On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:03:32 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) maintain the existing baselayout and don't change things at all.
Right, that's baselayout-1
2) start a new package called fastlayout and do whatever you wanna do
with it. Be as innovative as you want to be with it.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
We still need something that is array like for want of a better
phrase, so how about delimiting using ; like so
config_eth0=10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0; 10.1.1.2/24
if you want to allow one liners, then i dont see
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 02:07:50 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Another idea; have baselayout install different versions of
init.d/conf.d and default shell for runscript depending on USE flags
that'll just lead to horrible bit
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 02:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
He's not screwing up anything. He's making changes he wishes as the
author and maintainer of the package. If someone doesn't like it, they
can fork it and maintain their own
On Friday 09 February 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 02:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
that really isnt a valid stance to take with the package in question ...
by this logic, i can turn around and screw with the toolchain and if no
one likes what i'm doing, then that's
On 2/9/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
forking the package is retarded. maintain backward compability and there's no
reason to fork it. baselayout isnt Roy's package, it isnt my package, it
isnt anyone's. it belongs to Gentoo as a whole which means changes to it
affect everyone in
Daniel Robbins schrieb:
Structured this way, fastlayout is certainly a project that sounds
like a great idea, and would I enjoy working on in some capacity - I
have some ideas about this. I also think it would be a good idea to
check out what other distributions are doing in this area.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:58:20 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| A far better justification than you've given currently.
|
| How about hacking on open source is done so that people can scratch
| an itch. No developer has to be a slave to the demands of others if
| it doesn't scratch
Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:44:20PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
Especially as what will you call the replacement for baselayout-ng?
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
Especially as what will you call the replacement for baselayout-ng?
baselayout-ng-ng?
What did they call the Star Trek after NG? =)
Deep Space Nine, then Voyager, then
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a project
that is developed and used by a lot of people.
As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config files.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:32:20 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a
| project that is developed and used by a lot of people.
|
| As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config files.
Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a project
that is developed and used by a lot of people.
As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config files.
And once again nobody thinks of the user base. Changing configuration
file syntax means
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:38:04 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:32:20 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a
| project that is developed and used by a lot of
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:02:38AM +, Roy Marples wrote:
Who said that there would be loss of functionality?
I'm just suggesting a new config while supporting the old one.
That sounds great, especially for all the slackers unwilling to change
their config files. :-)
cheers,
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 08:18 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:58:20 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| A far better justification than you've given currently.
|
| How about hacking on open source is done so that people can scratch
| an itch. No developer has
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:32:20 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a
| project that is developed and used by a lot of people.
|
| As
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
Deep Space Nine, then Voyager, then Enterprise... sounds good to me ;)
baselayout-deep-space-nine ;) Portage would hate such versioning scheme ;)
I would love it, it would be perfect with the naming convention I'm using for
my boxes :)
/me
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:28:34 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| He's not screwing up anything. He's making changes he wishes as the
| author and maintainer of the package. If someone doesn't like it,
| they can fork it and maintain their own package. Isn't that just
| wonderful?
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:32:45 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Actually, that's one of the joys of open source. There *doesn't* need
| to be *any* justification *whatsoever* for Roy to do anything he
| likes. After all, that's how many projects start out. Someone
| decides they
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ooh, an ad hominem!
Is that the name of paludis' bug reporting tool?
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email:
Wernfried Haas ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ooh, an ad hominem!
Is that the name of paludis' bug reporting tool?
lol,
anyway stop this thread, Roy stated that the installed cfg files will be
managed via use flags that would satisfy everyone.
frilled wrote:
Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a project
that is developed and used by a lot of people.
As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config files.
And once again nobody thinks of the user base. Changing configuration
file
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:13:37 +0100 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ooh, an ad hominem!
|
| Is that the name of paludis' bug reporting tool?
No, that would be trac, as you know fine well.
On Thursday 08 February 2007 14:20, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:13:37 +0100 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ooh, an ad hominem!
|
| Is that the name of paludis' bug
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:26:40 +0100
Francesco Riosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lol,
anyway stop this thread, Roy stated that the installed cfg files will
be managed via use flags that would satisfy everyone.
I say maybe a USE flag or something else. May not need one, we'll see.
