[gentoo-dev] unsubscribe

[Greg]

gentoo-dev+help@××××××××××××.org wrote:

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] Managers Meeting Log - 14/03/2005
> From:
> Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:03:32 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>All:
>
>Here is the meeting log for March 14th 2005.
>
>--Dan
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Mar 14 12:34:38 2005
>
>Mar 14 12:34:38 *	Now talking on #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:34:42 *	Griffon26 (~griffon26@×××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:39:39 *	carpaski 's conference call just now started... I might miss the meeting. I sent an email to core.
>Mar 14 12:41:12 *	kosmikus (~andres@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:49:48 *	tove (~tove@××××××××××××××××××××××××××.de) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:50:18 *	bcowan (~bcowan@××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.net) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:52:35 *	klieber (klieber@×××××××××××××××××××.freenode) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:52:35 *	ChanServ gives channel operator status to klieber
>Mar 14 12:55:42 pvdabeel	how long till the meeting?
>Mar 14 12:55:48 Battousai	3 minutes?
>Mar 14 12:55:51 pvdabeel	k
>Mar 14 12:56:00 Battousai	i think carpaski said 1pm
>Mar 14 12:56:05 Battousai	eastern, which is in 3 minutes
>Mar 14 12:56:05 *	ferringb (esmith@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:56:50 *	ciaranm (~ciaranm_@×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.pdpc) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:56:58 ferringb	carpaski: have you read anything of the glep33 discussion yet?
>Mar 14 12:57:01 ciaranm	yay, i can remember the password
>Mar 14 12:57:09 spb	well done ciaranm
>Mar 14 12:57:13 ferringb	ciaranm: yeah, took a bit of searching on my part to get in also.
>Mar 14 12:57:18 ciaranm	re glep 33, i still don't see the need for separation :P
>Mar 14 12:57:41 *	cshields (~cshields@××××××××××××××.osuosl) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:57:58 *	cryos (~cryos@×××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 12:58:00 ferringb	ciaranm: elib vs eclasses?  it comes down to having an appropriate container for the bin/* crap moved out of portage, and into the tree.
>Mar 14 12:58:35 ciaranm	yup. but the "no var modification" stuff is gonna make it hard to actually have any elibs...
>Mar 14 12:58:43 *	kloeri_ (~kloeri@××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:00:06 Pylon	Where is the chairman?
>Mar 14 13:00:13 ciaranm	chairperson
>Mar 14 13:00:27 Pylon	Whatever.
>Mar 14 13:00:31 ciaranm	chairthing
>Mar 14 13:00:34 ferringb	ciaranm: actually, it's pretty easy.
>Mar 14 13:00:49 Pylon	chairwossname
>Mar 14 13:00:56 ciaranm	chair
>Mar 14 13:00:58 ferringb	ciaranm: elibs are loaded pre-setup phase.  can't screw with metadata, cause the elib functionality isn't available at that stage (it's an internal ebuild.sh trick)
>Mar 14 13:01:41 ciaranm	ferringb: yeah. i know how it works. i just think that that restriction means we'll have maybe one or two elibs and no reduction in eclass count
>Mar 14 13:02:17 ferringb	ciaranm: possibly.  if that's the case, we do eclass3.  meanwhile, elibs *are* needed from a portage perspective.
>Mar 14 13:02:40 ferringb	that's the maint thrust of it, that and rolling most of eutils back into defaults, as it should've been.
>Mar 14 13:03:01 ciaranm	yeah, in which case i object to your examples in the glep :)
>Mar 14 13:03:07 ferringb	such as?
>Mar 14 13:03:25 *	ian|home (~ian|home@×××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:03:33 *	ciaranm goes to actually find the thing again
>Mar 14 13:04:47 *	blackace (~blackace@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:05:24 ciaranm	yeah, it still mentions eutils
>Mar 14 13:05:39 ferringb	ciaranm: iirc, the glep specifically singled out your epatch example.
>Mar 14 13:05:46 ferringb	ciaranm: the patch dependency.
>Mar 14 13:05:54 ciaranm	ferringb: it does at one point, and then forgets it again a bit later on
>Mar 14 13:06:05 ferringb	so the writing is slightly daft.  the idea is there though :P
>Mar 14 13:06:18 ferringb	and the wording can be tweaked.
>Mar 14 13:10:12 *	genstef (~stefan@×××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:11:30 *	ferringb (esmith@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has left #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:11:45 *	ferringb (esmith@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:13:45 dostrow_work	ok, who killed Grant and buried him the the back yard........
>Mar 14 13:14:42 *	pvdabeel has quit ("leaving")
>Mar 14 13:14:43 ciaranm	wasn't me. i like grant. he agrees with me
>Mar 14 13:14:57 spb	everyone likes grant really
>Mar 14 13:15:07 ciaranm	yeah, except for the apache devs :)
>Mar 14 13:15:11 dostrow_work	heh
>Mar 14 13:15:29 spb	exception that proves the rule ;p
>Mar 14 13:15:53 *	araujo (~araujo@××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:20:30 ferringb	ah hell with this, I have work to do.
>Mar 14 13:20:32 ciaranm	hrm. another amazing demonstration of the effectiveness of our current management...
>Mar 14 13:20:36 ferringb	no shit.
>Mar 14 13:20:39 *	ferringb (esmith@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has left #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:21:18 *	swegener (~sven@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:22:49 blackace	so stop bitching about it and do something, one of you could have picked up for grant and started the meeting, but no, it's easier to blame someone else and bitch about it.
>Mar 14 13:23:04 ciaranm	yeah. the meeting. right. with how managers here?
>Mar 14 13:23:14 ciaranm	the whole point of this meeting is to vote on GLEPs by me and ferringb
>Mar 14 13:23:19 ciaranm	which, uh, we kinda can't do...
>Mar 14 13:23:52 blackace	you say "ok, let's get the meeting started, first up let's talk about my glep, yea/nay?"
>Mar 14 13:24:13 ciaranm	...and there aren't any managers active to actually say yae/nay
>Mar 14 13:24:18 ciaranm	so it makes no difference
>Mar 14 13:24:19 *	klieber coughs
>Mar 14 13:24:32 ciaranm	ok, klieber became unidle. that's one :)
>Mar 14 13:24:39 klieber	I've been here the whole time
>Mar 14 13:24:48 blackace	he's been here the whole time waiting for someone to say "hey let's start"
>Mar 14 13:24:52 *	dostrow_work wipes the nasty klieber cough off his shirt
>Mar 14 13:24:56 blackace	as have the rest of us.
>Mar 14 13:25:04 klieber	yeah, I think I'm getting the flu, too
>Mar 14 13:25:07 *	klieber coughs on ciaranm
>Mar 14 13:25:13 *	g2boojum (~grant@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:25:13 *	ChanServ gives channel operator status to g2boojum
>Mar 14 13:25:20 ciaranm	he's alive!
>Mar 14 13:25:20 Ramereth	speak of the devil
>Mar 14 13:25:21 Kugelfang	blackace: but ciaranm is right (oh did i really say that?)
