community-run

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: use only one hash function in manifest files

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:05 PM Sam James wrote: > > On 5 Apr 2022, at 22:13, Jonas Stein wrote: > > > >> In other words, what are we actually getting by having _both_ SHA2-512 > >> and BLAKE2b for every file in every Manifest? > > > > Implementations are often broken and we have to expect zero

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecating repoman

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:00 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > Are there any useful checks or behaviors of repoman that are missing > from pkgcheck and pkgcommit? Would it make sense to package pkgcommit or otherwise stick it somewhere official? I know there is a copy on mgorny's github repo/blog, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmask >=net-p2p/bitcoin*-0.21.1

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 10:31 AM Joonas Niilola wrote: > > Maybe I'm overthinking it due to all the attention bitcoin has received > lately in Gentoo. But yeah, we haven't received any comments or bugs > about the mask so I guess it's fine to remove it finally. I still kind > of do think a news

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] making rust-bin ordered first in virtual/rust

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:10 PM Piotr Karbowski wrote: > > Ideally we'd have some way to mark binary packages with new EAPI and > have FEATURES flag like 'prefer-binary' and go with -bin in case there's > || ( ) dependencies list, regardless of the original order in virtual. > This way everyone

Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 6:34 AM Florian Schmaus wrote: > > On 11/11/2021 11.59, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > We could: > > > > - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example, > >500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation. > > +1, since I am not aware of any

Re: [gentoo-dev] You currently cannot smoothly upgrade a 4 months old Gentoo system

On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 1:14 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Wed, 03 Nov 2021, John Helmert wrote: > > >> | https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20091109-summary.txt > >> | > >> | Upgrade path for old systems > >> | > >> | Vote (unanimous): The ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] You currently cannot smoothly upgrade a 4 months old Gentoo system

On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 11:03 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > This is not about finding solution to upgrade the system (in this case > it was enough to force PYTHON_TARGETS=python3_8 for portage). This is > about raising awareness that Gentoo is a rolling distribution and that > we guarantee

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portage einfo, elog... output format change

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:48 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-09-28 at 17:36 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > I know I'm going to regret asking this... but I've prepared a change to > > the Portage output format and I think it asks for a wider discussion > > than internally in Portage team. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidance on distributed patented software

(This is all tangential to the main issue of this thread and just discussing internet history - skip as you wish...) On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:14 PM Marek Szuba wrote: > > I am no expert on US law but from what I have read (in many different > sources, with me having begun using PGP in either

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidance on adding kernel config checks to ebuilds

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:44 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > I think we need to strip out a lot of the crap about trying to detect > things in the stuff being built, and reduce the check to the simplest > possible form: > $ time zgrep -w CONFIG_PACKET /proc/config.gz > CONFIG_PACKET=y > Sure,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidance on distributed patented software

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 1:09 PM Peter Stuge wrote: > > There's not neccessarily a conflict between a patented idea and a > public domain implementation of that idea. It kind of depends on what you mean by "conflict." > > Take a fictional example: > > You and I independently invent the same

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidance on distributed patented software

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 12:46 PM Alec Warner wrote: > > Could we add some text to the license concepts covering patents? It > seems to have been omitted? > Is my understanding of how we manage patented software correct? I think you have the gist of it. Is there actually anything in the repo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP78] Updating specification

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:02 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-09-13 at 12:08 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > Also, IIRC one of the goals of the format was to allow partial > > download > > of metadata. That will only work if the Manifest file will be the > > first > > file in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:46 AM David Seifert wrote: > > Let assume the counterfactual for a moment here: We retained the > USE=systemd flag for all unit files and what not, so people can cleanse > themselves of the systemd units etc. without resorting to INSTALL_MASK. > > How would USE=-systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:36 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: > > >>> **WARNING** > >>> > >>> If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" > >>> glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev contains > >>> "systemd" in

Re: [gentoo-dev] About the 'eapi' file in profile directories

On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 5:54 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Quoting ciaranm [1]: > > | > "EAPIs whose value starts with the string paludis- are reserved for > | > experimental use by the Paludis package manager." > | > | Don't tell anyone, but that's mostly just in there because some people > |

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing SHA512 hash from Manifests

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:23 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > We can reiterate when there are indications that SHA512 would be broken. > (Then again, the same applies to BLAKE2B.) Unless both are broken at the same time you'd also have the advantage of not having to try to scramble to figure out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Declare the type of source

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:58 AM Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > On lunedì 28 giugno 2021 17:07:57 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > If the package declares a dependency on e.g. virtual/c-compiler, ago > > would want to re-test it whenever a new version of any compiler is > > released that satisfies

Re: [gentoo-dev] Declare the type of source

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:46 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-06-28 at 15:00 +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > > > Instead, imagine that each ebuild declares a variable called SOURCETYPE ( or > > similar, or in metadata.xml if you prefer ) and with a tool like equery/eix > > we > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should we switch IRC client defaults off Freenode?