Existing configs
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion because
| all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times people have
| said is not true.
If you bothered to pay attention, you'll note that Roy
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:17:58 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:32:45 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | Actually, that's one of the joys of open source. There *doesn't*
| | need to be *any* justification
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:28:52 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion
because | all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times
people have
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion because
| all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times people have
| said is not true.
I can count to one.
If you
Roy Marples wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:26:40 +0100
Francesco Riosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lol,
anyway stop this thread, Roy stated that the installed cfg files will
be managed via use flags that would satisfy everyone.
I say maybe a USE flag or something else. May not need one, we'll
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:06:07 -0800
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Next question, then, since I am extremely, exquisitely glad to know
that the existing, familiar, comfortable, (etc.) way of doing it will
be allowed, how long will that last. That is, will we all be forced to
migrate to
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:44:20PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
Especially as
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
But hey, I understand you like to go around bashing people. Does doing
so scratch an itch of yours or something?
I guess we all misunderstood.
As long everybody won't have additional work (like changing all our
systems) I think nobody would complain.
If the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion because
| all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times people have
| said is not true.
If you bothered to pay
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Another idea; have baselayout install different versions of
init.d/conf.d and default shell for runscript depending on USE flags
that'll just lead to horrible bit rot and code duplication i would think
-mike
pgpoE6NHhLauz.pgp
Description:
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
He's not screwing up anything. He's making changes he wishes as the
author and maintainer of the package. If someone doesn't like it, they
can fork it and maintain their own package. Isn't that just wonderful?
Seriously, Roy can work on
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
We still need something that is array like for want of a better
phrase, so how about delimiting using ; like so
config_eth0=10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0; 10.1.1.2/24
if you want to allow one liners, then i dont see any other real option ...
OK, so everyone wants to keep their conf.d/net in bash. Fine by me.
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
Now that's out of the way, let's discuss configuration :)
We still need something that is array like for want of a better
phrase, so how about
Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
So this means that you are planning to stop development of the current
baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
We still need something that is array like for want of a better
phrase, so how about
Patrick McLean ha scritto:
Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
So this means that you are planning to stop development of the current
baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
We still need something that is array like for want of a
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:47:33 -0500
Patrick McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So this means that you are planning to stop development of the
current baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
No. baselayout will get all the nice features that baselayout-ng will
get, except that it will force bash to
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:11:39 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Not being rude or anything, but what does it take to get this into
| peoples mindlessly thick skulls?
|
| THE CONFIG FILE HAS TO BE PARSEABLE BY ANY SHELL
|
| or
|
| EVERY SHELL HAS TO BE PATCHED TO UNDERSTAND BASH ARRAYS
Roy Marples ha scritto:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:47:33 -0500
Patrick McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So this means that you are planning to stop development of the
current baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
No. baselayout will get all the nice features that baselayout-ng will
get, except
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:11:39 +
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
THE CONFIG FILE HAS TO BE PARSEABLE BY ANY SHELL
Well, to be precise, it has to be parse-able by whatever runscript (-
runscript.sh) uses to source it. Currently that's hard-wired
to /bin/bash; you're suggesting it be
Roy Marples wrote:
OK, so everyone wants to keep their conf.d/net in bash. Fine by me.
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
Now that's out of the way, let's discuss configuration :)
We still need something that is array like for want of a better
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:16 +, Roy Marples wrote:
OK, so everyone wants to keep their conf.d/net in bash. Fine by me.
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
Good. Maybe now we can get rid of the pretty much non functional
baselayout-lite which
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
-mike
pgptSXGWYH9hT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:11:39 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Not being rude or anything, but what does it take to get this into
| peoples mindlessly thick skulls?
|
| THE CONFIG FILE HAS TO BE PARSEABLE BY ANY SHELL
|
| or
|
| EVERY SHELL HAS TO BE PATCHED
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
-mike
Mike how about... yabl.. or ya-baselayout..
Yet Another Baselayout
Yet Another Wonderful Naming Convention...
/sarcasm
--
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:44:20PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
Especially as what will you call the replacement for baselayout-ng?
baselayout-ng-ng?
:)
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:14:14 -0500
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
-mike
Mike how about... yabl.. or
52 matches
Mail list logo