>Mar 14 13:25:21 klieber	hi grant
>Mar 14 13:25:24 dostrow_work	klieber: oh great, no I'm going to get sick
>Mar 14 13:25:28 dostrow_work	*now
>Mar 14 13:25:28 g2boojum	Sorry, extremely long meeting.
>Mar 14 13:25:41 blackace	Kugelfang: no he's not, he just has no initiative, he's not self starting.
>Mar 14 13:25:44 dostrow_work	grant!!!!!!
>Mar 14 13:25:55 klieber	guys...it's just a fact of life that RL happens and will invariably impact us on a regular basis
>Mar 14 13:26:01 klieber	we're a volunteer organization
>Mar 14 13:26:06 Kugelfang	blackace: no, i mean:  where are the manages to vote on the gleps?
>Mar 14 13:26:15 ciaranm	blackace: ah, no, see i do the actual work. i leave the paper pushing to others
>Mar 14 13:26:35 Kugelfang	klieber: we all know that...
>Mar 14 13:26:41 klieber	personally, I'd like to see voting moved to a web site or some other method that has a history, etc.
>Mar 14 13:26:46 blackace	exactly, which means it's OK if grant runs late, someone else has to step up to the plate and get the meeting started in his stead, who better than someone who bitches about it?  like ciaranm or ferringb?
>Mar 14 13:26:50 klieber	irc is too transient and not everyone can meet at the same time
>Mar 14 13:26:58 Kugelfang	klieber: still, what is a meeting for that should vote on things when hardly anyone who is allowed to vote is here ?
>Mar 14 13:27:21 klieber	Kugelfang: which is why I think we should move the voting to something else where we can get a higher rate of participation
>Mar 14 13:27:37 ian|home	*cough*forums*cough*
>Mar 14 13:27:44 klieber	we're a global team -- no matter what time we pick, it will suck for at least some of the people responsible for voting
>Mar 14 13:27:57 Pylon	We could shift the meeting to 0UTC or so.
>Mar 14 13:27:58 blackace	klieber: could always have veszig set up surveys.g.o for it
>Mar 14 13:28:00 ciaranm	ian|home: yeah right. how many developers actually have forums accounts, and how many of those are banned?
>Mar 14 13:28:03 Pylon	Then probably more could attend.
>Mar 14 13:28:05 Ramereth	klieber: we could adapt survey.g.o to do voting it hink
>Mar 14 13:28:19 g2boojum	Also, we've always allowed people to vote by e-mail, too.
>Mar 14 13:28:20 ian|home	ciaranm: banned? none. accounts. look it up yourself.
>Mar 14 13:28:22 klieber	ciaranm: instead of pissing on every idea that gets proposed, why not help be part of the solution?
>Mar 14 13:28:39 klieber	forums would work, surveys might work too.
>Mar 14 13:28:45 klieber	I'm sure there are other ideas that would work as well
>Mar 14 13:28:49 ciaranm	klieber: it might have escaped your notice, but the solutions i'm working on kinda involve the tree... ya know, our main product
>Mar 14 13:29:14 klieber	ok ciaran....you're never going to be happy no matter what we do.  I'll hope that others will be willing to help.
>Mar 14 13:29:18 g2boojum	Just out of curiostiy, what's the current topic?
>Mar 14 13:29:31 klieber	lack of attendance at these meetings
>Mar 14 13:29:38 dostrow_work	klieber: hehe
>Mar 14 13:29:38 ciaranm	klieber: i'm happy so long as i'm able to keep the tree working and moving forward
>Mar 14 13:29:51 *	g2boojum has changed the topic to: current topic: lack of attendance at meetings
>Mar 14 13:30:18 Kugelfang	can anyone tell me how many managers attend this meeting ?
>Mar 14 13:30:22 dostrow_work	someone might want to call ferringb back if there is going to be an active vote on glep33........but hey what do I know
>Mar 14 13:30:29 klieber	and I've certainly been guilty of lack of attendance recently, but I hope to get better about that now that my personal life is settling a bit.
>Mar 14 13:30:32 ciaranm	Kugelfang: you're looking at around two or three
>Mar 14 13:30:59 Kugelfang	ciaranm: klieber, carpaski and ?
>Mar 14 13:31:07 ciaranm	Kugelfang: az may or may not be a manager
>Mar 14 13:31:11 Pylon	Well.  18UTC is pretty good for Europeans.  But US-devs are at work.  And Australians are somewhen in the night.  What about shifting to a better time?  Many European devs seem to be night-workers.
>Mar 14 13:31:31 g2boojum	ciaranm: Az is the manager for base.
>Mar 14 13:31:31 az	he was once aponce a time
>Mar 14 13:31:33 Kugelfang	what about shifting to the weekend ?
>Mar 14 13:31:34 klieber	Pylon: I don't think there's one time that will ever work for everyone.
>Mar 14 13:31:49 az	sorry, busy with the foodstuff making, and nearly forgot
>Mar 14 13:32:00 Pylon	klieber: That's true.  But a time on which we could raise the attendance.
>Mar 14 13:32:37 klieber	for discussion?  or voting?
>Mar 14 13:32:38 cshields	wasn't that the point of the current timeslot?
>Mar 14 13:32:41 bcowan	been thru the meeting time changes stuff since we started having meetings, it's not a solution
>Mar 14 13:32:57 klieber	because if it's for voting...it's not fair to consistently exclude people who can't make that particular time
>Mar 14 13:33:07 dostrow_work	it always ends up at 1800 UTC on monday seems to be the best time
>Mar 14 13:33:56 bcowan	maybe we need to re-look into some groupware stuff just for this situation
>Mar 14 13:34:17 blackace	bcowan: cshields is working on that I believe.
>Mar 14 13:34:22 az	i thought g2 suggested sending replacements?
>Mar 14 13:34:29 klieber	I think the discussions can happen via any number of methods (irc, email, whatever) and then have a separate means for voting
>Mar 14 13:34:32 az	i cant think that anybody but nick said he might not be here
>Mar 14 13:34:39 *	wolf31o2-work (~wolf31o2@×××××××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:34:52 dostrow_work	also brings to mind: What is the present number of managers necessary to carry a vote?
>Mar 14 13:35:03 klieber	honestly, the forums would work well for this kind of stuff.  avenue for discussion and we can then vote at the same time
>Mar 14 13:35:05 carpaski	I'm back.
>Mar 14 13:35:10 carpaski	Just finished my conference call.
>Mar 14 13:35:14 *	carpaski reads back.
>Mar 14 13:35:28 klieber	dostrow_work: it's never really been formalized, afaik.
>Mar 14 13:35:29 Pylon	For voting we could even involve forums or the other solution.
>Mar 14 13:35:53 g2boojum	dostrow_work: I've always assumed that the answer is: "whatever number shows up".
>Mar 14 13:35:54 ciaranm	forums are up for abuse by non-devs
>Mar 14 13:36:00 ian|home	all we'd need to do is to make forumsaccounts mandatory for devs.
>Mar 14 13:36:04 klieber	ciaranm: we have a dev-only forum.
>Mar 14 13:36:10 carpaski	The meeting was announced in the last meeting email... I almost missed the fact that we had one today at all.
>Mar 14 13:36:12 ciaranm	klieber: yup, which can be read by non-devs
>Mar 14 13:36:16 klieber	so?
