Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:00:59AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: Roy: [[ or [? Entirely depends on system. OpenRC uses /bin/sh to process the actual init script. We rely on /bin/sh claiming POSIX compat [1]. On Gentoo Linux systems, this is normally a link to bash, so you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 07 June 2009 15:59:50 Robin H. Johnson wrote: 1. OpenRC will provide /libexec/rc/version, a text file containing the version (possible including a git ID) of the release. that requires us to actually utilize /libexec/ which is not a Linux convention on any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 08 June 2009 06:12:04 Roy Marples wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 07 June 2009 15:59:50 Robin H. Johnson wrote: 1. OpenRC will provide /libexec/rc/version, a text file containing the version (possible including a git ID) of the release. that requires

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Joe Peterson wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: maybe, but since we arent going to use /libexec/ at this time, that means /etc is the next best place How about /usr/share/openrc/version? The only dirs that are guaranteed to be available at boot are /dev /etc /lib /bin /sbin Plus these OS

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 08 June 2009 06:35:37 Roy Marples wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 08 June 2009 06:12:04 Roy Marples wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 07 June 2009 15:59:50 Robin H. Johnson wrote: 1. OpenRC will provide /libexec/rc/version, a text file containing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Frysinger wrote: the original discussion made it sound like /etc/openrc-version always existed independent of libexec That is incorrect. Thanks Roy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Frysinger wrote: i didnt see any real discussion of /sbin/functions.sh ... i dont recall there being a reason historically for not checking for this file to detect baselayout-1 vs openrc, and no one has complained about its usage in mdadm ... That works as a baselayout-1 vs openrc test.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Frysinger wrote: if openrc versions are causing a level of incompatibility, then it should itself be setting up an env var for init.d scripts to key off of rather than having to figure out what's going on via the filesystem. the point of this thread is to detect baselayout-1 vs openrc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 08 June 2009 09:09:43 Roy Marples wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: if openrc versions are causing a level of incompatibility, then it should itself be setting up an env var for init.d scripts to key off of rather than having to figure out what's going on via

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-07 Thread Roy Marples
Josh Saddler wrote: Also, if OpenRC/baselayout is dropping support for things like PPP or ADSL[1], and will not guarantee a stable configuration (i.e. as final as baselayout-1 has been, not needing constant user-side updates)[2] . . . then we need to find some other solution for our users.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

2009-06-07 Thread Roy Marples
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:02:44AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Robin H Johnson wrote: 2. Right now, every init.d script that needs to detection should revbump and change to the following: [[ -f /lib/librc.so -o -f /etc/init.d/sysfs -o -f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout 2 stabilisation todo

2009-05-25 Thread Roy Marples
Robert Buchholz wrote: On Saturday 23 May 2009, Roy Marples wrote: Basically as Doug said, each OpenRC version comes with a few big chances. Well not massive as in your box will break now, but just a different spin on how things should work. OpenRC-0.5 will have the biggest re-spin to date

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout 2 stabilisation todo

2009-05-24 Thread Roy Marples
Mike Auty wrote: Roy Marples wrote: Attached is the new conf.d/net sample. Sorry, I missed those. Did lists.g.o remove them, or were they not attached? As such, a side project I've started is a new ifconfig tool [1] to handle everything from vlans, to bridging, to bonding, to wireless

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout 2 stabilisation todo

2009-05-23 Thread Roy Marples
Alin Năstac wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: The only reason why OpenRC has not come up for stabilization by it's maintainers is the fact that everytime there's a new version readied for release, on the horizon there's new incompatible changes being planned for the next version. The OpenRC

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout 2 stabilisation todo

2009-05-23 Thread Roy Marples
Roy Marples wrote: One side effect of this is that daemons such was wpa_supplicant and PPP are now init scripts proper - this is good. The only downside is that you lose the ability to control each interface via init.d. Instead I propose you control this via ifconfig. Uh, so in summary any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Roy Marples
On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

2008-06-11 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 19:00:16 David Leverton wrote: On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote: David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real. For those of us

Re: [gentoo-dev] A few questions to our nominees

2008-06-09 Thread Roy Marples
On Monday 09 June 2008 09:06:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: So how, specifically, is PMS wrongly written, and why hasn't anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details? Probably because you have such a long history of saying it's broken without providing any details. Even when asked you sometimes

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

2008-05-31 Thread Roy Marples
On Saturday 31 May 2008 00:16:31 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Ok, then everything in the tree is covered and we can move to having --as-needed as default. Is the next version of everything in the tree covered? Have you made sure that software isn't merely working by fluke? We interupt this

Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?

