On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 04:53 -0400, Aaron Walker wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
> > make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> > like chang
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 17:53, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
> > make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> > like change default USE flags for everyone. (Who would ever need to
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 03:05 am, Stuart Longland wrote:
> Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > Stuart Longland wrote:
> >>Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than
> >>just things like Apache?
> >
> > Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems.
> > Upgrading gl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
> make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> like change default USE flags for everyone. (Who would ever need to do
> that?!
Jan KundrÃt wrote:
> Stuart Longland wrote:
>
>>Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than
>>just things like Apache?
>
>
> Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems.
> Upgrading glibc is not a security update, IMHO :-).
>
Yep... 100% agree..
Stuart Longland wrote:
> Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than
> just things like Apache?
Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems.
Upgrading glibc is not a security update, IMHO :-).
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
sig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2005 08:45 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>>The only dish I have is what if a new profile doesn't support what they
>>are attempting to do? If something is profile masked ( gcc fex ) there
>>is no way currently for
On Monday 02 May 2005 08:45 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> The only dish I have is what if a new profile doesn't support what they
> are attempting to do? If something is profile masked ( gcc fex ) there
> is no way currently for a user to unmask it, even in /etc/portage.
yes there is, you just didnt r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The only dish I have is what if a new profile doesn't support what they
are attempting to do? If something is profile masked ( gcc fex ) there
is no way currently for a user to unmask it, even in /etc/portage.
In the end they just might symlink make.
Jan KundrÃt wrote:
> Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> > Removing old profiles will do nothing other than forcing them to set a
> > new profile. Changing the profile won't stop people from doing security
> > only updates.
>
> Okay, as long as "changing the profile" won't affect people *much* (I
> mea
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> This is really getting into a whole different
> discussion altogether about having a security update only tree, but
> there has been talk of this a few times before...search the mailing list
> archives.
Yep, of course I know; I wasn't asking for "stable" tree.
> Removin
> What is bad about doing *only* `emerge --sync` and security updates?
Nothing, however if they have been doing security only updates, I think
that their install won't be *too* far behind the stable tree. Besides,
at some point old ebuilds are completely removed from portage anyway,
and therefore
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Portage should have been warning such users about using a deprecated
> profile for some time now. So, they should have updated to a new
> profile by now. Surely most people have synced portage sometime recently
> and done an emerge -uD world. If somebody is using a port
> What would happen to users having *really* old version of Gentoo, say
> something from end of 2003? Is there an easy way to upgrade?
>
> TIA,
> -jkt
>
Portage should have been warning such users about using a deprecated
profile for some time now. So, they should have updated to a new
profile
Stuart Longland wrote:
> I'd certainly welcome a cleanup here... clean out the dead wood. ;-)
What would happen to users having *really* old version of Gentoo, say
something from end of 2003? Is there an easy way to upgrade?
TIA,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
D
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 13:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > They
> > make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> > like change default USE flags for everyone.
>
> it's simple, dont bother touching the non-cascaded version. no one said you
> had to :P
Agreed. I do
On Sunday 01 May 2005 06:17 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around?
each arch manager is responsible for their own profiles
all of the x86 ones have been pruned except for default-x86-2004.2 which we
will keep for a while since there isnt
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 03:17 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around?
There exists 48 deprecated profiles in the tree.
I've wondered about this myself about when is a good time to flush
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
like change default USE flags for everyone. (Who would ever need to do
that?!?!)
I was just thinking this myself. Are there any use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
like change default USE flags for everyone. (Who would ever need to do
that?!?!)
Thanks,
Donnie
-BEGIN
20 matches
Mail list logo