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:42 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > What is the point you're making? If GF decides to kick you from Gentoo, > will you also claim that it was their legal right? > IMO the lesson to be learned here is that we ought to design Gentoo in such a way that if the GF kicks us all

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should we switch IRC client defaults off Freenode?

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:28 AM Michal Prívozník wrote: > > On 6/16/21 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, Michał Górny wrote: > > > >> We've moved our official support channels from Freenode to Libera.chat. > >> All that's happened afterwards pretty much proves that

Re: [gentoo-dev] timezone configuration - why copying, not symlinking /etc/localtime ?

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 5:43 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > I kinda wish the Linux kernel had an ability to partially boot, init the > networking subsystem, then fetch an initramfs image over TFTP like it can do > with NFS Root. That would solve the problem on my MIPS system(s) (and make > install

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: usrmerge script

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:09 AM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:48:41AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > What really can help is reflinking on filesystems supporting that. > > What really can help is more info instead of being terse like this. > Which filesystems support

Re: [gentoo-dev] timezone configuration - why copying, not symlinking /etc/localtime ?

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:54 PM Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > > Council decided years ago that we don't support separate /usr without > > > an initramfs, but we haven't completed that transition yet. > > > > Which doesn't imply that we deliberately break things. > > That's right. Though we

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: binhost

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 8:51 PM Zac Medico wrote: > > > 2. Generate a hash of the file contents - this can go in the filename > > so that the file can co-exist with other files, and be located > > assuming you have a full matching set of metadata. > > For FEATURES=binpkg-multi-instance we

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: binhost

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:57 PM Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > * what portage features are still needed or need improvements (e.g. binpkg > signing and verification) > * how should hosting look like Some ideas for portage enhancements: 1. Ability to fetch binary packages from some kind of repo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Python preference to follow PYTHON_TARGETS

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 2:09 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 13:53 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:21 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > For this reason, we have decided to change the default python-exec > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Python preference to follow PYTHON_TARGETS

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:21 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > For this reason, we have decided to change the default python-exec > configuration to match PYTHON_TARGETS by default, in the eclass > preference order, that is from the newest CPython version to oldest, > with alternative Python

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] We are finally shutting down CVS

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 1:31 PM Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 6:39 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 27 Dec 2020, Max Magorsch wrote: > > > > > To access the old repositories you can use gitweb.gentoo.org instead. > > > We have migrated all old cvs repositories to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pushing to distfiles?

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 7:23 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > Forgive me for being a dunce, but what is the current procedure to push > files to distfiles for distribution to the mirrors? The devmanual is blank > on this topic, and GLEP75 just talks about the motivations behind the change > away from

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA policy suggestion: Disallow "live-only" packages

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:57 PM Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 11/4/20 10:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Do you really think that users who just blindly run "emerge > > --autounmask-write" are going to be both masking and unmasking > > packages by hand (pe

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA policy suggestion: Disallow "live-only" packages

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:46 PM Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 11/4/20 8:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > 4. If somebody finds one they probably have to add some random > > overlay to their config, which causes this package to become > > available, probably along w

Re: [gentoo-dev] New QA policy suggestion: Disallow "live-only" packages

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM Marty E. Plummer wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 06:24:39PM +, Alexey Sokolov wrote: > > > > What you're describing is live ebuilds, and I agree they are useful. > > Joonas was talking about packages which have *only* live ebuilds, and no > > other versions,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Refactor display manager openrc init scripts to independent package

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > I'm sure there is a way for the display-manager ebuild to migrate from old xdm > configs on users' systems. How much do config and init scripts differ at all? > Couldn't you just use a symlink so that either script name works? Then

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to stabilize packages with frequent release cycles?

