Jason A. Donenfeld posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 06:33:02 +0200 as excerpted:
> Redhat is pushing systemd very hard [and] it seems like lots of
> everything are joining a fast-paced systemd stampede. [I] think the
> general perception is that without any set of policies to manage the
> stampede, syst
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> So, I ask again. You keep complaining about "insanity". What's the
> insanity and why should we go to all of the extra effort you want us to
> go to to avoid it?
I think it's more of a knee-jerk reaction to this: Redhat is pushing
systemd ve
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> our mupdf package sucks wrt bugs 407805 and 407807
It's pretty clear that the latter is an upstream problem. Will you
fix it?
//Peter
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:22:08AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote
> Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > I remember when xpdf was removed, epdfview was recommended as a
> > > lightweight alternative. How about this time?
> >
> > Try apvlv. Note, you *MUST* first build poppler with the
> > "xpdf-headers" USE flag
On 07/25/2012 09:38 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On the other hand, tree policy (as enforced by repoman) wouldn't
> really change. In the cases you've mentioned above, it already
> displays errors or warnings. Repoman also doesn't distinguish between
> empty and unset variables. The single exceptio
Walter Dnes wrote:
> > I remember when xpdf was removed, epdfview was recommended as a
> > lightweight alternative. How about this time?
>
> Try apvlv. Note, you *MUST* first build poppler with the
> "xpdf-headers" USE flag. Only then will apvlv build properly. I've
> reported this bug, and I
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:35:22 +0200
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> >
> > Still misses the point. USE flags were invented to deal with these
> > options. On a default install, which uses OpenRC, users shouldn't have
> > to then emerge
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 12:00:13PM +0900, hero...@gentoo.org wrote
> I remember when xpdf was removed, epdfview was recommended as a
> lightweight alternative. How about this time?
Try apvlv. Note, you *MUST* first build poppler with the
"xpdf-headers" USE flag. Only then will apvlv build pro
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:37:42AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> > That doesn't work anymore - "improvement" in udev-186:
> >
> > equery f udev | grep udevd
> >
> > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
> >
> >
> > And as long as our maintainers refuse to use the proper paths this is
> > just one of the
Il 07/08/2012 18:26, Fabian Groffen ha scritto:
On 07-08-2012 18:03:14 +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
* "Fabian Groffen (grobian)":
grobian 12/08/07 15:21:54
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:XML-Parser-2.410.0-r1.ebuild
Log:
Fix expat detection for FreeBSD th
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You'd have to talk to them, but I believe their goal is to go for more
> of a vertically-integrated experience (which fits more with Gnome or
> KDE than Xfce, but again the last I'd heard only Gnome was going in
> this direction so far). Ubun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/07/2012 09:12 AM, Federico "fox" Scrinzi wrote:
>
> We already received some suggestions and we implmented some of
> them, but we'd like to receive more detailed feedback about:
>
> - Mail newsletter: would you like to have it? which info wou
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:13:26 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:03:25 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer
> > wrote:
> > > can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and
> > > binary names again?
> > > Just because up
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Path to bash can't change because it will break most of scripts
> in the world.
>
> Path to libc can't change because it will break all of the executables
> in the world.
My point was illustrative. Basically if we're going to move
something,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:48:20 +0200
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>> > Not everyone uses bash. Not everyone cares at all about
>> > bash-completion. What is your point?
>>
>> I'm not
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:48:20 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > Not everyone uses bash. Not everyone cares at all about
> > bash-completion. What is your point?
>
> I'm not saying I agree with the removal of bash-completion flag (that
>
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:03:25 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
> > can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and
> > binary names again?
> > Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we have
> > to do it.
>
>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and binary
> names again?
> Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we have to
> do it.
I think that having binaries going in different places based on a USE
fl
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:48:58 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/08/12 22:35, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny
> > wrote:
> >> You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> >> better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
> >>
> >> $
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and binary
> names again?
> Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we have to
> do it.
>
> Right now it's really frustrating to have systemd artifacts all over m
On N, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> > better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
> >
> > $ install-mask -a systemd
> >
> > which will add just the
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Not everyone uses bash. Not everyone cares at all about
> bash-completion. What is your point?
I'm not saying I agree with the removal of bash-completion flag (that
discussion is for elsewhere), but just that your analogy doesn't hold.
zx2c4@
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> We aren't going to add USE flags which don't do anything. That topic
>> was discussed a thousand times, and rising it once more won't change
>> our decision.
