Hi,
as URL:http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html states,
distributing binaries of GPL programs linked against OpenSSL is
illegal. New 0.5.0 has optional support for hybrid certificate
authentication which can be enabled by editing the Makefile (using
OpenSSL). While we are not
Hi,
While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
distributions of then illegal binaries?
isn't bindist useflag made for this purpose ?
$ grep
Is it *supposed* to NOT startup automatically out of the box?
Looks like there are some emails on this list about there being only
stubs to support LVM, etc. I found some startup functions in
rcscripts/addons, but nothing to actually call them at startup? There
is some stuff in
On Friday 31 August 2007 09:18:53 Ed W wrote:
Is it *supposed* to NOT startup automatically out of the box?
Looks like there are some emails on this list about there being only
stubs to support LVM, etc. I found some startup functions in
rcscripts/addons, but nothing to actually call them at
Hi there!
What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK.
This will no longer bother the user with updating these files.
Thus it will reduce the number of bugs triggered by forgotten config-file
updates.
If user needs home-brewn rules he is requested to add own files,
On Friday 31 of August 2007 12:37:57 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK.
That's what I did locally so fine by me.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
You will basically need to remerge sys-fs/lvm2 and sys-fs/device-mapper and
Darn, sorry for the noise
Didn't think to check the masked packages - however, there it is clear
as day in the changelog...
Thanks
Ed W
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Ed W wrote:
You will basically need to remerge sys-fs/lvm2 and sys-fs/device-mapper
and
Darn, sorry for the noise
Didn't think to check the masked packages - however, there it is clear
as day in the changelog...
Well, this is not true, because neither
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
Hi there!
What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK.
This will no longer bother the user with updating these files.
Thus it will reduce the number of bugs triggered by forgotten config-file
updates.
If
Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
Hi there!
What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK.
This will no longer bother the user with updating these files.
Thus it will reduce the number of bugs triggered by
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:12:52 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
Hi there!
What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer bother the user with
On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
Hi there!
What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer
Alexis Ballier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
distributions of then illegal binaries?
isn't bindist useflag
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:46:39 +0200
Alexis Ballier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
video:
- media-video/qc-usb (liquidx)
wouldn't tv be better suited here ?
Only if you point your qc-usb at your tv. :)
Kind regards,
JeR
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Hi!
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to
On Fri, 2007-31-08 at 16:31 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Alexis Ballier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Alexis Ballier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
distributions of then illegal
Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Great. Thanks...so what is common practice? Should the ebuild
die, telling people a feature will not be included or just exclude
it with an ewarn only?
With bindist, you should just disable any non-distributable feature
and print a ewarn.. Dieing is not
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 18:13 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
I find the persisten-net-generator.rules particularly annoying
(for various reasons including, but not limited to system images
and system cloning).
So I have an empty file of that name and happily nuke whatever
comes along with
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
What do you
Greetings everybody!
As welp is still unavailable, it's my pleasure to tell you all *It's a
Bugday!* As always join #gentoo-bugs on irc.freenode.net to participate
in all the fun bugfixing :)
Regards,
--
,-.
| Dawid Węgliński |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21 matches
Mail list logo
