On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 02:31 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 22:42, Matthias Langer wrote:
however, someone should adapt media-video/mjpegtools-1.8.0-r1
(see bug 154199)
and someone should search for duplicates before filing bugs
ups ... sorry - i should have looked
Thanks, it work very well !D PIRYOn 11/2/06, Johannes Weiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 05:02:29PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 22:44 +0100, KLessou wrote:
Hello, I have to make a Live ebuild (from a CVS repository). But econf don't find the
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:36:10 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, but is anyone else sick and disgusted with Ciaran talking
to people like this? This isn't called for and shouldn't be
tolerated.
No. Perhaps he could have been a bit more subtle, but it was entirely
called for
Ryan Hill wrote:
I'm sorry, but is anyone else sick and disgusted with Ciaran talking to
people like this? This isn't called for and shouldn't be tolerated.
After sleeping on it, I've decided my problem is personal, so i've just
taken my own advice and set up a simple mail filter so I don't
Hi List!
This is a heads up to say that I'm going to be putting baselayout-1.13 into
~ARCH soon as all the exciting new features I wanted are in - FreeBSD and
vserver support, buffered and wrapped einfo/ewarn/eerror output, rc-depend
for lightning fast dependency sorting, no more critical
So if you're concerned about any of the above features breaking your
precious Gentoo, now is a very good time to test :)
Mon Oct 2 22:24:05 2006 sys-apps/baselayout-1.13.0_alpha1-r1
^^ Using 1.13* for over a month and no problems whatsover.
--
Piotr Jaroszyński
Gentoo Developer
--
On Monday 30 October 2006 17:44, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
E_IUSE=${E_IUSE//X}
But that's a dirty portage-specific hack ;]
On Monday 30 October 2006 18:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Your solution is approximately on par with fixing a wobbly chair by
sawing off all four legs and then attaching
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:53, Roy Marples wrote:
...
However, one issue is a concern. All baselayouts defined svcdir
in /etc/conf.d/rc which defines where we hold the state information of the
running services. This defaulted to /var/lib/init.d - which is bad as /var
could be on a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
I've been mostly inactive for a good while but hanging on mostly for
sentimentality's sake, it's past time for that to stop.
I mostly only maintain a small handful of ebuilds, I'm sure they can
find proper homes quickly. None
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:12, Bruno wrote:
How is the case where the / partition always remains ro handled? Is
rc-state information put into a tmpfs partition on that location, is the
location configured differently for those?
Good question!
/ is always ro at boot and the checkroot init
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:33, Roy Marples wrote:
Admittedly, an always ro / isn't handled right now, but I'll ensure it will
be for the next release :)
We handle it with the attached patch, just comitted to our svn repo :)
Thanks
--
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD
Roy Marples wrote:
[snip that change the meaning of the message ;]
Ideas are welcome :)
need to jump net.lo in symlink tests fex as tested below:
for f in ${ROOT}etc/init.d/net.*; do
[[ ${f} == ${ROOT}etc/init.d/net.lo || -L ${f} ]] continue
echo
einfo WARNING: You have older net.*
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:18:41 + Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Yes, I'm also sick of this negative level of civility. If I don't
| preempt it now, I'll likely be told that I'm taking the above two
| quotes out of context
Which you are, since you removed a large part of my answer and
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:51, Francesco Riosa wrote:
Roy Marples wrote:
[snip that change the meaning of the message ;]
Ideas are welcome :)
need to jump net.lo in symlink tests fex as tested below:
for f in ${ROOT}etc/init.d/net.*; do
[[ ${f} == ${ROOT}etc/init.d/net.lo || -L
On 06 Nov 2006 04:53 PM or thereabouts, Roy Marples wrote:
This is a heads up to say that I'm going to be putting baselayout-1.13 into
~ARCH soon as all the exciting new features I wanted are in - FreeBSD and
vserver support, buffered and wrapped einfo/ewarn/eerror output, rc-depend
for
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 15:45 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
3. The solution is for each enterprise to have their own tinderbox /
build-machine. Tinderboxing is supported under catalyst, and I believe
there is at least one other tinderbox implementation around.
4. (Assuming catalyst, as it's the
Hi all.
This announcement is slightly late but Alex never the less deserves a
warm welcome for all the good work I'm sure he'll be doing in the
future.
Alex have a mysterious norwegian background but lives in Denmark (some
people are a bit concerned about that fact as well..). Adding to his
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:50 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Alin Nastac napsal(a):
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
It could be considered as
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This also falls under Infra. Have you tried asking them, instead?
Perhaps filing a bug like all other infra requests?
