Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:27:28 +0200:
Alec Warner wrote:
I prefer gentoo-x86, although others hate that x86-centric moniker ;)
ebuilds' tree could be ok (now after the transgender cow Larry we greet
the transgenic
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:00:43AM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
profiles/, metadata.xml
[snip - Mike, Robin, Joerg, Alec and Marius were kind enough to answer my
questions...]
Thanks guys!
That should shave a couple of hours off each nightly backup.. :-))
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:14:02 -0400
Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I do ask...Lets all start now getting used to calling the
portage tree something different. I'm all for terms like the tree or
the ebuild tree or the package tree but at this point, given the
prompting subject
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:38 +0200, Andrej Kacian wrote:
On related note, why virtual/portage ? Why not virtual/packagemanager, or
something like that?
Because it already exists and is the least intrusive change. bug #69208
--
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:04:39 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?
This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
tree, and the format of and assumptions
Hi
Follow-up question to the backup thingy.
Is there an easy way to share Portage's database between multiple
virtual machines?
Optimally, I would emerge --sync and the results would land in a
filesystem that I'd share between VMs, so I don't have to do emerge
--sync in each and all of them.
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 22:36 +0200, Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server backups.
How much of Portage needs to be backup up?
Any large parts of the tree that I can just dump?
You don't need to backup any of it. Everything under /usr/portage
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 21:58 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
Comments?
Please postpone any such changes, if approved, until at least July, as
we will be doing a snapshot before then, and I would prefer not having
to spend our entire release cycle just fixing possible problems from
these changes.
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Follow-up question to the backup thingy.
Is there an easy way to share Portage's database between multiple
virtual machines?
unionfs is your friend =)
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Follow-up question to the backup thingy.
Is there an easy way to share Portage's database between multiple
virtual machines?
Optimally, I would emerge --sync and the results would land in a
filesystem that I'd share between VMs, so I don't have to do emerge
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 14:15 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:58:01PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis
and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised.
One of these, which seems to
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 20:14 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
One thing I do ask...Lets all start now getting used to calling the
portage tree something different. I'm all for terms like the tree or
the ebuild tree or the package tree but at this point, given the
prompting subject matter, the idea
Is app-text/texlive usable for now? I only have a basic tetex installation that
I will need for my master grade at university and I would want to make the
switch to texlive really fast! Maybe I can help?
Thanks
Gabriel Lavoie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:31 +0200, Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Follow-up question to the backup thingy.
Is there an easy way to share Portage's database between multiple
virtual machines?
Optimally, I would emerge --sync and the results would land in a
filesystem that I'd share between
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:42:16 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please postpone any such changes, if approved, until at least July, as
we will be doing a snapshot before then, and I would prefer not having
to spend our entire release cycle just fixing possible problems from
these
Gabriel Lavoie wrote:
Is app-text/texlive usable for now? I only have a basic tetex installation
that
I will need for my master grade at university and I would want to make the
switch to texlive really fast! Maybe I can help?
No it is not usable right now, hence the mask :-)
The biggest
I suppose for now that the best way to check the texmf tree dependencies is to
install TeX Live using the .iso file?
Gabriel
Martin Ehmsen a écrit :
Gabriel Lavoie wrote:
Is app-text/texlive usable for now? I only have a basic tetex installation
that
I will need for my master grade at
Gabriel Lavoie wrote:
I suppose for now that the best way to check the texmf tree dependencies is to
install TeX Live using the .iso file?
I'm not sure I understand your question...
The tex packages that should go into the three trees is not necessarily
the packages that ships with texlive (the
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:02:59 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You want the tree to
be writable, too, so that you can sync from any machine and also because
of distfiles.
Or you can put distfiles dir outside of portage by adjusting the $DISTDIR
variable in make.conf.
--
Andrej
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that
we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of
just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an
expectation that it
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:10:47AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that
we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of
just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an
expectation
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:08:03 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
As I've said all along - I do not have any problems with Project
Sunrise. I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on
*.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think hey, it's official,
it's hosted on *.gentoo.org - it can't be that bad. Judging from
Jonathan Adamczewski wrote:
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Follow-up question to the backup thingy.
Is there an easy way to share Portage's database between multiple
virtual machines?
Optimally, I would emerge --sync and the results would land in a
filesystem that I'd share between VMs, so I
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:06:56 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
As I've said all along - I do not have any problems with Project
Sunrise. I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on
*.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think hey, it's official, it's
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:29:55PM -0400, Peter wrote:
[snip]
This kernel source will not cause Armageddon to arrive, cause smoke to
issue from your power supply, nor interfere with other ebuilds.
That's funny. Did you just claim that a sys-kernel/*-sources ebuild
with the patch-sets listed
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:54:47 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:29:55PM -0400, Peter wrote: [snip]
This kernel source will not cause Armageddon to arrive, cause smoke to
issue from your power supply, nor interfere with other ebuilds.
That's funny. Did you just
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote:
I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree, and
there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have any
sort of warning. If a user CHOOSES to use a hacked up kernel, then they
obviously choose
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:15:12PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Would moving it from overlays.g.o to overlays.dev.g.o,
overlays.experimental.dev.g.o help ? It could then be viewed
officially unofficial as the tinderboxing repository's I've
been working on.
It wouldn't be the ideal solution to
Would moving it from overlays.g.o to overlays.dev.g.o,
overlays.experimental.dev.g.o help ? It could then be viewed
officially unofficial as the tinderboxing repository's I've
been working on.
I think it won't make a big difference. It's stated clearly that the sunrise
overlay is experimental
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that
we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of
just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an
expectation that it
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:29 -0400, Peter wrote:
As an example, there is a kernel source build I've been playing with. I
know, from the kernel team, it will never, repeat NEVER, get onto the
portage tree. they want no part of it. However, the bug is widely
followed, and if Sunrise were to be a
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:41:21PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Care to elaborate? The wise, all-knowing Zen argument isn't
particularly helpful
All software runs on top of the core of the operating system, the
kernel. If the kernel is buggy it will be reflected in all the
software running
(...) Is it just that now we have a lot of
developers who are willing to allow users to break their boxes?
Just tell me one thing, are you breaking your box everytime you use an
overlay?
--
Best Regards,
Peper
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 18:26 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on
*.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think hey, it's official,
it's hosted on *.gentoo.org - it can't be that bad. Judging from the
few users who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Using your example, if it will *never* make it into the tree, then what
is it doing on *.gentoo.org infrastructure?
OK, I'll speak up. I plan on using overlay.gentoo.org for the perl team
overlay repository. dev-perl alone
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Jun 13 2006, 01:52:18PM CDT]
All software runs on top of the core of the operating system, the
kernel. If the kernel is buggy it will be reflected in all the
software running on top of it, be it portage, compilers, daemons or
graphical user environments.
Oh,
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:41:21 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Jun 13 2006, 01:30:27PM CDT]
| On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote:
| I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the
| tree, and there is dire
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:30:27 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote:
I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree,
and
there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have
any
41 matches
Mail list logo
