Ops... sorry.
On 7/20/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 06:46 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > Doing a grep on portage I found this another package with profile.d
> > things: dev-util/aegis
>
> if you read back about 8 e-mails in this thread you'll see i note
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 06:46 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> Doing a grep on portage I found this another package with profile.d
> things: dev-util/aegis
if you read back about 8 e-mails in this thread you'll see i noted this
already but it should be ok as the package looks like it's removing the
Great!
Doing a grep on portage I found this another package with profile.d
things: dev-util/aegis
Thanks!
On 7/20/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 03:27 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this
>
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 03:27 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this
> will become part of baselayout.
yes, we will add it when i can get all remaining packages cleared of profile.d
we have bash-completion and tcsh left
-mike
--
gentoo
So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this
will become part of baselayout. Please, I'm not compelling... just
curious.
On 7/18/05, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | On Monday 18 July
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
| On Monday 18 July 2005 07:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|>Mike Frysinger wrote:
|>| can we get you to actively remove the file then ? or move it into the
|>
|>docs
|>
|>| dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d
|>
|>OK
On Monday 18 July 2005 07:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | can we get you to actively remove the file then ? or move it into the
>
> docs
>
> | dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d
>
> OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually
> uses xpr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
| can we get you to actively remove the file then ? or move it into the
docs
| dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d
OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually
uses xprint and it breaks, let me
On Monday 18 July 2005 02:53 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 22:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with
> > /etc/profile.d/xprint*)
>
> Don't know, don't care, don't use xprint. Pull it from your USE flags
> and all will be well.
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 22:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*)
Don't know, don't care, don't use xprint. Pull it from your USE flags
and all will be well. =)
I don't actively maintain xorg's xprint support; that's largely
On Saturday 16 July 2005 10:38 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > >
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
> > > po
On Saturday 16 July 2005 09:13 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort
> of cvs information), am I right?
not always
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort
of cvs information), am I right?
If so, some sort of checking script can detect Gentoo signed files on
/etc/profile.d and just ignore them when scanning profile.d for user
scripts.
On 7/16/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a
> > file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
>
On Saturday 16 July 2005 04:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > that *only*
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo deve
On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:08 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
> login?
no, because it would collide with the packages which are supposed to be
installing files t
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo dev
Could be /etc/env.d and env-update extended to support more things
like aliases and shell functions?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
>
I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
login?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
> this directory subject to dev
So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAI
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> packag
Does Window$ and MacO$ users, with all "facilities" and "system
security controls" they have in their OSes are protected from shooting
themselves in the foot? I don't think so.
In this case particularly I don't think the risk is too big, since
global customizations must be done only by root.
I th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file
> there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> -mike
Hmm
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 19:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> > nothing was done. Did you know why?
>
> hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we
Herbert Fischer wrote:
In Gentoo we need to "hack" files that sometimes are changed in some
"emerge world" updates, like /etc/profile, /etc/skel/.bashrc, and
that is a little mess to me, as when etc-update's list is too long I
place a "-5" (auto update) and voilá... all my customizations are
g
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 18:56 -0700, Michael Marineau wrote:
> I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let
> users customize
> their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making
> upgrades a bit
> easier. To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a b
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:56 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> >>Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My
> >>vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the
> >>oppertunity
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
>
>>
>>Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My
>>vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the
>>oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good.
>
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> >>Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> >>nothing was done. Did you know why?
> >
> > hmm, us baselayout guys have discus
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
>
>>Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
>>nothing was done. Did you know why?
>
>
> hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never
> posted to the bug
>
can you control this ??
or... maybe could be a place most likely env.d that we could place
aliases, shell functions and customize prompt with a "closed
objective" approach
If I develop something safe there is some possibility to this being
put it on the main gentoo baselayout project ? If so, I'l
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> nothing was done. Did you know why?
hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never
posted to the bug
the only thing we really have against
Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
nothing was done. Did you know why?
On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
> > tha
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
> that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a
> suggestion, not a bug.
we use bugzilla for all bugs / enhancements pretty much
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.
thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a
suggestion, not a bug.
On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > In Slackware I had /etc/profil
On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/ as a place to customize all my
> shell environment, including aliases, prompt, etc, without touching
> original Slackware's files.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4854
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.or
Hi,
I'm new to this list and I really don't know if this is the right
place to post this message. I already posted something about this on
the gentoo forums and I don't know too if the correct persons are
seeing that, so I decided to post here. Sorry for the double posting,
so I'll be straight on
39 matches
Mail list logo
