On 01 Feb 2007 05:30:01
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:15:25 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello World!
I want to ask for suggestions and opinions for the best way to handle
this bug:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158434
[textrels in smalltalk shared librart libgst.so]
I am usually
On Monday 05 February 2007, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
I am usually very hesitant to add new use flags to the tree (unless they
are *really* necessary or imply a great advantage.) ; though i am not
sure here if anybody else would consider this a good recommendation for
handling textrels.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 05 February 2007, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
I am usually very hesitant to add new use flags to the tree (unless they
are *really* necessary or imply a great advantage.) ; though i am not
sure here if anybody else would consider this a good recommendation for
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
I will go with the pic USE flag option then.
maybe i wasnt clear ... USE=pic is meant for only certain cases, certainly not
for general use ... i dont think smalltalk qualifies for this concession
-mike
pgpTh01b1eq6x.pgp
Description:
RepoMan sez:
media-tv/rivatv/rivatv-0.8.6.ebuild: not migrated to modular X
media-tv/rivatv/rivatv-0.8.6-r1.ebuild: not migrated to modular X
At this point, no one cares so it's being punted.
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hi List
As some of you may be aware, I've started work on baselayout-2 which is
basically re-tooling it in C. One of the side goals is to eliminate the
need for using bash. You'll be pleased to know that it's working well
enough to boot Gentoo/FreeBSD.
Now, this email isn't about the merits of
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 06:17:16PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
Hi List
Hi Roy,
[snip]
So, to free baselayout of forcing bash down our throats I/we am/are
looking at re-writing our network setup, including configuration.
Who's got any bright ideas for a new config then? Lets brain storm!
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:27:40 +0100
Fernando J. Pereda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 06:17:16PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
Hi List
Hi Roy,
[snip]
So, to free baselayout of forcing bash down our throats I/we am/are
looking at re-writing our network setup, including
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:09:26 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The stuff that handles our networking maybe written in A.N.
| Other-Language (Mrs.), but keeping /etc/conf.d/net readable by a shell
| script does have advantages.
He didn't say make it not readable by a shell. He was
Forgive me if this is just noise, but I just wanted to say I agree fully
with ferdy. As I was reading Roy's email, and I looked at the net
config sample he had in there, I thought well, what's actually wrong
with this? Keeping it as is has the advantage that an
upgrade/downgrade cycle wouldn't
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Michael Hanselmann wrote:
XML! Actually, no. For me, libconfig[1] turned out to be very easy to
work with. Its config file format is easy to write by hand and the
parser resides in the library.
On a simialr note there's libconfuse[1], which uses one of the most
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:18:43 -0500
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgive me if this is just noise, but I just wanted to say I agree
fully with ferdy. As I was reading Roy's email, and I looked at the
net config sample he had in there, I thought well, what's actually
wrong with
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:31:03 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:27:15 +
| Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:09:26 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | The stuff that handles our networking maybe written in A.N.
|
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 20:34 +, Roy Marples wrote:
Keeping it as is has the advantage that an
upgrade/downgrade cycle wouldn't change much in functionality based on
config, which is pretty good (ie, backwards compatibility). In this
case, I'm not sure legacy is all that bad, simply
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:58:52 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Right, and bash arrays are not shell
| http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/toc.htm
Sure they're shell. They're just not POSIX.
Maybe I should have been more clear.
Anything in /etc/conf.d/ should be able
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:03:50 -0500
Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What so wrong with bash?
Unsuited to an init system that wants to work everywhere, like embedded
systems.
Also, being tied to one shell causes problems when that shell breaks.
Witness baselayout problems regarding
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:04:59 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:58:52 +
| Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | Right, and bash arrays are not shell
| | http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/toc.htm
|
| Sure they're shell. They're just not
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 21:11 +, Roy Marples wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:03:50 -0500
Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What so wrong with bash?
Unsuited to an init system that wants to work everywhere, like embedded
systems.
Also, being tied to one shell causes problems when
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:11:31 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Now, this email isn't about the merits of bash, nor the fact that
| it's in base system profile so we can use it anyway, blah blah blah.
| embedded has a vested interest in not using bash and I have a
| personal interest as
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:14:49 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? What's wrong with requiring a shell that supports various
features beyond what POSIX specifies? Granted, choice of shell is
good, but not if it's at the expense of functionality or ease of use.
H, just how many
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:28:04 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's more that you're expected to justify *why* the bash
requirement is so bad, given the cost of changing.
1) Lack of choice.
Gentoo is all about giving the user choice. baselayout even supports
other init
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:09:26 +
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The stuff that handles our networking maybe written in A.N.
Other-Language (Mrs.), but keeping /etc/conf.d/net readable by a shell
script does have advantages.
You need to define what shell (or subset) you want to parse
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Hopefully I've justified this enough :)
justified what ? this thread started off killing bash array requirements in
the network config file and now it looks like your killing the shell
everywhere ?
to be honest, unless the new code is really
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
You need to define what shell (or subset) you want to parse it. 'sh'
itself varies from platform to platform.
our standard has always (always is relative here; let's say current) been
the bash superset of POSIX ... if a request comes up where
Or perhaps,
Something a little more explicit might work? In instances such as the
ifconfig lines, it's to create eth0 aliases (such as eth0:0), so perhaps
that could look like:
ifconfig_eth0:0 = 10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
ifconfig_eth0:1 = 10.1.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.0
For
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 19:42 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
You need to define what shell (or subset) you want to parse it. 'sh'
itself varies from platform to platform.
our standard has always (always is relative here; let's say current)
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:26:32 +
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:28:04 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's more that you're expected to justify *why* the bash
requirement is so bad, given the cost of changing.
1) Lack of choice.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:39:03 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Hopefully I've justified this enough :)
justified what ? this thread started off killing bash array
requirements in the network config file and now it looks like your
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
This email is about network configuration. Before I joined Gentoo,
network configuration was done in bash arrays like so (note, that the
variable name was changed in baselayout-1.11)
ifconfig_eth0=(
10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
10.1.1.2 netmask
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
No, I'm just interesting in killing bash array requirements in the
network config file.
you need to kill them everywhere then ... network config isnt the only file
that utilizes arrays
-mike
pgpj1mYCh71a3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
H, just how many features should a config file have beyond the
setting of variables?
In the case of networking, the ability to define the functions for the
various hooks. In most systems these will not be needed, but where
policy routing etc is used
Roy Marples napsal(a):
This email is about network configuration. Before I joined Gentoo,
network configuration was done in bash arrays like so (note, that the
variable name was changed in baselayout-1.11)
ifconfig_eth0=(
10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
10.1.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.0
)
Sorry, but I didn't have an internet connection for January to notice but when I
upgraded to 2.1.2-r7 pkgsplit, catpkgsplit, catsplit no longer accepted ebuild
strings with any atoms. Porthole was crashing in several places.
I have changed portholes coding to work around it, but there are
34 matches
Mail list logo