Please see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154120 .
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:37:00 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
| this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
| council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely.
Isn't
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:37 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely.
Let me post a little more
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
the council... :/
So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
council, so we can override their
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Alin Nastac napsal(a):
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
It could be
Roy Marples wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:27, Matthew Snelham wrote:
In 1.13, we've removed the variable from /etc/conf.d/rc and it's now
forced to /lib/rcscripts/init.d which is safe as /lib is always on the
same partition as /.
From a filesystem usage point of view though, storing
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote:
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
the council... :/
So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to
On Monday 06 November 2006 22:06, Alec Warner wrote:
Roy Marples wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:27, Matthew Snelham wrote:
In 1.13, we've removed the variable from /etc/conf.d/rc and it's now
forced to /lib/rcscripts/init.d which is safe as /lib is always on the
same partition as /.
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
*single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
thing.
so what are you looking for ? us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over
again ?
No. I expect you to _decide_ on
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
considering that quite a
couple of arguments were given against using it
which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the
counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll
have a proper exchange
On Monday 06 November 2006 21:35, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Please stop being ridiculous, Council: if you're not going to actually
listen to the people who voted for you without talking down to them,
then, er, why exactly, did you run?
I have to agree with seemant here, we should probably accept
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
I re-stated my case in comment #14
most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like
it's pretty trivial to do so
-mike
pgpQQMpR29oZK.pgp
Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni:
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Alin Nastac napsal(a):
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
that's nice, but again, why arent these being
Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni:
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
done in bug 154120 .
And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it
to the council... :/
So because you didn't
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
considering that quite a
couple of arguments were given against using it
which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the
counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:49PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like
it's pretty trivial to do so
While i couldn't care less about the whole SPF
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:26PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
I re-stated my case in comment #14
most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ?
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:11:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
considering that quite a
couple of arguments were given against using it
which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the
counterargument i copy and
(sorry for the infra cc, just need to make sure this particular one gets
through ... drop it in your replies people :P)
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:38, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even
just strongly discouraged) if the dev in
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:40, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Why don't you do that?
well, my reply was mostly dry sarcasm, but i hope we're all technically
proficient enough to load up google.com and search for SPF ... even Alec
could find three good links in no time and that dude cant even code
Alec Warner wrote:
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1963.html
Anyone who thinks you can block all spam with a single technique, let
alone at all, is not someone I want data from in the first place
http://blog.ferris.com/2005/06/_microsofts_enf.html
Opinion
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
I re-stated my case in comment #14
most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like
it's pretty trivial
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is
On Monday 06 November 2006 20:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.
original design does not limit future possibilities ... i could
On 06 Nov 2006 09:57 PM or thereabouts, Roy Marples wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 22:06, Alec Warner wrote:
Roy Marples wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:27, Matthew Snelham wrote:
From a filesystem usage point of view though, storing actively changing
state data on /lib is
Matthew Snelham wrote:
If you want that level of flexability then simply symlink /lib/rcscripts
to /var/rcscripts or where-ever you like.
But then baselayout is still 'behaving badly' by sttempting to store
dynamic state information in /lib. Something it has not done before, to
the
In 1.13, we've removed the variable from /etc/conf.d/rc and it's now forced
to /lib/rcscripts/init.d which is safe as /lib is always on the same
partition as /.
From a filesystem usage point of view though, storing actively changing
state data on /lib is ugly. The tmpfs
On Monday 06 November 2006 21:42, Matthew Snelham wrote:
But then baselayout is still 'behaving badly' by sttempting to store
dynamic state information in /lib.
it is and it isnt ... the dir is memory based so /lib could be read-only and
that's fine
-mike
pgpTSguX5K8Nu.pgp
Description: PGP
Patrick McLean wrote:
Matthew Snelham wrote:
If you want that level of flexability then simply symlink /lib/rcscripts
to /var/rcscripts or where-ever you like.
But then baselayout is still 'behaving badly' by sttempting to store
dynamic state information in /lib. Something it has not
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 04:06, Josh Saddler wrote:
Agreed, this is a good point. Writing to /lib will also cause security
complications for things like AIDE and other intrusion detection systems
that look for writes to certain directories. If they see /lib changing
quite often, it might
Quoting Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this.
I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 02:42, Matthew Snelham wrote:
(I've built a number of clusters with NFS root fs, but I've never even
heard of a disk backed root with an NFS /var. Can we say that's
pathologically odd, and unsupported/unsupportable?)
OK, I have /var mounted on an LVM. I need to run
51 matches
Mail list logo