>Mar 14 13:36:23 ciaranm	klieber: and, more to the point, moderated by non-devs
>Mar 14 13:36:34 carpaski	We only have 4 managers here?
>Mar 14 13:36:36 klieber	that can be changed if it's so important
>Mar 14 13:36:44 Kugelfang	carpaski: 4 ?
>Mar 14 13:36:45 klieber	but I don't think it is
>Mar 14 13:36:51 *	ian|home shrugs
>Mar 14 13:36:51 bcowan	I personally don't like forums, but my say is generally irrelevant
>Mar 14 13:36:57 Kugelfang	carpaski: you, klieber, az and ?
>Mar 14 13:37:12 az	peter was here, but he went missing it seems
>Mar 14 13:37:27 g2boojum	wolf31o2-work just popped in.
>Mar 14 13:37:39 wolf31o2-work	I just got here... didn't realize 1800UTC was 1PM EST and not 2PM...\
>Mar 14 13:37:51 dostrow_work	g2boojum: you could op him so the less inclined would realize his status
>Mar 14 13:37:54 g2boojum	wolf31o2-work: Wait a month or so, and it will change.  *Grin*
>Mar 14 13:37:58 *	g2boojum gives channel operator status to wolf31o2-work
>Mar 14 13:38:10 wolf31o2-work	thanks
>Mar 14 13:38:28 bcowan	April 3rd....spring forward
>Mar 14 13:38:45 Pylon	One week earlier in Europe.
>Mar 14 13:39:42 *	beejay (~benni@××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has joined #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:39:49 beejay	I knew I forgot something ...
>Mar 14 13:40:31 dostrow_work	soooo.....then.....with 4 managers present.......are glep33 and glep34 going to be talked about......or is the general silence a bad sign?
>Mar 14 13:40:46 ciaranm	no point in talking about 34 since ferringb left...
>Mar 14 13:41:31 carpaski	You mean 33?
>Mar 14 13:41:44 ciaranm	uh, probably :)
>Mar 14 13:41:45 carpaski	34 was the category metadata...
>Mar 14 13:41:57 ciaranm	yeah, 34 was mine. i mean 33. i think
>Mar 14 13:42:01 *	ciaranm injects caffeine
>Mar 14 13:43:01 ciaranm	ok, well i think i answered all the queries re 34 on the list already...
>Mar 14 13:43:13 ciaranm	and incorporated them into the revised version
>Mar 14 13:43:30 ciaranm	unless anyone has any other questions?
>Mar 14 13:43:40 carpaski	Where are these gleps being discuessed?
>Mar 14 13:43:47 ciaranm	-dev
>Mar 14 13:44:29 blackace	ciaranm: did you see carpaski's mail on -core?
>Mar 14 13:44:36 ciaranm	blackace: yup
>Mar 14 13:44:49 ciaranm	> I have no issues with GLEP 34. It's a yea.
>Mar 14 13:45:02 blackace	I like the release/-testing idea
>Mar 14 13:45:24 ciaranm	that's 33
>Mar 14 13:45:25 genone	blackace: are you talking about the right one?
>Mar 14 13:45:47 blackace	genone: 'course I'm not :P
>Mar 14 13:46:13 *	dostrow_work hands to pot o' caffine around the room
>Mar 14 13:47:10 wolf31o2-work	=]
>Mar 14 13:47:34 ciaranm	ok, someone ask g2boojum to ask for a vote on 34 (metadata) please :)
>Mar 14 13:47:35 dostrow_work	<crickets>
>Mar 14 13:47:49 wolf31o2-work	dostrow_work: I was just thinking the same thing
>Mar 14 13:47:51 g2boojum	May we have a vote on GLEP 34, please?
>Mar 14 13:47:59 wolf31o2-work	g2boojum: yes
>Mar 14 13:48:09 wolf31o2-work	g2boojum: and that's my vote, too
>Mar 14 13:48:13 klieber	I vote yes as well.
>Mar 14 13:48:30 dostrow_work	and carpaski already gave his nod
>Mar 14 13:48:39 az	yes
>Mar 14 13:48:40 carpaski	yes
>Mar 14 13:48:45 dostrow_work	that makes 4 for 4
>Mar 14 13:48:57 Kugelfang	wonderful
>Mar 14 13:49:11 ciaranm	hrm. now i just need to find pauldv to do the dtd commit. wooh!
>Mar 14 13:49:24 az	mail him
>Mar 14 13:49:31 ciaranm	ja
>Mar 14 13:50:44 dostrow_work	so, unless anyone feels like tracking ferringb down and calling him back, I think that just about does it........
>Mar 14 13:51:16 g2boojum	All in favor of adjourning?  I arrived late, so I didn't log.  Will somebody please post a log?
>Mar 14 13:51:27 dostrow_work	sure
>Mar 14 13:53:05 ciaranm	yay. now i can go eat
>Mar 14 13:53:07 *	ciaranm (~ciaranm_@×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.pdpc) has left #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:53:21 dostrow_work	<more crickets>
>Mar 14 13:57:38 *	wolf31o2-work (~wolf31o2@×××××××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has left #gentoo-meetings ("Leaving")
>Mar 14 13:58:09 *	g2boojum (~grant@××××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has left #gentoo-meetings
>Mar 14 13:58:21 *	kloeri_ (~kloeri@××××××××××××××××.gentoo) has left #gentoo-meetings
>**** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Mar 14 13:59:37 2005
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] whitelisting the env ebuilds execute in
> From:
> Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:21:53 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>Brian Harring wrote:	[Sun Mar 13 2005, 10:40:16AM EST]
>
>
>>So... yeah.  Anyone got a good reason why all vars should be dumped
>>into the ebuild environment?  I don't see the point in all of my
>>binpkgs having my ECHANGELOG_USER setting, for example.
>>
>>
>
>Sounds like a great idea to me.
>
>Regards,
>Aron
>
>--
>Aron Griffis
>Gentoo Linux Developer
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] mysql-4.1.10a ebuild
> From:
> Francesco Riosa <francesco@×××××××××.it>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:00:28 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> bug [1] has two new attachments [2] and [3], untar [2] in your
> $OVERLAY directory should be enough to make it possible an "emerge -av
> =mysql-4.1.10a".
>
> ATM it compile and run without problems on two boxes, ~x86 and amd64,
> with FEATURES="maketest" too... but is heavy modified from what I was
> running before, mainly because of suggestions received today.
>
> Has been requested that bugs for this ebuild goes on bugzilla, to make
> mysql-team can see what happen too.
>
> <grin>
> robbat2 ask me to specify "That I will be working with you to
> integrate your work within the next  two months."
