04.09.2013 18:01, Ian Stakenvicius пишет:
On 04/09/13 01:28 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
02.09.2013 19:29, Ian Delaney (idella4) пишет:
idella4 13/09/02 15:29:57
Modified: ChangeLog Added:
sendpage-1.1.0-r2.ebuild Removed:
sendpage-1.1.0-r1.ebuild Log: revbump - EAPI 5, remove
Dnia 2013-09-10, o godz. 07:04:49
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se napisał(a):
Markos Chandras wrote:
the whole eclass is inside the if [[ ! ${_GIT_R3} ]] block.
Rather than putting the whole eclass inside a block like that maybe
it's possible to test for that condition and exit early?
Could
Michał Górny wrote:
the whole eclass is inside the if [[ ! ${_GIT_R3} ]] block.
Rather than putting the whole eclass inside a block like that maybe
it's possible to test for that condition and exit early?
exiting ebuild process in middle of inheritance chain is *not* a good idea
I
On 2013-09-09, at 7:31 PM, Alex Xu alex_y...@yahoo.ca wrote:
On 09/09/13 08:29 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
[1;32mIndex: gdk-pixbuf-2.28.2.ebuild[0;0m
[1;32m===[0;0m
[1;32mRCS file:
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Indeed. The general gentoo policy is that trivial files such as bash-
completions, systemd unit files, etc, aren't to be install-controlled via
USE flags
Then why is bash-completion still a global USE-flag?
Those few cases where it has a different effect
Michał Górny wrote:
+systemd_install_serviced() {
+ debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} ${@}
+
+ local src=${1}
+ local service=${2}
+
+ if [[ ! ${service} ]]; then
+ [[ ${src} == *.conf ]] || die Source file needs .conf suffix
I would hoist this check to before
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:43:53AM +, Martin Vaeth wrote:
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Indeed. The general gentoo policy is that trivial files such as bash-
completions, systemd unit files, etc, aren't to be install-controlled via
USE flags
Then why is bash-completion still
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Nope. 'insinto' sets INSDESTTREE. Due to lack of proper scoping
support in bash, we need to localize this variable to restore previous
'insinto' scope after leaving the function.
Actually the only reason you are able
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:06:56 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
So does anyone have any objections to making -fstack-protector the
default? Now is the time to speak up.
On PARISC you get plenty of warning of how well it's going to work out:
(cc1|gcc|foo): warning: -fstack-protector
We need to handle this in a different way for gtk+-2.24.20 and newer as
explained at:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476100
The patch is here:
https://476100.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=358136
If you have any problems with it, please tell me so.
Thanks
Dnia 2013-09-10, o godz. 11:57:31
Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk napisał(a):
Michał Górny wrote:
+systemd_install_serviced() {
+ debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} ${@}
+
+ local src=${1}
+ local service=${2}
+
+ if [[ ! ${service} ]]; then
+ [[ ${src}
On 10-09-2013 06:22:38 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
pkg_preinst() {
gnome2_gdk_pixbuf_savelist
+
+ # Make sure loaders.cache belongs to gdk-pixbuf alone
+ local cache=usr/$(get_libdir)/${PN}-2.0/2.10.0/loaders.cache
+
+ if [[ -e ${ROOT}${cache} ]]; then
+
On 09/08/2013 08:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:08:57 -0400
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
Personally I think this would be a great stepping stone. If we add
- -fstack-protector to 4.8.1 it will improve security (only a little I
know) and give us an
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
Nothing, since the kernel build system doesn't source make.conf. If
somebody
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:17:33 -0400 as excerpted:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the
default?
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:41:34 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
A few thoughts:
1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
The kernel has supported building with -fstack-protector
16 matches
Mail list logo