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jonas Stein wrote: > > Hi, > > > When the latest release remains 'latest ~arch' for less than 3 days, > > stabilizing it after 30 days makes little sense. After all, people with > > frequent upgrade cycle will test it for no more than that, and people > > with

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Services and software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in Gentoo namespace

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM Alec Warner wrote: > > - repomirror-ci and all the CI stuff is on infra because mgorny is also on > infra! It's not like we set his stuff up for him; instead we gave him access > to all the infra repos and he had to write his own puppet configs and > whatnot.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Services and software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in Gentoo namespace

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:17 AM Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:15:31 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > It might be easier to take smaller steps, such as having a policy that > > "any call for devs to use/test a new tool/service, or any service th

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Services and software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in Gentoo namespace

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:52 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > But when you file a bug, you rely on bugzilla being maintained by > Gentoo Infra, not some 3rd party. > I think the Council will need to consider where it wants to draw the lines on something like this. Here is my sense of how these sorts

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please port your packages to Python 3.8

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:06 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > It's easy to say "well this is not an issue because it can be solved by > ..." > > If it's easy, get it added to the PMS and I'll agree with you. > Current Gentoo policy: "Maintainers must not assume that dynamic dependencies will be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please port your packages to Python 3.8

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:02 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > QA reports provide a list [2] and a graph [3] of packages needing > porting. These lists would be far more useful if they actually listed the maintainer(s) of each package. Then devs could just grep to discover if any of their packages need

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 9:55 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > >> > >> If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? > > > > bitrot and bus factor. > > Examples? The sole maintainer of

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:16 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2020-08-10 14:07, Michał Górny wrote: > > ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake. > > That's a bold statement for an unambiguous 7-0 decision as seen in > https://bugs.gentoo.org/575718. As one who voted yes, my

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:48 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford > > wrote: > > > > > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: Multiple root kernel command-line arguments

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:19 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 23:03 +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote: > > On 8/6/20 10:58 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > > Well, the purpose of this is to educate and avoid problems for > > > headless/server users. But if so many devs seem to care

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: Multiple root kernel command-line arguments

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 1:41 PM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:59 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > > > On 2020-08-06 17:44, Michał Górny wrote: > > > I'm not sure if you've noticed but there are people actively working > > > towards removing stale news items and trying not to

Re: [gentoo-dev] IPython 7.17 drops Python 3.6 support AKA upgrade reminder

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:36 AM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On August 1, 2020 6:25:09 AM EDT, Lars Wendler > wrote: > > > >Honestly... seeing such replies from you or knowing that you do not > >hesitate to hit other devs with your full QA deputy power once they > >dare to touch python packages is

Re: [gentoo-dev] IPython 7.17 drops Python 3.6 support AKA upgrade reminder

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:09 AM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > On Samstag, 1. August 2020 12:15:18 CEST Rich Freeman wrote: > > Just based on what is already happening, it seems like most devs don't > > really care what versions of python are supported by their packa

Re: [gentoo-dev] IPython 7.17 drops Python 3.6 support AKA upgrade reminder

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:29 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > I would like to take this as an opportunity to remind you to port your > packages to Python 3.7 and 3.8. According to our timeline [1], packages > that are not ported by the end of the year are going to be last rited. > We would also like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:09 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > # Aaron Bauman (2020-07-28) > > # More Py2 only stuff. Plz see -dev ML for discussions > > # Remove bindings, port to Py3, etc > > # Removal in 30 days > > [...] > > app-office/lyx > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug #733802, USE 'scp' now defaults to off in net-misc/openssh

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 7:40 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > This seems like something that needs a news entry, or > at least a "heads up" on the mailing list? Definitely not a "heads up" on the mailing list - that is not an appropriate way to communicate anything to users - not even devs are

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Standard build environment variables

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:36 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 2020-06-30 12:22, Matthew Thode wrote: > > > > I'd like to suggest allowing only approved variables in the build > > environment, having portage unset all variables and setting only what is > > needed (or configured). > > I think this

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On June 26, 2020 7:13:07 AM EDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Of all the methods listed in the previous posts, the QA reports, etc. > >> there is no excuse individuals can't find out if their package is py2 > &g

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:07 PM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:21:14PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > We're removing python2 around . You can help us out by updating > > any packages you have that use python2. If you want to easily > > i

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:45 PM John Helmert III wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 07:32:04AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 2020-06-24 16:08, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > $ git grep -l mgo...@gentoo.org '**/metadata.xml' | cut -d/ -f1-2 | > > > xargs gpy-py2 2>/dev/null > > find -L

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:08 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > $ git grep -l mgo...@gentoo.org '**/metadata.xml' | cut -d/ -f1-2 | > xargs gpy-py2 2>/dev/null > I have no idea what gpy-py2 is, but I'll take your word for it. In any case, the solution in this case is to send a nice email to

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:04 PM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:29 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > > > Sure, you can use the portage API to find this info. However, that is > > > as easy to do for a list of all impacted packages in the tree w

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Alec Warner wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:29 AM Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Sure, you can use the portage API to find this info. However, that is >> as easy to do for a list of all impacted packages in the tree with >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:18 PM Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > The lack of curiosity for one's own packages' python compatibility is not just > a py27 isolated issue, it was a big problem with py36 -> py37 with so many > devs simply not filing that necessary stabilisation. That suggests that if

