On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:31:21PM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote
>
>> The overhead of the files' presence is trivial, and most users won't
>> care. Those who do care have a trivial line to add in make.conf, and
>> that is for the small number of pe
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:31:21PM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote
> The overhead of the files' presence is trivial, and most users won't
> care. Those who do care have a trivial line to add in make.conf, and
> that is for the small number of people who share your vitriol for the
> systemd project.
On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> Wouldn't the "systemd" USE flag be the appropriate one to key on?
> The description in /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc says...
>
> systemd - Enable use of systemd-specific libraries and features like
> socket activation or session trackin
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:49:18PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote
> And I believe the council has only spoken out against using a useflag
> for installing such files. Afaik they haven't spoken out against a
> systemd-units package. Please refer me to their decision if I'm wrong.
Wouldn't the "system
On Wednesday 08 May 2013 21:01:19 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 May 2013 23:59:18 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > we've already got a database for maintaining this sort of thing on a per-
> > package basis: metadata.xml. so let's extend the DTD to cover this. the
> > existing remote-id field lo
On Tuesday 07 May 2013 23:59:18 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we've already got a database for maintaining this sort of thing on a per-
> package basis: metadata.xml. so let's extend the DTD to cover this. the
> existing remote-id field looks like a pretty good fit, so the proposal is
> simple: add a n
On Wednesday 05 December 2012 18:02:51 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> - if grep -q "disable-scrollkeeper" configure; then
> + if grep -q "disable-scrollkeeper" ${ECONF_SOURCE:-.}/configure; then
ECONF_SOURCE should be quoted
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message pa
On 05/08/2013 04:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michael Mol schrieb:
>>> Sounds like a great feature. A crashed process is a buggy one, and I
>>> would want to investigate said program before I relaunched it, and
>>> not have it automatically relaunched as if nothing had happened.
>>
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> You could be looking at someone trying to compromise your system through a
> buffer overflow or similar vulnerability. If you enable automatic respawn
> then congratulations, you just gave the attacker unlimited tries to guess
>
Michael Mol schrieb:
>> Sounds like a great feature. A crashed process is a buggy one, and I
>> would want to investigate said program before I relaunched it, and
>> not have it automatically relaunched as if nothing had happened.
>
> That's highly, highly, highly use-case dependent. If it's a
>
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Ambroz Bizjak wrote:
>> Init.d scripts are programs - they could probably do just about anything.
>
> They couldn't monitor a process and restart it when it crashes, as
> specified by the restart options in the unit file. That is, without
> significant modifications
Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
> Sounds like a great feature. A crashed process is a buggy one, and I
> would want to investigate said program before I relaunched it, and not
> have it automatically relaunched as if nothing had happened.
Even worse if it keeps on thinking that the process has crashed whe
On 05/08/2013 03:18 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:55:35 +0200
> Ambroz Bizjak wrote:
>
>>> Init.d scripts are programs - they could probably do just about
>>> anything.
>>
>> They couldn't monitor a process and restart it when it crashes, as
>> specified by the restart options
On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:32:01 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:07:17PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > It is quite likely that OpenRC will start supporting unit files soon.
> > Then in many cases we will be able to strip down this to just one init
> > format which would satisf
On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:55:35 +0200
Ambroz Bizjak wrote:
> > Init.d scripts are programs - they could probably do just about
> > anything.
>
> They couldn't monitor a process and restart it when it crashes, as
> specified by the restart options in the unit file. That is, without
> significant modi
On 5/8/13 2:56 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> the deptree of kde-base has been broken for over two months now (most likely
> more, it was already bad for a while when I filed bug 460532), and we cannot
> really commit new KDE releases without repoman --force option.
>
> A package is missing key
> Init.d scripts are programs - they could probably do just about anything.
They couldn't monitor a process and restart it when it crashes, as
specified by the restart options in the unit file. That is, without
significant modifications in the way OpenRC works, such as adding a
monitoring process,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> OpenRC can't support units directly; if this ever did happen it would
> have to be a tool that converts units to init scripts.
Or an init script skeleton that interprets a unit file. That seems
like it shouldn't be too hard to write for a
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:07:17PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> It is quite likely that OpenRC will start supporting unit files soon.
> Then in many cases we will be able to strip down this to just one init
> format which would satisfy both init systems.
Do you want to fill me in? ;-) I haven't se
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:21:53AM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> > wrote:
> >> Ben de Groot schrieb:
> >>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> It looks like there is some
El mié, 08-05-2013 a las 23:49 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
[...]
> It sounds more wrong to me to be asking normal package maintainers to
> test and maintain unit files, while they don't use systemd themselves,
> nor have it installed. Nor would most of our users need this.
>
> And I believe the
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:49:18PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> >>> m
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added,
> removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit
> file-bearing package is added or removed from tree.
>
> That would be one insanely hot package.
Splittin
On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:18:57 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
> > Ben de Groot wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> >
On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs abou
On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> > more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
> > new systemd units of the sort that maintainer
On Thu, 9 May 2013 00:21:53 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> > wrote:
> >> Ben de Groot schrieb:
> >>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> It looks like there is some consen
On 8 May 2013 21:51, Ben de Groot wrote:
[...]
> Where upstreams ship systemd units, I don't think there is any issue.
> The problem is you are asking Gentoo maintainers to add unit files
> that upstream is not shipping. In this case we should test and
> maintain these ourselves, which is an addit
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
> would think it is better to add th
Mike Gilbert schrieb:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
>> Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
>>> Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
>>> still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
>> Users who don't want them set FEATURES="noman"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/05/13 12:06 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot
> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This sounds really wrong (tm) to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/05/13 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot
>> wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the eff
On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
>> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while ther
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
>> Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
>> still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
>
> Users who don't want them set FEATURES="noman".
>
>> Let's be serious here
Fabio Erculiani schrieb:
> Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
> still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
Users who don't want them set FEATURES="noman".
> Let's be serious here.
I assure you that I am fully serious.
>> Another option would be to add a "
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessib
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessibl
On 05/08/2013 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>>> new systemd unit
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>>> new sys
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>>>
Ben de Groot schrieb:
> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
>> In this ca
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:56:51 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>
> Hiya everybody,
>
> the deptree of kde-base has been broken for over two months now (most
> likely more, it was already bad for a while when I filed bug 460532),
> and we cannot really commit new KDE releases without repoman --
Hiya everybody,
the deptree of kde-base has been broken for over two months now (most likely
more, it was already bad for a while when I filed bug 460532), and we cannot
really commit new KDE releases without repoman --force option.
A package is missing keyword ~amd64-fbsd, and so far noone f
45 matches
Mail list logo