2008-04-24 Thread Roy Marples
On Thursday 24 April 2008 00:01:01 Robin H. Johnson wrote: The problem in this is that you cannot set the properties for each address or route. Please don't take us back to the stoneage of writing the advanced networking configuration manually. As an example of an ip address line with

Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?

2008-04-24 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 23:01:38 Graham Murray wrote: Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote: See my attached example from work, we use a lot of the various options on stuff. No, we won't support that. However, we will bring

[gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?

2008-04-23 Thread Roy Marples
OK, it seems that hard lines in multipart configs seem to be an issue, so I'm doing this now. For a summary of why we're using hard lines you can read this thread http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/45756/focus=45765 Basically, just using whitespace to seperate configs is nice and

Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?

2008-04-23 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 19:46:35 Joe Peterson wrote: Roy Marples wrote: config_eth0=1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0 5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0 routes_eth0=1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6 5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10 default gw 1.2.3.1 If one choose to separate by lines, will tabs

Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?

2008-04-23 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:27PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: OK, it seems that hard lines in multipart configs seem to be an issue, so I'm doing this now. For a summary of why we're using hard lines you can read this thread

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

2008-03-25 Thread Roy Marples
On Monday 24 March 2008 22:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote: we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ? It now supports per module per kernel version arguments. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Testing to see if services have crashed on hardened

2008-03-21 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 21 March 2008 10:37:11 Fabian Groffen wrote: Assuming you would use libkvm, on Darwin this means as unprivileged user (not using suid) you can't see any processes at all. That's different from FreeBSD and NetBSD then. This isn't really an easy answer, as we could have installed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Testing to see if services have crashed on hardened

2008-03-21 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 21 March 2008 10:44:12 Natanael Copa wrote: err... run rc-status as root? I mean if you are not supposed to see if a process is running or not as normal user, then hardned is doin it's job when does not allow rc-status to show this info to the unprivileged user. if (!HARDENED ||

Re: [gentoo-dev] Testing to see if services have crashed on hardened

2008-03-21 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 21 March 2008 12:39:48 Natanael Copa wrote: /* pid 1 is most likely owned by root */ hardened = pid_is_running(1); if (!hardened || (hardened euid==0) { OK, we'll go with that for the time being. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

2008-03-20 Thread Roy Marples
On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote: I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun. I already provide documentation with commands

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March

2008-03-10 Thread Roy Marples
On Monday 10 March 2008 05:21:51 Alec Warner wrote: Did freeBSD not care if you knew what you were doing? What happens if you totally screw up your package? What happens if you do something malicious? Gentoo has a cvs-commit mailing list, so everyone knows if they care enough. I suggest you

[gentoo-dev] OpenRC-0.1 released

2008-03-08 Thread Roy Marples
OK, this the only release post I'll make here :) OpenRC-0.1 has been released. It successfully boots Gentoo/Linux, Gentoo/FreeBSD, FreeBSD-7 and NetBSD-4. It works (for me) in an unprivileged prefix as well. It's pretty much feature complete for a first release. What's left is fixing any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March

2008-03-05 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 17:11:58 Anant Narayanan wrote: If it's not too late for this month's meeting, I'd like to discuss the possibility of including a new post in our developer base - the package maintainer. a) The requirements to become a package maintainer for Gentoo may be lesser

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008

2008-03-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Thursday 28 February 2008 11:22:13 Roy Marples wrote: So the only thing left (aside from bug fixing) is to instruct OpenRC dependency code that it's in a prefix and to respect the noprefix keyword in services, or to provide dummy services. This is now done. I have OpenRC fully working

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008

2008-03-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:53:20 +0100, Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 03-03-2008 13:36:25 +, Roy Marples wrote: On Thursday 28 February 2008 11:22:13 Roy Marples wrote: So the only thing left (aside from bug fixing) is to instruct OpenRC dependency code that it's in a prefix

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008

2008-03-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:50:49 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For hpux fex this just is adding some symlinks: /sbin/init.d/name - /my/prefix/sbin/init.d/distccd /sbin/rc3.d/S990name - /sbin/init.d/name # to start in runlevel 3 /sbin/rc2.d/K100name - /sbin/init.d/name

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?

2008-03-01 Thread Roy Marples
On Saturday 01 March 2008 22:26:24 Ed W wrote: Hmm, all interesting stuff You mention in the notes also that openrc has some kind of keepalive function which can restart crashing services. Can point me towards how that works (assuming it needs some kind of config?) No such function :) We

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?

2008-02-29 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote: On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?

