Hi David,
David Seifert writes:
>> > An actual ABI compliance test, e.g. done using abi-compliance-
>> > checker would be more interesting.
>>
>> As said above, the symbols don't need to be 1-1 copy of each other.
>> Any library which is a superset of the reference one will work.
>
> Again,
On Wed, 29 May 2019 12:01:20 +0200
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> ---
> eclass/darcs.eclass | 12 ++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/eclass/darcs.eclass b/eclass/darcs.eclass
> index 489008a87f1..09b71882367 100644
> --- a/eclass/darcs.eclass
> +++
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 09:28 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a reiteration (or well, rewrite) of mjo's earlier work [1]. I've
> made it into more GLEP-ish form, removed inline code samples which
> belong in implementation part and did some changes.
>
> The main change from the
On 5/29/19 3:28 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Home directory ownership
>
>
> If the user in question uses a regular home directory (i.e. not
> ``/dev/null``), the user package should maintain the directory
> via ``keepdir`` command. This allows for clean removal of the
On 5/29/19 5:50 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>>
>> This GLEP follows the best practice of leaving obsolete user/groups
>> accounts intact. This guarantees that no files with stale ownership are
>> left (e.g. on unmounted filesystems) and that the same UID/GID is not
>> reused for another user/group.
>
On 5/29/19 4:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> I wonder why that would be needed. It won't catch collisions with users
> created by the system administrator.
The reference implementation did its best not to annoy you here.
Ultimately, no, it can't prevent the system administrator from
clobbering
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:25:59PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:50 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > This sounds sensible and is an interesting approach. I kinda like it.
> >
> > There is only one technical comment I have based on the earlier
> >
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 22:33 +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> Hi Michał,
>
> Michał Górny writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > > Different BLAS/LAPACK implementations are expected to be
> > > compatible
> > > to each other in both the API and ABI level. They can be used as
Hi Michał,
Michał Górny writes:
> On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
>> Different BLAS/LAPACK implementations are expected to be compatible
>> to each other in both the API and ABI level. They can be used as
>> drop-in replacement to the others. This sounds nice, but the
Dear David,
David Seifert writes:
> We already have such a solution in the sci-overlay. It has proven
> extremely brittle and shaky.
What's more, using eselect set which library to link to was regarded
harmful.
> The plan is to do this via USE flags similar to python-single-r1
> flags.
Yes,
On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Different BLAS/LAPACK implementations are expected to be compatible
> to each other in both the API and ABI level. They can be used as
> drop-in replacement to the others. This sounds nice, but the difference
> in SONAME hampered the gentoo
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:50 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> This sounds sensible and is an interesting approach. I kinda like it.
>
> There is only one technical comment I have based on the earlier
> discussion, not addressed.
>
> What if users needs to be created into a centralized
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 10:01 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 29 May 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > User/group name/identifier collision detection
> > --
> > The user/group packages can install additional files in subdirectories
> > of
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:33 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:31 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 29 May 2019, David Seifert wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > > > +case ${EAPI:-0} in
> > > > + [0-6]*)
> > >
---
eclass/darcs.eclass | 12 ++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/darcs.eclass b/eclass/darcs.eclass
index 489008a87f1..09b71882367 100644
--- a/eclass/darcs.eclass
+++ b/eclass/darcs.eclass
@@ -85,8 +85,16 @@ SRC_URI=""
# --- end
Hi Michal,
This sounds sensible and is an interesting approach. I kinda like it.
There is only one technical comment I have based on the earlier
discussion, not addressed.
What if users needs to be created into a centralized UID/GID system to
be pulled in via nss?
So calling system tools
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:31 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 29 May 2019, David Seifert wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > > +case ${EAPI:-0} in
> > > + [0-6]*)
> > Why the *? Do we really care about EAPI="5-HDEPEND" and others?
>
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2019, David Seifert wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>> +case ${EAPI:-0} in
>> +[0-6]*)
> Why the *? Do we really care about EAPI="5-HDEPEND" and others?
Worse, this will match EAPI 10. :)
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On 2019-05-27 16:45, William Hubbs wrote:
> If a package hard codes the UID or GID when adding a user or group to
> the system and that UID/GID already exists, we should abort rather than
> changing the UID/GID.
+1. It is of course my personal opinion but years of having been working
with
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> ---
> eclass/darcs.eclass | 12 ++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/eclass/darcs.eclass b/eclass/darcs.eclass
> index 489008a87f1..81003651680 100644
> --- a/eclass/darcs.eclass
> +++
---
eclass/darcs.eclass | 12 ++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/darcs.eclass b/eclass/darcs.eclass
index 489008a87f1..81003651680 100644
--- a/eclass/darcs.eclass
+++ b/eclass/darcs.eclass
@@ -85,8 +85,16 @@ SRC_URI=""
# --- end
Hi,
Here's a reiteration (or well, rewrite) of mjo's earlier work [1]. I've
made it into more GLEP-ish form, removed inline code samples which
belong in implementation part and did some changes.
The main change from the earlier proposal is that we are extremely
careful not to break stuff.
22 matches
Mail list logo
