My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the
netifrc use flag on OpenRC is bogus. OpenRC doesn't need netifrc for any
reason.
I think if we are going to have a default network manager in the
stages we shou
> From: Pacho Ramos [mailto:pa...@gentoo.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:55 PM
>
> This has reminded me that maybe we should switch to cronie from
> vixie-cron as default and recommended cron provider in Handbook. Last
> time I checked, vixie-cron upstream was died while cronie forked it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:06:51 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> SLOT allows multiple versions of a package to be installed
> concurrently. In the case of libraries or dependencies, this supports
> the specific case where certain ebuilds only support a p
I'm a nobody, but +1 from me.
On 10 December 2013 16:33, Lars Wendler wrote:
> Am Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:55:05 +0100
> schrieb Pacho Ramos :
>
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197625#c14
> >
> > This has reminded me that maybe we should switch to cronie from
> > vixie-cron as default an
Am Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:55:05 +0100
schrieb Pacho Ramos :
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197625#c14
>
> This has reminded me that maybe we should switch to cronie from
> vixie-cron as default and recommended cron provider in Handbook. Last
> time I checked, vixie-cron upstream was died
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/12/13 03:21 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 21:01:00 +0100 Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> Sure it does - it defaults to :* when :* was never specified.
>>> I don't see how default
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197625#c14
This has reminded me that maybe we should switch to cronie from
vixie-cron as default and recommended cron provider in Handbook. Last
time I checked, vixie-cron upstream was died while cronie forked it
fixing some bugs :/
What do you think?
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 06:23 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here.
>
> Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that ther
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here.
Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that there are
issues with ARM, hence my previous suggestion that it might
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> wrote:
> > I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by
> > default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as
> > networking. What I'm wr
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> No need to write a script for such things
> (export EIX_LIMIT_COMPACT=0 if you do not pipe the output):
> eix -c2
$ eix -c2 | tail -n1
Found 473 matches.
> Packages with a slot different from "0" are found with eix -1,
> i.e. the following lists p
Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> It is surprising that there are only ~400 packages that have multiple
> slots available in the Portage tree; trying to reproduce this
No need to write a script for such things
(export EIX_LIMIT_COMPACT=0 if you do not pipe the output):
eix -c2
Packages with a slot differen
12 matches
Mail list logo