> </grin>
>
> please fullfill #83011 of reports I'll try my best to correct all the
> possible ;)
>
> enjoy
> francesco
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83011 "mySQL new version
> 4.1.10"
> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53446&action=view
>    "overlay for mysql-4.1.10a"[3]
> [3] http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53447     diffs between
> 4.0.24-r1 and 4.1.10a ebuilds
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:21:18 -0800
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
>
>
>>I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>
>>
>>>>Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
>>>>into a new root, then you're building a system and
>>>>shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
>>>>documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining systems in
>a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those systems trashes the
>files. Thank you for pointing out this behavior now, because it walks
>all over plans I have for a diskless cluster.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFCNgBOXVaO67S1rtsRAqwXAKD1gXa1Du1kUQl2SpmxGHKTIl+u3ACg++D1
>yEnWNpiVD2Fhg97Tic7ZcFo=
>=9nYL
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] initialisation oder in checkfs
> From:
> Thomas Wöckinger <thomas.woeckinger@×××××.com>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:34:55 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>Hi!
>
>This is just a hint for changing the initialisation order in checkfs.
>Currently lvm will be initialized before sw-raid. So it is not
>possible to set up lvm on a raid device during the boot procedure,
>therefore i think it is a good idea to change the initialization order
>to evms -- raid -- lvm
>
>lg tom
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] Ebuild removing
> From:
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:17:01 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o
>
>
>Ok, I dunno how many times me and Weeve have said this now, but it's
>still being ignored...
>
>FOLLOW THE FRICKIN' POLICY WHEN REMOVING EBUILDS
>
>In particular:
>
>1) Don't remove the highest stable version for any arch
>
>2) Don't remove the highest ~arch version for any arch unless there is a
>higher stable version for that arch. Exception: you're deliberately
>forcing a downgrade because you committed something really broken to
>~arch.
>
>It really isn't funny when the arch teams have to spend more time fixing
>screwups caused by developers not following keyword policy than working
>on useful stuff. I don't care if being careful involves slightly more
>work on your part -- identifying and fixing the screwups you caused not
>only takes a lot more effort from a lot more people, it also impacts end
>user systems. Stop being so damned rude.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Christian Zoffoli <xmerlin@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:22:03 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> [cut]
>
>> HAHAHAHAHA...
>>
>> Anyway, though spyderous was joking somewhat, he does have a point.  We
>> really have no reason to produce one as part of the regular releases.  I
>> have thought about making one, just for kicks.  The primary reason for
>> not doing one is that SystemRescueCD already does this quite well.  This
>> is a niche where someone else has built on Gentoo's work and has come up
>> with a unique and usable product.  While I have no problem with someone
>> else within the Gentoo project using catalyst for this task, I don't see
>> a reason for one as part of the official releases.
>>
>
> Sysrescuecd works only on x86, the ppc version is in beta from months
> and months and it doesn't work with a network backup solution like
> bacula or something similar (FYI projects like qtparted are officially
> death).
>
> And I'm agree with many users that want a recovery solution integrated
> with the "install disk".
>
>
> Christian
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo @ LinuxTag 2005?
> From:
> Lars Weiler <pylon@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 03:20:10 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>* Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com> [05/03/14 12:14 +1100]:
>
>
>>One suggestion: last year the Gentoo contingent seemed to have missed
>>out on the keysigning that was held at LinuxTag, which I thought was a
>>rather large lost opportunity.
>>
>>
>
>I took part the year before.  But did you ever attended a
>keysigning-party with 200 persons?  You need a whole day for
>signing the keys :-/
>
>
>
>>Manning a booth always takes persistence and effort, but I would
>>encourage a conscientious effort for any Gentoo devs or users at
>>LinuxTag this year to participate in the keysigning.
>>
>>
>
>By the way: We drank beer together, did we also signed keys?  ;-)
>
>
>
>>++
>>
>>The other thing that often happens when you man a booth is that the
>>people doing so end up missing everything else that is going on. As a
>>generic example, last year Ian Murdoch gave a keynote (!) at LinuxTag,
>>and none of the Debian developers who were busy manning their booth even
>>knew he was speaking.
>>
>>The technical conference side of LinuxTag is significant, and I
>>encourage people to attend as many sessions as they can.
>>
>>
>
>Well.  I like manning a booth or installing Gentoo on a HP
>Quad-Opteron or even have a talk with an interesting person
>more than watching a lot of talks.
>
>But as we should be enough Devs this year, we probably could
>prepare a schedule, so that some could visit some talks.
>And as our experience for preparing booths grew within the
>last two years we will do the presentation of Gentoo at
>LinuxTag ever ;-)
>
>Regards, Lars
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo @ LinuxTag 2005?
> From:
> Michael Imhof <tantive@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 03:24:37 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
> CC:
> Gentoo Developers <gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org>
>
>
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
>> In the same vein as DSD's question about GUADEC 2005, and in the same
>> area, is there going to be a Gentoo presence at LinuxTag 2005?
>> (Karlsruhe, June 22 to 25)
>
>
> Sure! As for the last years gentoo will have a booth. Pictures should be
> flying around the net ;)
> If you want to get involved feel free to contact me...
>
>>
>> I'm going to be there, but I will probably be manning the phpMyAdmin
>> booth in the LAMP area most of the time. I would however like to meet
>> up with whatever Gentoo developers are out there. (My itinerary should
>> be up on Planet shortly).
>>
> Great, Sebastian already told he will be in the LAMP area as well.
>
>
>
> Regards
> Tantive
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@×××××××.net>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:24:36 -0800
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Christian Zoffoli wrote:
>
>> (FYI projects like qtparted are officially death).
>
>
> Well ... I'm not so sure about that. QTParted and its underlying
> parted do not work safely with NTFS or reiserfs. As far as I know,
> they work with ext2 and FAT32, and may work with ext3. That's it!
> Partition Magic, which is licensed, works with NTFS (but not reiserfs).
>
>>
>> And I'm agree with many users that want a recovery solution
>> integrated with the "install disk".
>
>
> I've got a stack of "rescue CDs" -- Knoppix, Kanotix, Fedora Core 3
> rescue, etc. Most of the rescue tasks I need to get done can also be
> done by Damn Small and by the Gentoo LiveCD. The one I reach for,
> though, is Knoppix, because I have more experience with it.
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] GUADEC 2005?
> From:
> Michael Imhof <tantive@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 03:26:09 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
> CC:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Daniel Drake wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is anyone planning to head out to GUADEC this year? (May 29th-31st,
>> Stuttgart, Germany)
>> Have Gentoo participated here before?
>
> Nope, i participated in the KDE Konference last year (in Stuttgart as
> well).
>
>>
>> I'm planning to go, assuming that I do not have any exams those days.
>
> heh, i will try to attend it as well as i'm living in stuttgart ;)
>
>
> Regards
> Tantive
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:38:22 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Christian Zoffoli wrote:
>
>> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> [cut]
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sysrescuecd works only on x86, the ppc version is in beta from months
>> and months and it doesn't work with a network backup solution like
>> bacula or something similar (FYI projects like qtparted are
>> officially death).
>>
>> And I'm agree with many users that want a recovery solution
>> integrated with the "install disk".
>>
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
> One of the things I enjoy about Gentoo is how small the install disk
> is, that I can quickly nab 50 megs and burn it in about 5 minutes,
> compared to say FC3 and it's 5 CD's.  Install disks for Installing,
> Recovery disks for Recovery :)  There are a lot of CD's that are great
> for recovery ( albiet I will admit not many for alt arches ).  No one
> is stopping you from rolling your own debian variation that runs on
> multiplatform.  I'm all for more tools that make the install easier,
> but space is at a premium, especially with gentoo-installer and X on
> the liveCD ( when is that coming out *grin* ). --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo @ LinuxTag 2005?