2008-02-29 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 29 February 2008 15:56:44 Ed W wrote: Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Check out OpenRC it is baselayout successor and works great! Funnily enough I came across this earlier today for different reasons. However, I hadn't realised that it was a full baselayout competitor? Does Roy hang out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?

2008-02-29 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 29 February 2008 18:32:44 Stefan Hellermann wrote: I just tried openrc and I really like it! All the things changed from baselayout-2.0.0-rc6 are really good ideas! good work! Thanks! :) Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start

Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?

2008-02-29 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 29 February 2008 23:23:34 Ed Wildgoose wrote: [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I guess I could just check it out instead of asking but What's missing from the busybox

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008

2008-02-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:42:05 +0100, Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - baselayout porting to Prefix (mostly the start stop mechanisms) What start stop mechanics do you mean? OpenRC already has full FreeBSD jail support in services like do depend() { keyword nojail; } That effectively

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008

2008-02-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:29:15 +0100, Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... that's great! But a jail or a (ch)root is in general not the same as a prefix. No, but it's the same kettle of fish as chroots, jails and vps systems - basically there is a need to disable dependencies that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008

2008-02-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 14:21:58 Fabian Groffen wrote: On 27-02-2008 13:56:51 +, Roy Marples wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:29:15 +0100, Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... that's great! But a jail or a (ch)root is in general not the same as a prefix

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

2008-02-18 Thread Roy Marples
On Monday 18 February 2008 21:20:52 Donnie Berkholz wrote: @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ # @DESCRIPTION: # DEPRECATED - Gets the flags needed for NOW binding bindnow-flags() { - ewarn QA: stop using the bindnow-flags function ... simply drop it from your ebuild + ewarn QA: stop using the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Roy Marples
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:48 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: In my opinion WIPE_TMP should be in the same state as RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP. That's a fair point. Luckily, the all the Gentoo init scripts that all my computers use are now at the stage where we could easily flick parallel startup on by

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to force homedir on enewuser

2008-01-18 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 06:41 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: right, there is no way (by design) to force these settings on an already created user. if the old path really truly should not be the old value, you can do something like this in pkg_setup: if [[ $(egetent passwd user | cut -d: -f6)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2008-01-09 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it can't be *that* bad. So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root access? In your world you allow mips users to trivially install now flawed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

2008-01-09 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 18:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:27:52 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it can't be *that* bad. So

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:58 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: At: default.mk, the _SUBDIR loop is somehow incorrect, as it will not pass subdir make result to rule. So if rule fails the build still considered a success. make[1]: *** [start-stop-daemon.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** Waiting for

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 12:02 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On 1/3/08, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I knew there was a reason for not adding digests :) I've removed them for now. Why remove?!?!?! This way we cannot use layman in order to sync with your changes. Because Gentoo/Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:50 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: it also means a deprecation notice needs to be added here and everywhere else that has changed. perhaps create a small script that takes the /etc/modules.autoload.d/ directory and converts it into the corresponding

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 16:24 +, Roy Marples wrote: On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:50 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: it also means a deprecation notice needs to be added here and everywhere else that has changed. perhaps create a small script that takes the /etc/modules.autoload.d

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-03 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:49 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: while is_older_than is negotiable, removing KV_* is not. those are pretty tight utility functions which duplication in $random-packages will only lead to problems (especially considering the history of making sure they were coded

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 16:39 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On 1/1/08, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It took me some time to find /etc/conf.d/modules, but it's certainly useful :). It also means all config files, with the exceptions of fstab and rc.conf are in conf.d and not some

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 17:15 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On 1/2/08, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those functions were removed from functions.sh as only update-modules still uses them. udev does use KV_to_int though. I don't really want to add those functions back. Although we could

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: brltty not starting early enough

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 14:50 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: brltty is one of our accessibility packages. It is a program that drives a braille display which is one way a blind person can access the computer. The project's guidelines for linux distributions at

[gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
Hi List 2008 is here and it's time for some change! OpenRC is now ready for testing. There are no ebuilds in the tree, but some are available here [1] that offers a baselayout-2 shell that pulls in openrc-. I'll just offer a git ebuild for the time being, so bugs can be fixed fast without

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
Uh, forgot the link :) http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=dev/uberlord.git;a=summary -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 18:55 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Thanks! Works! Roy, why didn't you digest and commit the files? Dunno. Have now done so. Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: brltty not starting early enough

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 11:11 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 12:27:24PM +, Roy Marples wrote: Just make a standard init script for it with this dependency block depend() { before checkfs } Would it be safe to change this to before checkroot'? Some scripts

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 19:22 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Thanks for adding digest, but: Calculating dependencies /!!! Digest verification failed: !!! /usr/portage/local/layman/openrc/sys-apps/openrc/openrc-.ebuild !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size !!! Got: 3629 !!!

