User talk:Maffblaster

From Gentoo Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Maffblaster/Archive 1 on 2016-09-29.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to the terms of use for this wiki.

full build - rebuild - deploy example / case study

Tox2ik (Talkcontribs)

Hi Maffblastier,

This is about;

Would it be appropriate to add a section under advanced topics where I share my experiences and lay out one specific strategy for automating the update process of my computer at work?

in a nutshell I do this:

on the build-host (two times a month):

1. clone portage and stage 3

2. copy configs from work-computer:/etc/portage

3. rebuild @system, predefined sets, @world from work-computer using existing packages if possible

4. publish the packages and the portage snapshot

on the work-computer (next day / week)

1. sync portage snapshot from build host

2. emerge binaries from a public location

3. fix issues (use, mask, accept keywords, remove deprecated stuff)

4. update configuration, then push that (so build host gets the fixes)

I have been doing this on an amateur basis with varying degree of success for ten years and I think it would be a great addition to this guide. Granted if my examples are not too quirky and focus on teaching practices and habits, rather than providing a very specific 280-line script.

I know I'd appreciate reading something like that ten years ago.

The reason I'm asking is because maybe you know a more fitting place for such a howto / guide.

Summary by Maffblaster

Added to the testers list.

Keks24 (Talkcontribs)

 Hi Maffblaster,

I would like to test your installer when it is finished. :)

Off topic: How did you edit the discussion page to look like this?

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Hi Keks24 , I have added you to the list of testers.

I converted this discussion page to use Flow. At the moment, only wiki administrators can enable Flow for discussion pages. I enabled it here (and a couple other spots) to test it. It's still a bit buggy, so we're waiting on upstream to squash the bugs.

One year old issue

Walter (Talkcontribs)

Please take another look at which is yet to be added to the Handbook. Walter (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Hi Walter, I replied to your discussion over a year ago as well. Did you see my response?

Walter (Talkcontribs)

Yes it said you would take a look however I did not observe any changes. That's why I nudged you. I am beyond caring at this point. Honestly it's just sad how slow things change in Gentoo land, very demotivating for we sometime contributors.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I'm sad to hear that. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first response. I suggested you implement these steps in the Security Handbook using wiki markup, then I was going to take a look about editing them and adding them to the Handbooks that are not editable. It is much easier for me to read though wiki markup in existing documents rather than write/create something from scratch. I've been handing the Handbook much like the way Linus Torvalds handles the Linux kernel project. Basically I just merge 'patches' now until I have enough time to write more content.

For me being one of the only active Handbook project members in recent months (along with balancing other priorities in life along with other Gentoo tasks) it has been challenging to perform more edits in the main Handbook. But for you, I will make this a todo item so that it gets completed soon. I cannot promise exactly when, but I'll try to get it done as you requested.

tar not work porperly

Islamisaev (Talkcontribs)

when I try extract tar by using command tar xpf stage3-*.tar.{bz2,xz} --xattrs-include='*.*' --numeric-owner get error

livecd /mnt/gentoo # tar xpf stage3-*.tar.{bz2,xz} --xattrs-include='*.*' --numeric-owner tar: stage3-*.tar.bz2: Cannot open: No such file or directory tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now

Feng (Talkcontribs)

The command uses a wrong parameter because of the brace expansion. "The brace expansion uses a mechanism similar to filename expansion but the filenames generated need not exist".

In this case, we've got two filenames but the file stage3-*.tar.bz2 does not exist.

Feng (Talkcontribs)

In my opinion, it would be easier to ask the reader to specify the correct filename.

Otherwise, we can use the following argument but the extglob shell option must be enable.

$ shopt -s extglob

$ tar xpf stage3-*.tar.?(bz2|xz) --xattrs-include='*.*' --numeric-owner tar

Feng (Talkcontribs)

See this thread:

Pages with syntax highlighting errors

Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Are you aware you are adding articles to the "Pages with syntax highlighting errors" category? See

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

It is happening 'intentionally' not because my syntax with templates is wrong, but because there seems to be an issue with the wiki add-on that performs the highlighting. It is really a back-end wiki issue and will eventually be cleaned up. Thanks for the heads up, though!