> From:
> Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:53:54 +1100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Tue, 2005-15-03 at 03:20 +0100, Lars Weiler wrote:
>
>
>
>>By the way: We drank beer together, did we also signed keys?  ;-)
>>
>>
>
>No, we never got around to it :) [Though I did sign karltk and spider
>when I was at GUADEC the following week]
>
>
>
>>installing Gentoo on a HP
>>Quad-Opteron
>>
>>
>
>That was *very* cool.
>
>++
>
>Just wanted to encourage everyone to attend the conference, as opposed
>to just the expo. The trade-show booths are ok, but the speakers were,
>in general, very good, and that (to me, anyway) is the interesting part
>about a technical conference. Indeed, most of the conferences I go to /
>speak at don't *have* booths.
>
>AfC
>Sydney
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Christian Zoffoli <xmerlin@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:07:52 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Alec Warner wrote:
> [cut]
>
>> One of the things I enjoy about Gentoo is how small the install disk
>> is, that I can quickly nab 50 megs and burn it in about 5 minutes,
>> compared to say FC3 and it's 5 CD's.  Install disks for Installing,
>> Recovery disks for Recovery :)  There are a lot of CD's that are
>> great for recovery ( albiet I will admit not many for alt arches ).
>> No one is stopping you from rolling your own debian variation that
>> runs on multiplatform.  I'm all for more tools that make the install
>> easier, but space is at a premium, especially with gentoo-installer
>> and X on the liveCD ( when is that coming out *grin* ). --
>> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
> but I'm talking about adding a couple of MB of tools, it's not
> comparable to X + ....
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:48 -0800
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Christian Zoffoli wrote:
>
>
>>but I'm talking about adding a couple of MB of tools, it's not
>>comparable to X + ....
>>
>>
>
>Slippery slope. A couple MB here, a couple there ... suddenly the
>minimal CD that Chris has worked so hard to drop size from is bloated up
>again.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFCNmHsXVaO67S1rtsRAsm6AJ9S3SknpIXSbZuxKa2IQA9T4LEzAACgzYYK
>M8wFq04JHKK077hgZg23zos=
>=74HI
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Brian Jackson <iggy@g.o>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:24:24 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
> CC:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
>>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
>>>>>into a new root, then you're building a system and
>>>>>shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
>>>>>documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining systems in
>>a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those systems trashes the
>>files. Thank you for pointing out this behavior now, because it walks
>>all over plans I have for a diskless cluster.
>>
>>
>
>I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they didn't
>care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to file a bug
>about it (or stir up that other one).
>
>--Iggy
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Brian Jackson <iggy@g.o>
> Date:
> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:24:24 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-dev@g.o
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@g.o
> CC:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
>>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
>>>>>into a new root, then you're building a system and
>>>>>shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
>>>>>documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining systems in
>>a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those systems trashes the
>>files. Thank you for pointing out this behavior now, because it walks
>>all over plans I have for a diskless cluster.
>>
>>
>
>I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they didn't
>care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to file a bug
>about it (or stir up that other one).
>
>--Iggy
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:56:00 +0900
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>
>
>>On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
>>>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
>>>>>>into a new root, then you're building a system and
>>>>>>shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
>>>>>>documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining systems in
>>>a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those systems trashes the
>>>files. Thank you for pointing out this behavior now, because it walks
>>>all over plans I have for a diskless cluster.
>>>
>>>
>>I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they didn't
>>care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to file a bug
>>about it (or stir up that other one).
>>
>>
>
>Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a year!
>
>I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 that
>addresses the issue.  You can directly do
>
>wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch -p0
>
>which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the best.
>
>As I see that there are more people who are interested in the bug, I am
>expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try out the patch and
>in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what we need) when it makes them
>happy.
>
>The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration
>files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are
>comments like:
>
>	# XXX: This should depend on ROOT?
>	if os.path.exists("/"+CUSTOM_PROFILE_PATH):
>		self.user_profile_dir = os.path.normpath("/"+"///"+CUSTOM_PROFILE_PATH)
>		self.profiles.append(self.user_profile_dir[:])
>
>...
>
>	# XXX: Should depend on root?
>		self.mygcfg=getconfig("/"+MAKE_CONF_FILE,allow_sourcing=True)
>		if self.mygcfg == None:
>			self.mygcfg = {}
>
>
>Which I guess means that it will sooner or later make it to the next
>level in some form.
>
>chutz out
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] initialisation order in checkfs
> From:
> tchiwam <tchiwam@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:51:34 +0200
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Thomas Wöckinger wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> This is just a hint for changing the initialisation order in checkfs.
>> Currently lvm will be initialized before sw-raid. So it is not
>> possible to set up lvm on a raid device during the boot procedure,
>> therefore i think it is a good idea to change the initialization order
>> to evms -- raid -- lvm
>
>
> In theory many permutations are possible, even if not reasonable. But
> I have found that raid can automount with type fd on x86 partition
> type. On most of the other arch passing md=0,/dev/hda1,/dev/hdb1 to
> the kernel will autostart  your raid. Once that is done lvm will be
> happy on your raid partition.
>
> I do like the idea of booting on some raid partitions with most
> journaled FS it needs to be rw.
>
> I am watching lvm as it might become one of the best overall solution
> including raid in a same wrapper.
>
> Phil
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 34: Per-Category metadata.xml Files
> From:
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:59:31 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> [...]
>
>> It is proposed that the existing ``metadata.xml`` format [1]_ be used.
>> Even though XML sucks, there is already a framework in place for these
>> files.  The filename will be ``blah-misc/metadata.xml``. The
>> character set
>> used shall be UTF-8 for consistency with GLEP 31 [2]_.
>
>
> Perhaps you might want to remove any subjective opinions from the
> GLEP. Specifically, "XML sucks", since it doesn't suck. People just
> abuse it too much.
>
> Wkr,
>     Sven Vermeulen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] whitelisting the env ebuilds execute in
> From:
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:03:18 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Ned Ludd wrote:
>
>> So it will be something like $PORTDIR/profiles/env.accept.list in
>> which all devs should be able to add to as needed vs having to file
>> bugs and
>> wait for long periods of time?
>
>
> With an IREQUEST="ALSA_CARDS" for additional, per-ebuild variables?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch
> From:
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:08:42 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>
>> http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/hollow/2005/03/14/apache_dithering
>> "... and users using testing may not complain if things break."
>>
>> That's the real problem.
>
>
> They *should* complain, constructively, on a bugreport, stating the
> issue and how they could resolve it. If people wouldn't be allowed to
> reply to ~arch bugs, then why do we have ~arch?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] kernel sources updating
> From:
> "Evgeny A. Grebennikov" <evgeniy@×××××××.ru>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:11:32 +0300
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>Hello gentoo-dev,
>  I have a question about updating kernel sources. I have to download
> kernel sources every time kernel version is up (using portage system),
> but here is a small patches at kernel.org for updating sources without
> full download.
>  In my opinion it's more rationally to realize kernel sources updating
> with patching method. If it's not so, please explain me why?