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: brltty not starting early enough

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 12:04 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 05:19:39PM +, Roy Marples wrote: Some scripts do run before checkroot, such as clock. clock should be the first script started, so if you want it to go really early then My goal is to have the braille

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.

2008-01-01 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 20:16 +0100, Thomas Pani wrote: Works fine here (x86). Having set both RC_{QUIET,VERBOSE}=no it's a little more verbose than what I'm used to (especially udev loading madwifi) but that's early enough in the boot sequence not to bug me. That's a udev issue, not a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-29 Thread Roy Marples
On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 23:20 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:16:22 +0100 Federico Ferri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sorry if this has already suggested. It has. It solves nothing. If it solves nothing you should at least post a link to the post you made explaining so,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 04:16 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On 12/25/07, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. So do you use an EAPI 0 environment to do the sourcing, or an EAPI 1 environment, or what? If it's that such a big deal, then simply ensure that Thankyou for reading

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:39 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote: Roy Marples wrote: I understand that metadata in a file name is pure and simple hackery that has no place here and the GLEP is a flimsy attempt to justify it. Do you count version as metadata? No. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:04:52 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that metadata in a file name is pure and simple hackery that has no place here and the GLEP is a flimsy attempt to justify it. Alright, so where

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:45:06 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alright, so where would you stick EAPI such that all the requirements that've previously been described are met? I neither know, nor care. I just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Or to put it another way, you're objecting to painting the house pink rather than green because you don't like pink (because your last house was green too), ignoring that it's been demonstrated that when painted green, it's impossible

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-27 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 18:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:27 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Or to put it another way, you're objecting to painting the house pink rather than green because you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-25 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:43 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Dec 25, 2007 2:38 AM, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:26 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always

Re: [gentoo-dev] Good-bye

2007-12-25 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 15:51 +0800, Shyam Mani wrote: PS : Aam chahiye kya? :) Note : The above line means Do you want a Mango? in Hindi. If any of you *ever* meet Seemant, don't forget to ask him this :D It's what he does with it that scares me o_O ;) Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-24 Thread Roy Marples
Just picked this particular email to reply with my thoughts on this thread. On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 10:52 +, Steve Long wrote: But they come under the scope of this discussion, since this is about the long-term future of *every* EAPI. So let's discuss them Impossible. History has proven

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: PMS location (Was: Re: EAPI placement)

2007-12-24 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 21:39 +, Duncan wrote: Apparently, at present, pretty much the only one with access is the one who actually did the port, and he's hasn't done much with it since. I beg to differ - I've down an awful lot with the code. It now installs and works cleanly on a vanilla

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: PMS location (Was: Re: EAPI placement)

2007-12-24 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 19:52 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: The CVS stuff should have been locked out already, not sure how you tested that. I didn't. I assumed that as I had access to d.g.o, I had CVS access too. My bad. The Git stuff is coming very shortly (probably as a Christmas gift from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]

2007-12-24 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:26 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always do EAPI=`. /path/to/ebuild.ebuild; echo ${EAPI}` Doesn't work with current ebuilds, nor future ebuilds. No points! Works

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to pass list of paths to eclass?

2007-12-13 Thread Roy Marples
On Thursday 13 December 2007 09:18:45 Peter Volkov wrote: 2. Modify ebuilds to use arrays. -FONT_CONF=path1 path2 +FONT_CONF=( path1 path2 ) Why not use a function in pkg_setup as suggested earlier and pass each path component as $1, $2, etc. Then the ebuild itself doesn't actually care

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to pass list of paths to eclass?

2007-12-11 Thread Roy Marples
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 08:17:12 Peter Volkov wrote: Some eclasses (kernel-2, font) use variable to pass space separated PATH to patch or fontconfig files from ebuild to eclass. In ebuild we use: FONT_CONF=path1 path2 Then eclasses use the variable: for conffile in ${FONT_CONF}; do

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to pass list of paths to eclass?

2007-12-11 Thread Roy Marples
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 08:44:51 Donnie Berkholz wrote: Roy solved a similar problem in baselayout-2 using hardcoded newlines, although it had the additional constraint of sh compatibility. It's worth considering code clarity between that and arrays. Only because some commands could

Re: [gentoo-dev] How to pass list of paths to eclass?