Summary by Maffblaster

Created the Firmware category and placed UEFI inside of it. Firmware is categorically a subset under Core system.

Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Maffblaster, could you please help? I created two new categories, and. Both are obviously mis-categorized in. Do you have a better idea where these new categories should go? Best Regards — Charles17

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I need more information. What do you mean they are 'obviously miss-categorized'? Please provide some links and more information.

Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Sorry for being unclear. The links I've put in my OP are indeed invisible. :-( Meanwhile I've moved the "Authentication" category to become a sub-category of the "Server and Security" category. ( ) For the "UEFI" category ( ) I am not sure where it should go. "Core system", "Hardware", "Software", ... Best Regards — Charles17

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

UEFI is motherboard firmware, so perhaps we need a "Firmware" category with UEFI as a subset. Also BIOS and Linux firmware are also subsets.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I have created the Firmware category and have placed UEFI and BIOS articles within it. Firmware is now a subset of the Core system category (which is where it makes the most sense IMHO).

Summary by Maffblaster

Fixed mistake.

Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Sorry, but what is the intention of your edit [1]?

I am not aware of anything putting examples into that file when syncing. Did I miss something? Or did you mean to refer to /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask? If so, I think a mention under »External resources« should be sufficient.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Oh, yes, I meant /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask. Looks like I edited the wrong article. My mistake! I'll move the edit. Thanks for looking out for the wiki.

Using formatting within titles?

SwifT (Talkcontribs)

Hi Maffblaster,

I notice that you often use syntax/formatting directives, like the variable one (<var>...</var>) inside titles. The recent one is within the title of a FileBox usage.

Do you think it makes sense to do so? I find it distracting, too much visual inefficiencies in a small space. In the past (not sure if it is still the case) it also messed up either linking to something (as the title is the anchor, and got the HTML code escaped as part of the anchor name) or searching for strings (as it got chopped up somehow).

Also, as this is formatting behavior, it could result in ugly visualizations if we change the CSS again, as we will look into regular paragraph formatting but not the titles and so.

Personally, I would prefer not to use formatting inside titles of any kind (*Box titles, section titles, page titles, etc.)

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

It makes sense to me to remain consistent across the wiki, but there's no reason for me to be picky about this. If you prefer no formatting inside the titles of *Box templates, I can live with that change. I was simply trying to be consistent with my use of HTML tags (such as <var> or <code> and wasn't counting the titles in *Box templates as visually disrupting as the section headers (I do entirely agree that we don't need or want formatting in the section headers). I don't think I've formatted any text the section headers for a few years time, but I have been definitely guilty of formatting titles of *Box templates. I'll stick with your preference on the *Box templates.

SwifT (Talkcontribs)

Yes, consistency is crucial. If we notice we're not being consistent, or there is ambiguity on the preference, we should document it in the guidelines. The above is my preference, if other users prefer formatting in the *Box titles, then I'll follow suit.

The same goes for linking for instance. Do you mind linking to wiki pages from within *Box titles? I find that distracting, and it gives me a less than professional impression.

Summary by Maffblaster

Ebuild repository should work (grammatically)

Feng (Talkcontribs)

I used the term "ebuilds repository" instead of "ebuild repository", is it correct?

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

It could probably be debated either way. I believe correct grammar would refer to the singular 'ebuild'. Keeping 'ebuild' (singular) would let the wiki remain consistent in the use of the term.

Consider 'source code repository'. Most repositories hold more than one source code file in the repository, but the repository doesn't use the term 'source codes'. Not sure if that is a good example to use or not, but it seems to make sense in my mind. :) Thanks for asking and I hope this helps.

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

Please remove the abusive language in this comment and avoid making remarks like that in the future.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

"Abusive language"? I have a good working relationship with veremit. What is abusive about the comment?

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I'll remove the comment. Turns out the internet doesn't understand sarcasm. The conversation was really between me and veremit. I highly doubt he took personal issues with my statement about his apparent laziness. :P

Sorry to sound like a meanie.

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

I thought that might be the case, but since I've seen your "do it yourself" type of replies getting more and more exasperated, I wasn't sure. In any case, as you say, "the internet doesn't understand sarcasm", so it's probably best we don't have comments like that lying around. :)