>  Thanks.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] initialisation oder in checkfs
> From:
> Martin Schlemmer <azarah@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:20:07 +0200
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:34 +0100, Thomas Wöckinger wrote:
>
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>This is just a hint for changing the initialisation order in checkfs.
>>Currently lvm will be initialized before sw-raid. So it is not
>>possible to set up lvm on a raid device during the boot procedure,
>>therefore i think it is a good idea to change the initialization order
>>to evms -- raid -- lvm
>>
>>
>>
>
>It is currently still masked, but baselayout-1.12.0 (check
>RC_VOLUME_ORDER in /etc/conf.d/rc if you want to dare it) does provide
>you with the option to change the order.  You need the latest ~arch of
>all the volume tools as well though.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel sources updating
> From:
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:26:37 -0800
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:11:32PM +0300, Evgeny A. Grebennikov wrote:
>
>
>>Hello gentoo-dev,
>>  I have a question about updating kernel sources. I have to download
>> kernel sources every time kernel version is up (using portage system),
>> but here is a small patches at kernel.org for updating sources without
>> full download.
>>  In my opinion it's more rationally to realize kernel sources updating
>> with patching method. If it's not so, please explain me why?
>>
>>
>Search bugzilla for the discussion on this.
>Additionally, see this blog posting about a workaround for the meantime:
>http://www.reactivated.net/weblog/archives/2005/03/using-getdelta-to-reduce-size-of-distfiles-download/
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:43:49 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> [... rescue CD with partimage and other tools ...]
>
>> Let us know when you've got it ready. I'm looking forward to it.
>
>
> Please bear in mind that partimage, ghost4linux, g4u and similar
> projects are all rather slow-paced in their development (if not
> stalled indefinitely). And it's not because they're finished - they're
> not.
>
> Wkr,
>     Sven Vermeulen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo @ LinuxTag 2005?
> From:
> Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:43:45 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>I'm going to be there, but I will probably be manning the phpMyAdmin
>>booth in the LAMP area most of the time.
>>
>>
>
> Nice! The LAMP Area [1] will, once again, be the biggest booth on the
> expo. Last year it was at least as big as the HP one.
>
> --
> [1] http://www.lamparea.org/
>
>--
>Sebastian Bergmann                      http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
>GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Metapackages
> From:
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:21:16 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>Two other very minor drawbacks i've just thought of:
>
> - no easy replacement for the use of virtuals in "use.defaults"
>files (currently, virtual/jre, virtual/opengl and virtual/x11 are
>used in that files)
>
> - no easy replacement for "has_version virtual/something" in
>ebuilds (currently, such statements exists with virtual/emacs,
>virtual/ghc, virtual/php, virtual/os-headers, virtual/jdk, but
>that's in less than 30 ebuilds in the whole tree)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> "Brian Jackson" <iggy@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:26:49 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On 12:56:00 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
>
>
>>maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
>>>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
>>>>>>> into a new root, then you're building a system and
>>>>>>> shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
>>>>>>> documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining
>>>> systems in a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those
>>>> systems trashes the files. Thank you for pointing out this
>>>> behavior now, because it walks all over plans I have for a
>>>>
>>>>
>>> diskless cluster.
>>> I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they
>>> didn't care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to
>>> file a bug about it (or stir up that other one).
>>>
>>>
>>Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a year!
>>
>>I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 that
>>addresses the issue.  You can directly do
>>
>>wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch -p0
>>
>>which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the best.
>>
>>As I see that there are more people who are interested in the bug, I
>>am expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try out the patch
>>and in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what we need) when it
>>makes them happy.
>>
>>The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration
>>files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are
>>comments like:
>>
>>
>
>I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a while
>before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not trivial to fix it
>because some of the config stuff isn't very well abstracted.
>
>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
>
>--Iggy
>
>
>
>>    # XXX: This should depend on ROOT?
>>    if os.path.exists("/"+CUSTOM_PROFILE_PATH):
>>        self.user_profile_dir = os.path.normpath("/"+"///"+CUSTOM_PROF
>>ILE_PATH)
>>        self.profiles.append(self.user_profile_dir[:])
>>
>>...
>>
>>    # XXX: Should depend on root?
>>        self.mygcfg=getconfig("/"+MAKE_CONF_FILE,allow_sourcing=True)
>>        if self.mygcfg == None:
>>            self.mygcfg = {}
>>
>>
>>Which I guess means that it will sooner or later make it to the next
>>level in some form.
>>
>>chutz out
>>
>>
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch
> From:
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:20:34 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:08:42 +0100 Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
>wrote:
>| Marius Mauch wrote:
>| > http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/hollow/2005/03/14/apache_dithering
>| > "... and users using testing may not complain if things break."
>| >
>| > That's the real problem.
>|
>| They *should* complain, constructively, on a bugreport, stating the
>| issue and how they could resolve it. If people wouldn't be allowed to
>| reply to ~arch bugs, then why do we have ~arch?
>
>We have ~arch for things that aren't well tested but aren't believed to
>be broken. So, some midpoint is needed on the ~arch being broken thing.
>On the one hand, it's not suitable for running on production kit, so
>complaints about things which aren't known to be broken being added to
>~arch aren't particularly viable. On the other hand, constructive useful
>bug reports about breakages in ~arch that the maintainer doesn't know
>about *are* useful, since they'll let the maintainer know that the
>package isn't ready to go stable.
>
>Probably easiest to think of ~arch as meaning "candidate for arch after
>more testing".
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:14:14 +0900
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>
>
>>On 12:56:00 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
>>>>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
>>>>>>>> into a new root, then you're building a system and
>>>>>>>> shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
>>>>>>>> documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining
>>>>> systems in a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those
>>>>> systems trashes the files. Thank you for pointing out this
>>>>> behavior now, because it walks all over plans I have for a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> diskless cluster.
>>>> I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they
>>>> didn't care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to
>>>> file a bug about it (or stir up that other one).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a year!
>>>
>>>I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 that
>>>addresses the issue.  You can directly do
>>>
>>>wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch -p0
>>>
>>>which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the best.
>>>
>>>As I see that there are more people who are interested in the bug, I
>>>am expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try out the patch
>>>and in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what we need) when it
>>>makes them happy.
>>>
>>>The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration
>>>files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are
>>>comments like:
>>>
>>>
>>I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a while
>>before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not trivial to fix it
>>because some of the config stuff isn't very well abstracted.
>>
>>
>
>It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the locations
>are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with something. Could
>we get some input from whoever told you this?
>
>
>
>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> "Brian Jackson" <iggy@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:01:47 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On 10:14:14 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
>
>
>>maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>
>>
>>> On 12:56:00 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
>>>>>>>  http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
>>>>>>>>>  into a new root, then you're building a system and
>>>>>>>>>  shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
>>>>>>>>>  documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I disagree with that logic, because people may be
>>>>>>  maintaining systems in a ROOT with modified config files.
>>>>>>  Updating those systems trashes the files. Thank you for
>>>>>>  pointing out this behavior now, because it walks all over
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  plans I have for a diskless cluster.
