You're probably thinking of this:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=256188
It's a relatively rare bug, but it is quite annoying when it does happen.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
There are three blockers holding baselayout-2/openrc back, none
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:39 on Tuesday 26 October 2010, Dean Matzkov
did opine thusly:
You're probably thinking of this:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=256188
It's a relatively rare bug, but it is quite annoying when it does happen.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Alan
- Original Message
From: Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha
come *before* release candidate? :)
Yes, but:
2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99
It should
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT), BRM wrote:
2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99
It should also come after 2.2, but I appear to have missed that
release.
Why? 2.2 == 2.2.0
Not in portage's eyes.
So 2.2.0_alpha1 would make a logical progression.
Since when did an
On 10/23/2010 5:03 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
coming out every day at the moment,.
I'm waiting for
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:30:55 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
Maybe someone decided that Gentoo is not Debian and 99 release
candidates should be enough for a bunch of python scripts.
Looks like someone agrees with you:
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91]
Although,
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 10:30 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
Looks like someone agrees with you:
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91]
Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha
come *before* release candidate? :)
One could argue that if you've had as many
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:30 on Sunday 24 October 2010, Mike
Edenfield did opine thusly:
On 10/23/2010 5:03 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
certainly reliable, but
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha
come *before* release candidate? :)
Yes, but:
2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99
It should also come after 2.2, but I appear to have missed that release.
99 release
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
coming out every day at the moment,.
I'm waiting for tomorrow
On Friday 22 October 2010 21:52:18 Dale wrote:
I'm just hoping that when the switch comes, it is painless.
It was for me - so much so that I wondered what all the fuss had been
about.
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 02:48:58AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:50 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak
Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:
It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that.
Until someone actually ponies up and commits something
On 22 October 2010 11:02, James wirel...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
Hello,
Well here it seems that openrc is going ~arch
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-688090.html
So has it been decided that openrc is the way forward?
Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
Just to put in my
Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
# genlop -l | grep openrc
Thu Apr 24 14:05:53 2008 sys-apps/openrc-0.2.2
I've been running baselayout2/openrc oder 2.5 years now without any
problems. Of course this does not mean it will run smoothly on your
gentoo box.
As I recall
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:13:16 +0200
Michael Hampicke wrote:
Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
# genlop -l | grep openrc
Thu Apr 24 14:05:53 2008 sys-apps/openrc-0.2.2
I've been running baselayout2/openrc oder 2.5 years now without any
problems. Of course this does not
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:18:38 -0400, David Relson wrote:
As I recall upgrading to b2/openrc involves lots of changed config
files (mostly conf.d init init.d), so you have to be a little
careful.
My recollection was of
(1) being scared that I'd get the changes wrong for baselayout2
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote:
Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
# genlop -l | grep openrc
Thu Apr 24 14:05:53 2008 sys-apps/openrc-0.2.2
I've been running baselayout2/openrc oder 2.5 years now without any
problems. Of course
On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
the devs decide to flip a keyword.
I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of Roy
Marples, who was
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:19:51 +0100, Stroller wrote:
... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that
when the devs decide to flip a keyword.
I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of
Roy
Am 22.10.2010 17:06, schrieb Paul Hartman:
Same here, no problems since day 1 in fully ~amd64 Gentoo system.
Same here (just for the records).
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:19 on Friday 22 October 2010, Stroller did
opine thusly:
On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
the devs decide to flip a
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:54:25PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:19:51 +0100, Stroller wrote:
... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that
when the devs decide to flip a keyword.
I thought
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:19 on Friday 22 October 2010, Stroller did
opine thusly:
On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
the
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:37 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak
Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:
I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457
370.xml
An interesting read, until
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:52 on Friday 22 October 2010, Dale did
opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:19 on Friday 22 October 2010, Stroller
did
opine thusly:
On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
... Openrc will be stabilised at
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:59:18PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:37 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak
Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:
I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too. It is coming
but just not sure when. Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting
closer to that time. It, like some of the newer versions of portage,
appears to be stable and is
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too. It is coming
but just not sure when. Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting
closer to that time. It, like some of the newer versions of portage,
appears
On 22 Oct 2010, at 21:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
Did you and I read the same mail thread? I read all of it - did you?
Apparently you have poorer reading comprehension that I do:
That Gentoo-dev thread was 3 or 4 months ago, and I haven't read all of it
today.
I would stand by my advice:
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:50 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak
Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:
It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that.
Until someone actually ponies up and commits something other than openrc
to the tree, it's gonna stay on openrc.
I
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:13 on Saturday 23 October 2010, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too. It is coming
but just not sure when. Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:26 on Saturday 23 October 2010, Dale did
opine thusly:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too. It is coming
but just not sure when. Me, I'm not switching until it
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:43 on Saturday 23 October 2010, Stroller
did opine thusly:
On 22 Oct 2010, at 21:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
Did you and I read the same mail thread? I read all of it - did you?
Apparently you have poorer reading comprehension that I do:
That
Hello,
Well here it seems that openrc is going ~arch
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-688090.html
So has it been decided that openrc is the way forward?
Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
James
That post is 2 years old. IMHO something that's not been stabalized in that long of a period of time
is worth waiting for unless you full on ~arch already.
That said, I use Calculate linux which is mostly stable but has OpenRC by default and I don't have
any issues.
On 10/22/10 12:02, James
35 matches
Mail list logo