2007-12-11 Thread Roy Marples
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 11:14:49 Peter Volkov wrote: That way you work the same way as the classic $PATH variable. But this seems to fail if we have ':' inside path{1,2}. Is that true? For PATH the same question stands, but I think that ':' is used there for historical reasons. Yes,

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-06 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:03 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:40:20 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which package manager is being used

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-05 Thread Roy Marples
While I still have access to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email, I'll respond here. On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47 +, Roy Marples wrote: As it seems too few people really accept your suggestion, I feel it's time for me to chime

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-05 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 14:21 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: Actually you missed the mark completely. Nothing in the tree itself specifies what shell to use - instead it's the package manager. So the PM on Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD *could* be /bin/sh and on the systems where /bin/sh is not

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-05 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 16:21 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: we want the installed environment to be portable, not the build environment. i do not see any benefit from forcing the build environment to be pure POSIX compliant and i see many many detrimental problems. Oh I don't know. Imagine how

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-05 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which package manager is being used. If you want to change that you'll have to rewrite the entire tree. Az once said near enough the same thing about baselayout. And that's

Re: [gentoo-dev] More general interface to use flags

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 11:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: wrong. the point of the discussion on the gentoo dev mailing list is to go over the exported API for *ebuilds*, not for the implementation. the implementation is already baked and really, Marijn shouldnt have sent it to the gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] More general interface to use flags

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 02 November 2007, Roy Marples wrote: On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 14:44 +0100, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: [[ ${flag} = !* ]] { success=1 ; flag=${flag:1} } Could be written as irrelevant, thanks My mail was relevant

Re: [gentoo-dev] More general interface to use flags

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 15:27 +0100, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: ifz() { [[ $1 = 0 ]] echo $2 || echo $3 } And that could be written as [ $1 = 0 ] echo $2 || echo $3 Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] More general interface to use flags

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 14:44 +0100, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: [[ ${flag} = !* ]] { success=1 ; flag=${flag:1} } Could be written as [ ${flag#!} != ${flag} ] { success=1; flag=${flag#!}; } string=$( (( ${success} == 0 )) echo ${string_success} || echo ${string_failure} ) [[ -n

Re: [gentoo-dev] More general interface to use flags

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 11:58 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: and the answer is still the same. POSIX conversions are irrelevant until you can propose solutions for the things bash can do but POSIX cannot. you can only provide workarounds or hacks, so any further attempt on the topic is half

Re: [gentoo-dev] More general interface to use flags

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 18:17 +0100, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: On Friday 02 November 2007 17:52:13 Roy Marples wrote: On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:30 +0100, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Please explain why you hijack this thread to discuss POSIX vs. bash when it's supposed to be about the API

Re: [gentoo-dev] More general interface to use flags

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:30 +0100, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Please explain why you hijack this thread to discuss POSIX vs. bash when it's supposed to be about the API for ebuilds. I dislike the gratuitous use of bash for no good reason - and in the code he gave there is no good reason for

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +, Roy Marples wrote: I don't see them as inferior. I see them as more portable and less confusing. Please stop calling it more portable. But is it more portable as then then works across more than one

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +, Roy Marples wrote: I don't see them as inferior. I see them as more portable and less confusing. Please stop calling it more portable. The shell code you see in configure can in a way be called

Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and portable

2007-11-02 Thread Roy Marples
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: Please stop calling it more portable. The shell code you see in configure can in a way be called portable. Your POSIX compliant stuff isn't. In fact, by stating #!/bin/sh you actually make the code useless on a number of platforms,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/webmin: ChangeLog webmin-1.370-r1.ebuild

2007-10-31 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 22:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 10:36 Tue 30 Oct , Roy Marples (uberlord) wrote: 1.1 app-admin/webmin/webmin-1.370-r1.ebuild file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-admin/webmin/webmin-1.370-r1.ebuild?rev=1.1view

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:40 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: When HAL evaluated the usage of libpci the following issues were identified: 1) increased memory usage, to the point that HAL was not usable on the OLPC project 2) ABI breakage between patch revisions (i.e. x.y.z and x.y.z+1 were

Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinions Wanted - Arrays again :)

2007-10-29 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:40 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: array=1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8; \* 'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4 -I 'option; $FOO with spaces' Everyone who commented has agreed that this is the most readable, maintainable and documentable. As such I've comitted a patch

Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinions Wanted - Arrays again :)

2007-10-26 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 23:13 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: Can I vote for none of the above? :) Sure you can - provided you come up with an alternative approach to the problem :) 1 * Yes, that appears to be every ones thought so far. Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinions Wanted - Arrays again :)

2007-10-26 Thread Roy Marples
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 15:56 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 22:49 Thu 25 Oct , Roy Marples wrote: On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:31 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Is there any way we could avoid these altogether, and instead use separate variables for each array element? Well, we

  1   2   3   4   >