>>>>>  I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either
>>>>>  they didn't care, or they didn't hear me. Either way,
>>>>>  probably need to file a bug about it (or stir up that other
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>one).
>>>> Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a
>>>>year!
>>>> I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
>>>> that addresses the issue.  You can directly do
>>>>
>>>> wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch
>>>>-p0
>>>> which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the
>>>>best.
>>>> As I see that there are more people who are interested in the
>>>> bug, I am expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try
>>>> out the patch and in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what
>>>> we need) when it makes them happy.
>>>>
>>>> The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration
>>>> files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are
>>>> comments like:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a
>>> while before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not
>>> trivial to fix it because some of the config stuff isn't very well
>>>
>>>
>>abstracted.
>>
>>It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the
>>locations are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with
>>something. Could we get some input from whoever told you this?
>>
>>
>
>make.conf is easy. The profile isn't as easy. /etc/portage isn't easy at
>all. That's the basics. You'd have to ask the portage guys for more in
>depth info.
>
>--Iggy
>
>
>
>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
>>>
>>>
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:30:23 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:38 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
>>One of the things I enjoy about Gentoo is how small the install disk is,
>>that I can quickly nab 50 megs and burn it in about 5 minutes, compared
>>to say FC3 and it's 5 CD's.  Install disks for Installing, Recovery
>>disks for Recovery :)  There are a lot of CD's that are great for
>>
>>
>
>This is pretty much our driving force.  The Release Engineering group is
>only interested in building release materials.  It isn't our job to care
>about backup/recovery, really.  You are more than free to create your
>own recovery CD for any architecture you want, and we'll even help you
>with any problems you have.  That being said, we are not going to add
>more packages to the installation media.  We are looking to reduce the
>size of the media, rather than increase it.
>
>
>
>>recovery ( albiet I will admit not many for alt arches ).  No one is
>>stopping you from rolling your own debian variation that runs on
>>
>>
>
>Why bother with Debian?  You could use catalyst and do it all from
>Gentoo.
>
>
>
>>multiplatform.  I'm all for more tools that make the install easier, but
>>space is at a premium, especially with gentoo-installer and X on the
>>liveCD ( when is that coming out *grin* ).
>>
>>
>
>Never.  *grin*
>
>I guess this is where I give my standard answer.  The experimental
>LiveCD, which has no real ties to the actual 2005.0 release, will be
>done when it is done, and will be released shortly after that. ;]
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds
> From:
> Tom Wesley <tom@×××××.org>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:25:29 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
>
>
> Hey
>
> I've seen several queries regarding KDE's new split ebuilds and the
> version numbers used for specific packages.  It seems that all of the
> KDE 3.4 packages have been versioned as 3.4.
>
> Should kmail, kopete etc not be using their own version numbers with
> the meta-packages being versioned based on the kde release number?
> IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete
> website, finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that
> portage only has 3.4.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:32:38 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 04:07 +0100, Christian Zoffoli wrote:
>
>
>>but I'm talking about adding a couple of MB of tools, it's not
>>comparable to X + ....
>>
>>
>
>We're also to the point where we count the size of the installation
>media in bytes.  A couple of MB of additional space requirements that
>will only be used by a very small percentage of our user base (I would
>say less than 1%) and that has nothing to do with installation is
>unnecessary.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:35:02 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 20:17 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>
>>Slippery slope. A couple MB here, a couple there ... suddenly the
>>minimal CD that Chris has worked so hard to drop size from is bloated up
>>again.
>>
>>
>
>Exactly.
>
>Nevermind that we've added about 10MB to this release already.  Of
>course, that is to add better support for lvm2 and dmraid, plus a bunch
>of extra network drivers.  These are things that would be used during an
>installation, so they fit the requirements, but one of my first tasks
>after this release is to start working towards reducing the size of the
>minimal install CD (again).  My personal goal is to fit the entire
>contents of the CD on a 32MB USB key.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:05:43 +0900
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>maillog: 15/03/2005-12:01:47(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>
>
>>On 10:14:14 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a
>>>> while before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not
>>>> trivial to fix it because some of the config stuff isn't very
>>>> well abstracted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the
>>>locations are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with
>>>something. Could we get some input from whoever told you this?
>>>
>>>
>>make.conf is easy. The profile isn't as easy. /etc/portage isn't easy
>>at all. That's the basics. You'd have to ask the portage guys for more
>>in depth info.
>>
>>
>
>I was hoping to get a response from them here. Portage guys, you there?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] Partimage on the livecd
> From:
> Christian Zoffoli <xmerlin@g.o>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:10:09 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 04:07 +0100, Christian Zoffoli wrote:
>>
>>> but I'm talking about adding a couple of MB of tools, it's not
>>> comparable to X + ....
>>
>>
>>
>> We're also to the point where we count the size of the installation
>> media in bytes.  A couple of MB of additional space requirements that
>> will only be used by a very small percentage of our user base (I would
>> say less than 1%) and that has nothing to do with installation is
>> unnecessary.
>
>
> ok ok
> ...the right way is the second one ...create another live cd only for
> recovering ;-)
>
>
> Christian
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:17:26 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:05:43AM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>
>
>>maillog: 15/03/2005-12:01:47(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>
>>
>>>On 10:14:14 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a
>>>>> while before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not
>>>>> trivial to fix it because some of the config stuff isn't very
>>>>> well abstracted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the
>>>>locations are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with
>>>>something. Could we get some input from whoever told you this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>make.conf is easy. The profile isn't as easy. /etc/portage isn't easy
>>>at all. That's the basics. You'd have to ask the portage guys for more
>>>in depth info.
>>>
>>>
>>I was hoping to get a response from them here. Portage guys, you there?
>>
>>
>http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/portage/pym/config.py?root=gentoo-src
>^^^^ config class, cleaned up a bit from what stable has.
>
>At the moment, my focus on the bugger is the following-
>A) integration of env whitelist tracking, preferably in a an attached
>   instance (the need for this is partially bound to covering
>   filter-env's ass).
>B) either reorganize the beast so env stuff is accessible via an
>   attribute, or create a container class that the config gets
>   assigned into
>C) bind all tree instances to the config.  Why?  Kill off portage.db
>   global usage entirely, and try and encapsulate data into one
>   common, passable instance
>D) shift virtual loading, setcpv, setinst, load_infodir, etc, all out
>   of config and to a proper class.
>
>So... why tack that stuff in now, when the class itself needs a major
>enema? :)
>
>Basically it comes down to a focus (at this point) in trying to
>improve the existing code/abstractions in use, rather then tacking
>more features/codepaths in.
>
>Anyone interested can take a crack at the request above, it's just not
>high on my peronsal (likely our) list of priorities, since the
>existing code is spaghetti like.
>
>Note that integration of env whitelisting *is* adding a new feature
>in.  It's kind of required to keep things sane for the env handling
>though (mainly, a few very crazy var settings are *very* hard to
>properly filter).  That and it can't be done without refactoring the
>config class anyways (which is intended)...
