On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Hola all.
Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
arch.list
categories
use.desc
use.local.desc
package.mask
updates
Addition to this list: thirdpartymirrors .
~harring
pgpvIGSGfwz7G.pgp
Description:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:43:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
snip
Re: not shoving work onto you, complicating your job, etc, I agree,
and actually is what I was getting at in the badly worded section
below
My point is pretty simple,
why should we spend a bunch
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:57:37AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:17:39AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
Don't mind moving them, BUT
- metadata is a stupid location for them for several reasons
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:24 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Aside from that, the parent implementation could stand a tweak or two.
Further, assuming metapkg goes through, virtual is obsoleted. The
inclusion of GRP_STAGE23_USE also bugs me a bit; yes it works right
now, but what happens when
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Basically stating that if I want the minimal 2005.1 x86 profile to
build my own server profile off of, I can't really use the existing
default-linux/x86/2005.1 ;
Ehh... There *is* no minimal 2005.1 profile. That has always been the
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
No. *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time. I care
about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the
release. If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care.
and *I* can't make a tree-wide server
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 01:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Hola all.
Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
arch.list
categories
use.desc
use.local.desc
package.mask
updates
Addition to this
On 08/30/05 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 01:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Hola all.
Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
arch.list
categories
use.desc
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 01:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Hola all.
Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
arch.list
categories
use.desc
use.local.desc
package.mask
updates
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time
that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the standards the other
arches have to follow to be part of Gentoo.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64.
Sorry I disagree with this, differences
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time
that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:01 +0200, Francesco R wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64.
Sorry I
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:46:20 +0200
Francesco R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never said this, I've a dual opteron running informix that can *only*
run under a x86 environment.
this is the profile for the main environment:
make.profile - ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2005.0
and this
Hi list,
Marco Morales is joining Gentoo to help with the netmon herd. He's
known as soulse- on IRC.
Marco is from Lima, Peru, is twenty-two years old and has just finished
his System Engineer bachelor degree. He currently works for a networking
company that uses Gentoo. Outside of computing, he
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 11:24 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between
On 30/8/2005 10:46:54, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could *easily*
be covered under the same keyword?
The big reason I think, is that few x86 people have a clue about amd64.
Contrast this with the mips team; I'd guess
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth
time that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the standards the
other arches have to
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 15:57 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth
time that x86 is an
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
tree that needs to be patched to work on AMD64 so we cannot cover
AMD64/x86 under
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
tree that needs to be
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86
| and its their responsability to do their QA.
QA needs coordination. Otherwise we end up with repeats of the Gnome
not building on stable x86 for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Martin wrote:
| Hi list,
|
| Marco Morales is joining Gentoo to help with the netmon herd. He's
| known as soulse- on IRC.
|
Welcome aboard Marco :)
- --
Andrés Pereira
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86
| and its their responsability to do their QA.
QA needs coordination. Otherwise we end up
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:16:09 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on
| | x86 and
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400
Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges.. Most of the herd devs only have
x86 and are not able to test amd64. That's the main difference.
Most of the mips devs only have 64-bit big endian SGI hardware, and
aren't able to
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 12:01 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 12:04, Roy Marples wrote:
Um, that's kinda like behaviour by design unless anyone can tell me
otherwise.
/etc/env.d/* just set shell variables, so if you change one then you
need to
env-update
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 16:45 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of
I just love replying to myself!
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 22:32 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
#!/bin/sh
/bin/env -i \
CONSOLETYPE=${CONSOLETYPE} \
IN_BACKGROUND=${IN_BACKGROUND} \
IN_HOTPLUG=${IN_HOTPLUG} \
/lib/rcscripts/sh/runscript.sh $*
A quick reboot shows we need much more.
init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means, they
should be run with `env -i` and have only whitelisted variables given to them
(and everything that appears in /etc/conf.d/$service /etc/conf.d/rc
and /etc/rc.conf) ...
Now that may be too few variables. At least the
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 09:41 pm, Sven Köhler wrote:
init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means, they
should be run with `env -i` and have only whitelisted variables given to
them (and everything that appears in /etc/conf.d/$service /etc/conf.d/rc
and
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 21:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 09:41 pm, Sven Köhler wrote:
init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means, they
should be run with `env -i` and have only whitelisted variables given to
them (and everything that
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 10:15 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 21:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 09:41 pm, Sven Köhler wrote:
init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means,
they should be run with `env -i` and have only
On 08/30/05 Brian Harring wrote:
What's the point of using anyway?
Simplicity in the code right now, since stable will *never* support
anything but eapi0. It's an easy check.
You really want to tell me that you consider
if myeapi 0:
as simpler than
EAPI_COMPATIBLE=0
if myeapi
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
Somebody care to split a masking patch for stable rather then the
emerge modifications I did btw? I'm poking at ensuring an eapi=0
portage's generated eapi=1 cache entries are not used by an eapi=1
portage without a forced regeneration atm.
Well, the
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
That and the fact the 2.1 state should be decided, if we're going to
have (effectively) two branches of development going at once, vs
developmental line and maintenance branch.
Well,
38 matches
Mail list logo
