On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other
> distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to
> make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most
> of Gentoo developers
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> 1. Devs don't want to have ebuilds that capture dependencies on every
> little thing. A few well-chosen virtuals like "shell utilities" or
> whatever might help with this.
Just note that PMS specifies a few requirements about those utili
On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
> > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of
> > package.provided in profiles might address this.
Huh? Not sure I understa
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
>> > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of
>> > package.provi
On 15-08-2012 07:32:45 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
> >> > of libraries in the core sy
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
> (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use
> "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )"
> stuff at the moment.
Half the packages in portage link to libc, t
On 15-08-2012 07:50:42 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
> > (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use
> > "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )"
> > stuff
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 06:27:41AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> RE you concerns about OpenRC being in @system. Personally I'm a fan
> of getting rid of @system entirely except as something used to build
> install CDs or having some sets for convenience in building systems.
> It only exists for a f
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-08-2012 07:50:42 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain
>> > (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, m
On 15-08-2012 09:43:37 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> In that case then just ignore that whole section of my post. :)
> Personally I consider the existence of @system a bit of a hack - like
> the big kernel lock. It works OK, but here and there we run into
> issues with it.
>
> Williamh pointed ou
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400 as excerpted:
> Right now having decent KDE and Gnome support with all the bells and
> whistles[...] isn't that hard, [It] will likely get harder, which means
> in practice what we'll probably have is a reasonable compromise which
> will never
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400 as excerpted:
>
> > Right now having decent KDE and Gnome support with all the bells and
> > whistles[...] isn't that hard, [It] will likely get harder, which means
> > i
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:18:24 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> I've occasionally noticed portage tell me about circular dependencies,
> where the most straight forward resolution is to emerge some package
> in the loop twice. The first time, with a USE flag disabled (avahi and
> gtk are the usual suspect
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:18:24 -0400
> Michael Mol wrote:
>> I've occasionally noticed portage tell me about circular dependencies,
>> where the most straight forward resolution is to emerge some package
>> in the loop twice. The first time,
As gentoo switched to /var/run/ -> /run in tmpfs recently
people got into problems [1] of missing directories like:
/var/run/screen/
/var/run/openfire/
/var/run/proftpd/
they did bite me personally.
openrc-0.10 brought [2] basic support for systemd's tmpfiles'd:
http://0pointer.de
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:57:57 +0300
Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> But there is no simple way to install such helpers from ebuilds.
> The tmpfiles.d is aimed to help in such situations.
Yes, there is.
$ grep dotmpfiles *.eclass
systemd.eclass:# @FUNCTION: systemd_dotmpfilesd
systemd.eclass:systemd_
I have a couple of minor requests for readability.
Can you call the eclass tmpfiles-d.eclass?
Then, for the functions themselves, use names like,
dotmpfiles_d
newtmpfiles_d
so they will be a bit more readable?
Thanks,
William
pgpmBlPbfeN2v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:57:57PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> As gentoo switched to /var/run/ -> /run in tmpfs recently
> people got into problems [1] of missing directories like:
> /var/run/screen/
> /var/run/openfire/
> /var/run/proftpd/
> they did bite me personally.
If the p
18 matches
Mail list logo
