Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed change to savedconfig.eclass

2010-03-07 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:39:32 -0500 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:03:16 Jeroen Roovers wrote: If no one objects, I will look forward to committing the patch in a week or two. commit it already :p Thanks for the reminder. In the same commit have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed change to savedconfig.eclass

2010-03-07 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:16:24 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: While you're touching this, could you improve this part a bit: # maybe the user is screwing around with perms they shouldnt #289168 if [[ ! -r ${base} ]] ; then eerror Unable to read ${base} -- perms are screwed ? die fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed change to savedconfig.eclass

2010-03-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:03:16 Jeroen Roovers wrote: If no one objects, I will look forward to committing the patch in a week or two. commit it already :p -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] Proposed change to savedconfig.eclass

2010-02-24 Thread Jeroen Roovers
Hello developers, this has annoyed me for a long time. restore_config() dies when it cannot find a saved config file, while later on in any ebuild that uses savedconfig.eclass, it will save the config file anyhow. That means it will not use an edited saved config file during the first

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed change to savedconfig.eclass

2010-02-24 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
While you're touching this, could you improve this part a bit: # maybe the user is screwing around with perms they shouldnt #289168 if [[ ! -r ${base} ]] ; then eerror Unable to read ${base} -- perms are screwed ? die fix your system fi I understand frustration caused by weird things people