Re: [gentoo-dev] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:36 PM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:32:28AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > > >> # Aaron Bauman (2020-06-20) > > >> # Py2 only > > >> # Removal in 14 days > > > > I see these short deadlines

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] */*: Mask Py2 only packages

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:36 AM Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 00:43:03 -0400 > Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > # Aaron Bauman (2020-06-20) > > # Py2 only > > # Removal in 14 days > ... > > app-misc/golly > > If you decided to delete a maintained package you should file a bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Codec project

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:33 AM Alexis Ballier wrote: > > What about /j #gentoo-media, discuss, join the current projects, get a > few things done (there is a lot of choice there ;) ), maybe orphan > unmaintained players/viewers, or check if they are maintained and hand > them to a specific

Re: [gentoo-dev] Graphics Project disbanded [pkgs up for grabs]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Philip Webb wrote: > > 200607 Pacho Ramos wrote: > > I think this is the list of completely unmaintained packages now, > > indeed most of them, around 100. > > -- extract from list -- > > > media-gfx/imagemagick : 200516 > > media-libs/giflib : 200312 > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Concept of Projects - How to proceed?

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:14 PM Jonas Stein wrote: > > On 07/06/2020 03.43, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 01:49:28AM +0200, Jonas Stein wrote: > > > I will happily revert my change on the graphics project Wiki [..] > > Glad to read your offer. Yes, please do so. > > I think it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Concept of Projects - How to proceed?

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 7:49 PM Jonas Stein wrote: > > our concept of "Projects" (Herds in the past) maintaining packages has > several problems. You might want to search the list archives as many of the issues you've raised have been discussed extensively. There was never a complete push to fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Election 2020 - Call For Election Officials

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 6:09 AM Roy Bamford wrote: > > We sill need more volunteers. > Not going to be running, so I'm happy to pitch in. -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-base/xorg-server: No longer enabling suid by default.

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:12 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > > [2020-05-25 23:41:23+0200] Piotr Karbowski: > > There are 3 common ways the xorg-server is started: > > > > - via XDM of some sort, usually forked as root, does not require suid, > > systemd or elogind. > > Launching X as root

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PR] ivy, mvn, sbt, gradle builders improvement for ebuild development

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:07 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 4/20/20 1:31 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > >> Simply having things in ::gentoo does not affect anyone who does not > use them. > > > > You keep saying that, but the fact that dev-go/* is filled with trash > that has your name on it

Re: [gentoo-dev] keywording workflow

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:12 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > An example workflow is to: > Just picking this to reply to though this is more of a general comment on the two recent keywords threads. I get that this is Gentoo and we don't want to dictate how people do things. However, I feel like this

Re: [gentoo-dev] zoom concerns

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:18 PM Alessandro Barbieri wrote: > > I have concerns about the inclusion of zoom in ::gentoo. For me it's more > like a malware. > From the hacker news feed you'll find out that: I guess we could stick an einfo in the post-install messages, but if you're joining a zoom

Re: [gentoo-dev] network sandbox challenge

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 7:33 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 11:29 +, Samuel Bernardo wrote: > > > Same question for unpack context when using directly the source > > repository with vcs functions. > > VCS ebuilds generally suck, for multiple reasons. We allow users to use >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: app-office/calcurse/

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:29 AM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > Alec Warner schrieb: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Andreas K. Huettel > > wrote: > > > > Someone needs to grow up here. > > > > > > Meh, to me (someone who can't commit to ::gentoo) I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:05 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > > Maybe it could for now be a simple agreement on putting your code to > the Gentoo Foundation under the GPL-2+ but it would be published under > the GPL-{2,3,…}? > Well, if we were going to get people to start signing things I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:39 AM Hanno Böck wrote: > > *If* Gentoo decides to go this relicensing way I'd recommend to only do > that if it's coordinated with organizations that have deep legal > knowledge of these issues (e.g. like software freedom conservancy) and > if some lawyers that know

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:20 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > > [2020-01-27 12:41:26+0100] Ulrich Mueller: > > So, the question is, should we allow ebuilds > > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or later > > in the repository, or should we even encourage it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should we allow "GPL, v2 or later" for ebuilds?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 6:41 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Historically, all ebuilds in the Gentoo repository were licensed under > GPL-2+. At a later point they were relicensed [1] to GPL-2. See [2] for > a rationale (or absence of it, YMMV). I think the historical policy made sense in its

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP81 and /home

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:16 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > This is retarded, stop wasting my time. > There is nothing retarded about shared /home directories. They're pretty common in the real world. > >> I've already got responses from two QA members. This thread is pretty > >> hard to

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >