-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've just created an x11-drivers herd. This will be for external X
drivers such as the Nvidia and ATi binary drivers and x11-drm. It's also
for less common things such as mtx-drivers and kyro-drivers.
The x11 herd will continue maintaining the X11 cor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:04:58PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>>Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited:
>>>- teach developers to use -kb where they should
>>
>>Wouldn't
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:04:58PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited:
> > - teach developers to use -kb where they should
> Wouldn't it be -ko for a patch?
-kb is actually better than -ko, due to how it's handled
After a rebuild the permissions get reset to defaults on
/var/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw
The smtp server runs as non root users and needs to be able to execute
this program with suid permissions.
Is there a way to keep the permssions from being altered?
As a result rebuilding world breaks the server.
T
On Sunday 24 April 2005 09:03 pm, Jared Rhine wrote:
> #pkg_setup() {
> # if [[ ! $(built_with_use gcc gcj) ]] ; then
> # eerror 'Chandler build requires that GCC be built with the "gcj"
> USE flag' # die "exiting because of GCJ dependency"
> # fi
> #}
first, that if statement is s
ive found autoreconf to be unreliable at times so i always run the diff
autotools by hand in ebuilds
aclocal && \
autoheader && \
...
automake -a -c || die "autotools failed"
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited:
> - teach developers to use -kb where they should
Wouldn't it be -ko for a patch?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Gn
I've made a small python wrapper around depreverse, which is
available here: http://tdegreni.free.fr/gentoo/dotfinder.py
It has a similar purpose as your "finder.sh" wrapper, but outputs
its results as a graph in dot format (with 4 layers: requested
packages, contents files, depended-on files, an
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 03:04:48AM +0200, Anders Rune Jensen wrote:
> Let me first start by saying that committing straight to stable was
> clearly a mistake. I can't help wonder why CVS would change patch files
> (it probably doesn't know the difference between ordinary files and
> patches)
This
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 14:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever*
> commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a
> trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with
> simple patches --
This question relates to ebuild development, and is being asked by a
non-developer. Apologies if there's a better forum for the question
(perhaps gentoo-toolchain?)
I've developed an ebuild for a package which requires GCJ >= 3.4.2
(GCJ is specifically required for its ability to translate Java t
Hi,
Just another consult-post just to see the opinion of the developers (and of
the users who know what to say :) ).
There are a few packages which, under some strange autotools combinations
which not always are reproducible, suffer from an error like
Putting files in AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR, `autoto
On Sunday 24 April 2005 05:09 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Of course, there's the occasional notable exception who regularly screws
> stuff up and just plain doesn't care.
spank me ! :(
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>>They're
>>supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how long
>>it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe).
>
> I was talking about
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:37:00 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > They're
| > supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how
| > long it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe).
|
| I was t
On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> They're
> supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how long
> it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe).
I was talking about double-checking *every* commit of every developer. That
will be an overkill, imho.
--
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:24:08 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think that doing something like that, surely will increase safety,
| but will also drive gentoo out of the world.
|
| We have already too many packages which needs maintainers, and having
| to double-ch
On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:08, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Also if who approves is _not_ the mentor / sane a 4 eyes check is always
> a good thing (TM) it's the way kernel develop is going from years now,
> right?
I think that doing something like that, surely will increase safety, but will
also driv
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:14 +0200 foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 21:29 +0100, Paul Waring wrote:
| > Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
| > straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has
| > their CVS access revoked.
|
| It's
On 4/24/05, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not California here. You completely ignore the fact that some
> people commit more than others and as such are more likely to trip over
> such a rule anyway and the people who do commit a lot are usually the
> same people you don't want to revoke
>What I'd *like* to see is all new devs and any dev who has a history of
>breaking things committing to a branch rather than the main tree, and
>having their commits approved (merged) by their mentor / someone sane.
>
>
Also if who approves is _not_ the mentor / sane a 4 eyes check is always
a g
On Sunday 24 April 2005 04:54 pm, Athul Acharya wrote:
> > Possibly there should be a "tradunix" ebuild that pulls in all the
> > traditional Unix stuff as dependencies (and is otherwise empty), and
> > similarly for other sets of things people hold dear, just to act as
> > macros when you're setti
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 21:29 +0100, Paul Waring wrote:
> Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
> straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their
> CVS access revoked.
It's not California here. You completely ignore the fact that some
people commit mor
> Possibly there should be a "tradunix" ebuild that pulls in all the
> traditional Unix stuff as dependencies (and is otherwise empty), and
> similarly for other sets of things people hold dear, just to act as
> macros when you're setting up a system.
I think this is a spectacular idea. The push
On 4/24/05, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heh, comming from non-gentoo email address :-)
I get just as annoyed if someone commits something straight to stable
and it breaks something on my system. :)
Paul
--
Rogue Tory
www.roguetory.org.uk
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:29:19 +0100 Paul Waring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't
| > *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you
| > think it's a trivial fix
Paul Waring wrote:
> Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
> straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their
> CVS access revoked.
Heh, comming from non-gentoo email address :-)
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Descr
On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever*
> commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a
> trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with
> simple patches -- for
Alec Warner wrote:
> The base-install doesn't include a lot of things I would consider
> essential on most systems ( log daemon, cron, mta ) yet those are not in
> system. That is the primary reason why we have a handbook and ask that
> people both read and follow it. If it's generally agreed tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Don't *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you
> think it's a
> trivial fix.
Indeed! I learned that lesson with bug 73072 :)
- --
Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-
On 4/24/05, Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello
>
> > funnily enough the PHP Guys recommended Apache 1.3 only for a long time.
>
> I've been using Apache 2 and PHP (CGI due to suEXEC) for more than two
> years now on a public webserver. It've never expierenced any
> instabilitie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony de Boer wrote:
> Alin Nastac wrote:
>
>>when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
>>peeps use vim instead.
>
>
> I use "vi", not "vim", though of course the former is a symlink to the
> latter on Linux systems fo
Alin Nastac wrote:
> when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
> peeps use vim instead.
I use "vi", not "vim", though of course the former is a symlink to the
latter on Linux systems for the last number of years.
Last time I used ed was on an RH system with a broken /
Hello
> funnily enough the PHP Guys recommended Apache 1.3 only for a long time.
I've been using Apache 2 and PHP (CGI due to suEXEC) for more than two
years now on a public webserver. It've never expierenced any
instabilities.
Greets,
Michael
--
Gentoo Linux Developer using m0n0wall | http://
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:43:10PM +, Casey Allen Shobe - SeattleServer
Mailing Lists wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 23:26, Omer Cohen wrote:
> > I've been working with it since it came out.
> >
> > And I made big projects with more then a few classes and objects and it all
> > worked fine,
maillog: 24/04/2005-11:02:19(-0400): Ned Ludd types
> The dev-portage@ guys will probably hate me for telling the rest of you
> this kinda framework is even remotely possible but I'm sure they will
> get over it.. (hi ferringb)
>
> If your like me and have a rather large customized overlay to ap
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:43:10 + Casey Allen Shobe - SeattleServer
Mailing Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I strongly agree. We actually lost a client recently because we
| adhere to the stable tree of Gentoo but our PHP was too dated for
| them (they wanted PHP 5.x).
See, this is why we h
On Friday 22 April 2005 23:26, Omer Cohen wrote:
> I've been working with it since it came out.
>
> And I made big projects with more then a few classes and objects and it all
> worked fine, I didn't have any problems with it.
> It's not like a group of 100 people from microsoft tested it and said
The dev-portage@ guys will probably hate me for telling the rest of you
this kinda framework is even remotely possible but I'm sure they will
get over it.. (hi ferringb)
If your like me and have a rather large customized overlay to apply misc
patches to misc packages that really don't change muc
Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever*
commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a
trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with
simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally included some CVS Id:
lines in yo
maillog: 24/04/2005-11:00:54(+0200): Jan Kundrát types
> D. Wokan wrote:
> > Actually, I can understand avoiding unnecessary bit flipping. I've done
> > that in databases on occasion. I'll write a SQL statement that checks
> > if there are matching records for an update instead of just executing
D. Wokan wrote:
> Actually, I can understand avoiding unnecessary bit flipping. I've done
> that in databases on occasion. I'll write a SQL statement that checks
> if there are matching records for an update instead of just executing a
> statement that makes changes to those matching records. De
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:55:14PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:49:59AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Hola all.
> [snip]
>
> under 'Deletions for Sunday May 01 2005'
> unknown:
> portage-2.0.51.20.tar.bz2 sandbox-1.2.tar.bz2
> Perhaps a major glitch here, sin
43 matches
Mail list logo
