[gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --]

Hi all,

This is a formal notice that monolithic X is no longer supported.
Developers with X-dependent packages may pull the || virtual/x11 section
and retain just the modular dep list. Monolithic X will receive no
further security updates, and is currently subject to at least one local
security vulnerability.

As soon as overlays.gentoo.org supports git, I'll move the monolithic
ebuild into an X overlay and out of the tree. Until then, it will remain
in the tree as a courtesy. Monolithic users may have to use
package.provided because packages will no longer support virtual/x11.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 593 bytes --]

On Saturday 09 September 2006 20:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is a formal notice that monolithic X is no longer supported.

awesome !

> Developers with X-dependent packages may pull the || virtual/x11 section
> and retain just the modular dep list. Monolithic X will receive no
> further security updates, and is currently subject to at least one local
> security vulnerability.

so we're clear (cause i might have just missed it on irc) but there will be 
a "meta monolithic" ebuild right ?  one that has all the same deps as what 
the current monolithic provides ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 481 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so we're clear (cause i might have just missed it on irc) but there will be 
> a "meta monolithic" ebuild right ?  one that has all the same deps as what 
> the current monolithic provides ?

Not planning on it. There will be the xorg-x11 metabuild that provides a
recommended set of applications, fonts and libraries, but it will not
provide everything. If people want weird crap like xeyes, they can
install it on their own.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

On Saturday 09 September 2006 22:46, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > so we're clear (cause i might have just missed it on irc) but there will
> > be a "meta monolithic" ebuild right ?  one that has all the same deps as
> > what the current monolithic provides ?
>
> Not planning on it. There will be the xorg-x11 metabuild that provides a
> recommended set of applications, fonts and libraries, but it will not
> provide everything. If people want weird crap like xeyes, they can
> install it on their own.

how about a local USE flag like "all-the-junk-in-the-trunk" ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 301 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> how about a local USE flag like "all-the-junk-in-the-trunk" ?

Why? Just makes more work for us, for no apparent reason. I'd rather be
able to pull unused stuff from the tree after a while than add a new
option to install stuff nobody will ever run.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Steev Klimaszewski]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> how about a local USE flag like "all-the-junk-in-the-trunk" ?
> 
> Why? Just makes more work for us, for no apparent reason. I'd rather be
> able to pull unused stuff from the tree after a while than add a new
> option to install stuff nobody will ever run.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
I think SpanKY just wants a junk-in-the-trunk useflag...


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Stephen P. Becker]

Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> how about a local USE flag like "all-the-junk-in-the-trunk" ?
>> Why? Just makes more work for us, for no apparent reason. I'd rather be
>> able to pull unused stuff from the tree after a while than add a new
>> option to install stuff nobody will ever run.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donnie
>>
> I think SpanKY just wants a junk-in-the-trunk useflag...

Why won't we just call it spankysmom?

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

[Steev Klimaszewski]

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> how about a local USE flag like "all-the-junk-in-the-trunk" ?
>>> Why? Just makes more work for us, for no apparent reason. I'd rather be
>>> able to pull unused stuff from the tree after a while than add a new
>>> option to install stuff nobody will ever run.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donnie
>>>
>> I think SpanKY just wants a junk-in-the-trunk useflag...
> 
> Why won't we just call it spankysmom?
> 
> -Steve
Because then it would have to be global not local...
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list