Scott Shawcroft posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:53:25 -0700:
Jonathan Smith wrote:
Scott Shawcroft wrote:
- Have pre-bugday and post-bugday podcasts designed to present
information in an alternate form.
i like it, but also make it available as an .mp3
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 00:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 17 July 2005 12:03 pm, Ned Ludd wrote:
INSTALL_MASK is non cumulative.
Please use INSTALL_MASK=${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib/charset.alias as to not
override the user in anyway.
any harm with making it cumulative ?
iirc, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Shawcroft wrote:
The bugday database would hold additional bug information. Not the
data found in bugzilla. We get the available info from the bugzilla
DB. The bugday DB is a supplement.
your origional email said User logins using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Smith wrote:
Scott Shawcroft wrote:
The bugday database would hold additional bug information. Not
the data found in bugzilla. We get the available info from the
bugzilla DB. The bugday DB is a supplement.
your origional email said
Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or[OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I'vefound is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, therc-scripts will give it an [OK] status, and then it will die once it
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or
[OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I've
found is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, the
rc-scripts
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 12:42 pm, Eric Brown wrote:
The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that
our init scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup.
i'd disagree ... if a service sucks, it sucks
adding some code to try and guess whether the
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that our
init
scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup. If a
Gentoo
init script claims that a service started, it should make an effort to check
A few responses:
(Please forgive the lack of normal formatting)
1) To Chris Gianelloni
I really do agree that it's silly for a daemon to lie about it's
initialization status. However, after actually haven taken some of
these issues upstream (in particular Apache 1.3). I realized that the
Eric Brown wrote:
Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or
[OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I've
found is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, the
rc-scripts will give it an [OK]
Not everyone can patch them, more people would be capable of writing
half-baked hacks that resolve most of the issues.
Anyway I guess the new baselayout sounds promising here.
My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
quite a few upstream developers just disagree
not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:40:01 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked
hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch
the daemon in
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 16:43 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this?
He quoted me. His text was above mine.
People have met me. They know I exist. Though Eric might be a figment
of my shattered subconscious psyche. Who knows? :P
On
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:40 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:08 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
quite a few upstream developers just disagree with us on what proper
initialization means. Why should our
Roy Marples wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that our
init
scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup. If a
Gentoo
init script claims that a service started, it should make
Hi,
As Gentoo/FreeBSD is always improving, I'm thinking is just the case of
telling everyone how to correctly use enewuser without bailing out
Gentoo/FreeBSD :)
enewuser is often used with /bin/false as shell to create an user who can't
login. Unfortunately this doesn't work on Gentoo/FreeBSD
Hello all, I'm sorry to bring this here, but I don't know where else
to take it, and feel that I was treated really unfairly.
As you know, I recently inquired about ebuild development on this
list, and mentioned vpopmail. Jory Pratt answered my mail and
suggested that I submit a patch.
I
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml
Developer relations should only be involved in a conflict when other
attempts to solve the issue have failed. Developers should attempt
polite discussion relating to the matter at hand to resolve conflict
between themselves. Developers within a
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 09:32 pm, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Hello all, I'm sorry to bring this here, but I don't know where else
to take it, and feel that I was treated really unfairly.
in this case you would want to take it up with devrel (short for Developer
Relations)
you can find their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The will not allow it and I will not allow someone to go fooling in
an ebuild I maintain. Not trying to be an ass here but we have
something called respect for others when it comes to the tree and
what they maintain.
Poor Jory. Respect isn't
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 10:21 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
i think Nathan did a pretty good job of summing up anything i thought i might
add ;)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
parrot
yah, what he said!
/parrot
On another note, Casey, you should attempt to figure out if anything
you've said might have been taken the wrong way... a while back, i
managed to get myself banned from #apache after going off like an
idiot and then making a comment that was interpreted as
I'm not going to address Jory's behaviour here, but I would like to
look at the actual development stuff, namely the SUID status of vchkpw,
as I took care of vpopmail before Jory came on board.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 01:32:30AM +, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
I would strongly recommend doing
Allen Parker wrote:
parrot
yah, what he said!
/parrot
On another note, Casey, you should attempt to figure out if anything
you've said might have been taken the wrong way... a while back, i
managed to get myself banned from #apache after going off like an
idiot and then making a comment that was
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 01:37 am, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 02:43, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
And as I've mentioned before I'd like MORE reports of packages
working well before they are moved to stable arch. Without those
stable working reports I don't have any means
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 02:35, Allen Parker wrote:
On another note, Casey, you should attempt to figure out if
anything you've said might have been taken the wrong way...
Oh, I know it was. If everything I said was taken how I meant it
then there wouldn't have been a disagreement. However
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
As Gentoo/FreeBSD is always improving, I'm thinking is just the case of
telling everyone how to correctly use enewuser without bailing out
Gentoo/FreeBSD :)
enewuser is often used with /bin/false as shell to create an user who can't
login. Unfortunately this
27 matches
Mail list logo
