Use the search functionality built-in to the wiki.
Gentoo Wiki:Feedback move
Moving Gentoo Wiki:Feedback to Project:Feedback without leaving a redirect was a very bad idea. I think I might understand what you were trying to do, but on this wiki "Project:" is not the same namespace as "Gentoo Wiki:" (as it would be if, say, this were a Wikimedia wiki). What problem were you trying to solve? Because you have left Gentoo Wiki:Feedback as a redlink on all the pages that try to link there (most through the Gentoo Wiki:Suggestions redirect).
Hi Dcljr , wiki team is aware of this issue. It was caused as a byproduct of the MediaWiki updates we recently performed. Unfortunately if it was easy to resolve we would have solved it right now. It has to do with the the way StructuredDiscssions plugin deals with namespaces... It's presently not possible to move the page back to the Gentoo_Wiki namespace. I know it sounds odd, but it's true.
Brian Evans (Grknight) has found that the issue lies in the plugin code itself (see [here https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-Flow/blob/master/maintenance/FlowFixInconsistentBoards.php#L138]).
We're working on a solution. Probably going to have to disable StructuredDiscussions in favor of a better written discussion plugin...
thanks for reporting, though!
Yes. This isn't the best plugin. We may move it somewhere else or disable it at some point.
I've re-redirected Gentoo Wiki:Suggestions to point to the current Project:Feedback page. I have not, however, tried to make Gentoo Wiki:Feedback into a redirect, in case that might break something somehow (if it won't break anything, please create that redirect, since some pages are still trying to link there — including the Main Page).
The fact that no one had yet fixed the broken redirect at Gentoo Wiki:Suggestions in the last 3 weeks makes me wonder about the wisdom of those who are "working on a solution" to this problem....
Could you achieve an alternative solution to this problem? Personally, I find that the quality of service is deteriorating. My suggestion to update the Translate extension was not considered. I am really disappointed with the evolution of Gentoo.
Feng , sorry you feel this way. Which suggestion did you make for the translation extension? It's hard to keep track of things, so I'm not sure I know where you made the suggestion.
Did you suggest this somewhere else on the wiki that I overlooked? I know there are various discussions that I have not been able to review (yet). Only a couple of people looking after the wiki. At this point Brian Evans (Grknight) does a lot of the upgrades on the back end and I'm only having time for helping with the community/front side of the help.
Using formatting within titles?
Updating wiki Guidelines with suggestions by SwifT.
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.)
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.
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.
Looks like it's working.
Looks like it's working OK now...
account merge tar->thinrope
Hello, posting as Thinrope :-)
Hello, posting as Tar :-)
Thanks. I'll add it to my list of things todo.
Gitlab InfoBox Template
Can we create a gitlab infobox template similar to the github one?
Here's the icon,
That URI gives a 404
Switched to latest tagged version.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Template:InfoBox_gitlab already exists. Icons looks like should work via https://fontawesome.com/icons?d=gallery&q=gitlab Don't know why this is don't work for gitlab template
Oh that's how it's implemented. According to the website, Gitlab was added in FontAwesome version 4.6, however it appears that the Gentoo Wiki uses version 4.4.0
Looks like our good buddy maffblaster already knew about this,
[Upgrade font-awesome to 4.7.0 to get the latest icons #11](https://github.com/gentoo/tyrian/pull/11)
I'll try to push to the wiki tonight. Sorry for not getting back to this conversation sooner, Lucas Ramage (Rage) . Been real busy with family, church, and work lately. I opened that pull request before I had infra access to the repositories, but haven't been able to follow up once infra access was granted. :)
I apologize for using the Project template. I didn't see your message about it from the 2nd until now. I wondered why the page changed without my editing it so I changed it back.
I figured that's what happened. I'm going to see if I can short the list based on namespace, then we don't care who will use the
No lead election date set
(and inherited member(s))
template in namespaces that are not for official Project.
full build - rebuild - deploy example / case study
This is about https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Binary_package_guide;
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.
Added to the testers list.
￼ 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?
Hi Ramon Fischer (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
Please take another look at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook_Talk:AMD64/Installation/Stage#Portage_and_stage3_security_recommendations which is yet to be added to the Handbook. Walter (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
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.
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.