>>
>> Similarly, bash-c
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:38:07 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > We aren't going to add USE flags which don't do anything. That topic
> > was discussed a thousand times, and rising it once more won't change
> > our decision.
> >
> > Simila
On 08/08/12 22:35, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
>> better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
>>
>> $ install-mask -a systemd
>>
>> which will add just the right path.
> Still
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:35:22 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> > better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
> >
> > $ install-mask -a systemd
> >
> > which will add j
On 08/08/2012 10:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
>> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are installing
>> them?! But I don't even use systemd. I don't want this
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> We aren't going to add USE flags which don't do anything. That topic
> was discussed a thousand times, and rising it once more won't change
> our decision.
>
> Similarly, bash-completion flag will be gone at some point.
Everyone has bash. Not
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:20:55 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
> >
> > And live happy to the day you notice your system no longer boots.
>
> This is a nice bandaid, and sure, it "solves" the immediate issue
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
>
> $ install-mask -a systemd
>
> which will add just the right path.
Still misses the point. USE flags were invented to deal wit
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:22:47 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
>
> As an unrelated side note, in case any one on the internet finds this
> thread trying to "solve" this issue, it's worth pointing out that
>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> And as long as our maintainers refuse to use the proper paths this is
> just one of the little things that makes life more exciting for us.
>
> Can we please add some sanity back?
Exactly. Right now, with no USE flag, and no differentiation,
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:31:40 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
> > "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are
> > installing them?! But I don't even use systemd.
On 08/08/12 22:15, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yowza! All the packages that provide systemd unit files are installing
> them?! But I don't even use systemd. I don't want this cruft on my
> system.
>
> Proposal: global USE flag fo
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
As an unrelated side note, in case any one on the internet finds this
thread trying to "solve" this issue, it's worth pointing out that
since udev now installs that directory, the INSTALL_MASK should
actually be /
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> INSTALL_MASK=/usr/lib/systemd
>
> And live happy to the day you notice your system no longer boots.
This is a nice bandaid, and sure, it "solves" the immediate issue...
but it doesn't actually solve the actual issue: when packages
optionally i
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but I couldn't find any
> definitive decisions on it, so I thought I'd mention things in a
> fairly simple manner:
>
> Step 1: I use OpenRC/sysvinit.
>
> Dell ~ # readlink -f /proc/1/exe
>
Hi,
Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but I couldn't find any
definitive decisions on it, so I thought I'd mention things in a
fairly simple manner:
Step 1: I use OpenRC/sysvinit.
Dell ~ # readlink -f /proc/1/exe
/sbin/init
Dell ~ # equery b /sbin/init
* Searching for /sbin/init ...
sy
Peter Stuge posted on Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:22:54 +0200 as excerpted:
> Internet not required:
>
> $ rev <<< foobar
> raboof
> $ tac [...]
Thanks.
I'd read about those before (at least tac), but they aren't links (stale
or not), so I'd forgotten them...
Hmm... links to the manpages might solve
Duncan wrote:
> I believe there's quite a few list readers who have a similar respect
> for his efforts.
I believe so too!
I think it's a great effort. It may not fit my use cases, but I don't
care about that - even if it is *only* Walter scratching his own itch
I agree that it's important to sho
Dale posted on Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:36:30 -0500 as excerpted:
> What I don't like about the way Walter, mdev, is being treated is this.
> People say that if you don't like the way udev is going, WRITE CODE. If
> you are not going to write code, don't complain about udev. Then
> Walter, I think I
Kent Fredric wrote:
> > (While the link I had saved was stale it did mean I still remembered
> > enough about it to plug the idea into google and successfully find it.
> > Link updated. =:^)
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=reverse+hgual%20doog%20a%20ekil%20sdnuos%20taht
>
> Google not required ;D
On 8 August 2012 22:55, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> LOL! THAT's what it was! Along the same lines...
>
> ...senil emas eht gnolA !saw ti tahw s'TAHT !LOL
>
> http://www.textreverse.com/
>
> (While the link I had saved was stale it did mean I still remembered
> enough about it to plug
Michał Górny posted on Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:13:21 +0200 as excerpted:
> Sorry for the confusion caused to you and the others. You need to read
> it bottom-to-top. I reversed the line order for Sylvain who seems to
> prefer reading that way.
LOL! THAT's what it was! Along the same lines...
...se
44 matches
Mail list logo