>~harring
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:35:55 +0900
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>maillog: 15/03/2005-21:17:26(-0600): Brian Harring types
>
>
>>On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:05:43AM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>>
>>
>>>maillog: 15/03/2005-12:01:47(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 10:14:14 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a
>>>>>> while before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not
>>>>>> trivial to fix it because some of the config stuff isn't very
>>>>>> well abstracted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the
>>>>>locations are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with
>>>>>something. Could we get some input from whoever told you this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>make.conf is easy. The profile isn't as easy. /etc/portage isn't easy
>>>>at all. That's the basics. You'd have to ask the portage guys for more
>>>>in depth info.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I was hoping to get a response from them here. Portage guys, you there?
>>>
>>>
>>http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/portage/pym/config.py?root=gentoo-src
>>^^^^ config class, cleaned up a bit from what stable has.
>>
>>At the moment, my focus on the bugger is the following-
>>A) integration of env whitelist tracking, preferably in a an attached
>>   instance (the need for this is partially bound to covering
>>   filter-env's ass).
>>B) either reorganize the beast so env stuff is accessible via an
>>   attribute, or create a container class that the config gets
>>   assigned into
>>C) bind all tree instances to the config.  Why?  Kill off portage.db
>>   global usage entirely, and try and encapsulate data into one
>>   common, passable instance
>>D) shift virtual loading, setcpv, setinst, load_infodir, etc, all out
>>   of config and to a proper class.
>>
>>So... why tack that stuff in now, when the class itself needs a major
>>enema? :)
>>
>>Basically it comes down to a focus (at this point) in trying to
>>improve the existing code/abstractions in use, rather then tacking
>>more features/codepaths in.
>>
>>Anyone interested can take a crack at the request above, it's just not
>>high on my peronsal (likely our) list of priorities, since the
>>existing code is spaghetti like.
>>
>>Note that integration of env whitelisting *is* adding a new feature
>>in.  It's kind of required to keep things sane for the env handling
>>though (mainly, a few very crazy var settings are *very* hard to
>>properly filter).  That and it can't be done without refactoring the
>>config class anyways (which is intended)...
>>
>>
>
>Well, I never intended to rush things... bug #52415 has been open for
>almost an year after all, and at least the config protection seems to be
>more of a bug than a problem with the implementation (as I had posted in
>a comment on the bug, $ROOT/etc/somefile is being checked against a list
>that is not prefixed with a $ROOT).
>
>The issue with the alternate configuration location is only a matter of
>convenience, since it can be worked around with a couple of symlinks.
>As your hands are full with other stuff, I'd only hope you keep the
>request in mind. Maybe even post a note when you guys unknot the
>spaghetti?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
> From:
> Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:11:10 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:35:55PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I never intended to rush things...
>>
>>
>Rush isn't necessarily bad.  Portage bugs have a way of acruing years
>without action...
>
>
>
>>Maybe even post a note when you guys unknot the
>>spaghetti?
>>
>>
>cvs head is becoming better... help/patches would be wonderful
>however. :):
>~harring
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] categories.desc?
> From:
> marduk <marduk@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:43:57 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>I've been looking for a resource that would give a description of all
>the categories in portage.  There is a 'categories' file in portage but
>it has no descriptions.  Does such a resource exist and, if not, would
>there be sufficient interest of the portage developers to create one?
>
>thanks in advance,
>-m
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] categories.desc?
> From:
> Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:50:21 -0800
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>marduk wrote:
>
>
>>I've been looking for a resource that would give a description of all
>>the categories in portage.  There is a 'categories' file in portage but
>>it has no descriptions.  Does such a resource exist and, if not, would
>>there be sufficient interest of the portage developers to create one?
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps you'd be interested in
>http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0034.html
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFCN7sNXVaO67S1rtsRAvs7AKD1zFSods7qreBgOzYyY+SoIBIr7gCgyReY
>hhBhPodtI7V4gvHbLVWCXLs=
>=ZN19
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell
> From:
> Chris White <chriswhite@g.o>
> Date:
> Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:41:35 +0900
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> So.. basically:
>
> 1) libungif and giflib both install -lgif
> 2) They don't block each other
> 3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header
> file (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)
>
> So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on
> this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell
> From:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:10 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Wednesday 16 March 2005 10:41 am, Chris White wrote:
>
>
>>So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on
>>this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
>>
>>
>
>going by the description, it seems like libungif is pretty much pointless
>now ?  libgd has added back in gif support now that the LZW patent has
>expired everywhere ...
>
>perhaps we can just clean out libungif and have everything use giflib now
>-mike
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds
> From:
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:49:56 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
> Tom Wesley wrote:
>
>> Should kmail, kopete etc not be using their own version numbers with
>> the meta-packages being versioned based on the kde release number?
>> IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete
>> website, finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that
>> portage only has 3.4.
>
>
> Would that mean individual masks on >= 3.0.0 versions for each of
> these tools? Sounds scary...
>
> Wkr,
>     Sven Vermeulen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] KDE 3.4.0; reminder - there are split ebuilds
> From:
> Dan Armak <danarmak@g.o>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:16:06 +0200
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm unmasking the KDE 3.4.0 ebuilds now, and wanted to remind anyone who
>missed this fact that starting with this release, we're providing split
>ebuilds. That means you can 'emerge konqueror kmail' rather than 'emerge
>kdebase kdepim'. Details and FAQ at
>http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell
> From:
> Dan Armak <danarmak@g.o>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:19:35 +0200
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Wednesday 16 March 2005 17:41, Chris White wrote:
>
>
>>So.. basically:
>>
>>1) libungif and giflib both install -lgif
>>2) They don't block each other
>>3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header
>>file (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)
>>
>>So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on
>>this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
>>
>>
>Bug 18820. This's been around forever...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds
> From:
> Dan Armak <danarmak@g.o>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:29:21 +0200
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>On Tuesday 15 March 2005 21:25, Tom Wesley wrote:
>
>
>>Hey
>>
>>I've seen several queries regarding KDE's new split ebuilds and the
>>version numbers used for specific packages.  It seems that all of the
>>KDE 3.4 packages have been versioned as 3.4.
>>
>>Should kmail, kopete etc not be using their own version numbers with the
>>meta-packages being versioned based on the kde release number?
>>IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete website,
>>finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only
>>has 3.4.
>>
>>
>In my experience most KDE users have no idea offhand what the individual app
>versions are and which versions belong to which kde.org release. They'd be
>confused.
>
>If a lot of users told me I'm wrong, I guess I'd be willing to concede this
>point...
>
>BTW, what do other distros use?
>
>Another problem is that there are a few KDE devs who are the same: they don't
>bother to put real version numbers on their apps (and especially libs), and
>they stay stuck at 0.0.1, or don't always receive a version number upgrade
>when they change. I can't find an example offhand now, but I remember seeing
>such before...
>
>And a third problem: it'd make it much easier for us to make a versioning/dep
>mistake (think about updating 300 differently-schemed version numbers)
>without noticing.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-dev] SCSI support on next PPC LiveCD?
> From:
> "A. Khattri" <ajai@××××.net>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:03 -0500 (EST)
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
> To:
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
>
>
>Will the next release of the LiveCD for PPC have support for SCSI disks on
>it? The current LiveCD doesn't work on G3-based PowerMacs with SCSI disks.
>
>
>
>

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list