В Вск, 19/09/2010 в 19:43 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
many man pages exist merely as a redirect to another man page:
$ xzcat /usr/share/man/man1/zcat.1.xz
.so man1/gzip.1
compressing these tiny (always?) results in a larger file. that means we
arent saving space, and we're adding overhead
В Пнд, 20/09/2010 в 04:53 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
пишет:
while you're in the process of cleaning things up, i know we dont have a
rule
anywhere in terms of line length, but python.eclass has always struck me as
a
file with incredibly excessive line length.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:
many man pages exist merely as a redirect to another man page:
$ xzcat /usr/share/man/man1/zcat.1.xz
.so man1/gzip.1
compressing these tiny (always?) results in a larger file. that means we
arent saving space, and we're adding overhead at
On Monday, September 20, 2010 01:59:33 Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вск, 19/09/2010 в 19:43 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
many man pages exist merely as a redirect to another man page:
$ xzcat /usr/share/man/man1/zcat.1.xz
.so man1/gzip.1
compressing these tiny (always?) results in a larger
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Isn't it better to skip compression on all tiny files (not only man
pages)? In such case some other functions will need to be updated
too (e.g. ecompress --suffix)...
perhaps, but i think it should only be done on automatic dirs like
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:44:38 +0400
Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote:
Another problem that there is no way to alter ChangeLog. Since
ChangeLogs are intended for users it's good idea to be able fix
typos / add credits there and thus it's impossible to generate them
from git commit messages.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:27:50 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put
it behind a use flag which would be off by default?
I insist on keeping it as I use it myself. The new approach seems more
desktop-targeted to me.
В Пнд, 20/09/2010 в 09:16 +0200, Michał Górny пишет:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:44:38 +0400
Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote:
Another problem that there is no way to alter ChangeLog. Since
ChangeLogs are intended for users it's good idea to be able fix
typos / add credits there and thus
Hi!
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Michał Górny wrote:
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put
it behind a use flag which would be off by default?
I insist on keeping it as I use it myself. The new approach seems more
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Michał Górny wrote:
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put
it behind a use flag which would be off by default?
I
On 09/20/2010 11:10 AM, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
the same is true for everyone who already runs newnet (like me). in
fact, i do not even use the newnet conf.d stuff, but rather take
advantage of support for /etc/ifup.eth* in /etc/init.d/network. that
way i can configure the networking with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/19/2010 09:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org
wrote:
I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why can't we keep both? There are strong advantages/disadvantages
either way and there are users invested in both new/oldnet. I know
this is more work on doc
On 9/19/10 9:14 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
So, yeah, what do you think? Is it worth it?
I second this GLEP. It seems like it will cleanly replace our hacked
eblits implementations from packages like php, glibc, and possibly more.
Also, it will allow more code sharing between ebuilds, which is
hi.
after already posting in -core someone pointed me to this thread ;)
1) I am going to be at FOSDEM (Flights booked still looking into some cheap
BB for a night or sth for me and a friend who's coming too)
2) I might still have a high quality print of the Gentoo logo from
Linuxday(.at) in 2003
On 09/20/2010 07:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
I guess quite a good solution for now might be enabling newnet through
an USE flag, being masked in the profile by default. That would satisfy
the oldnet compatibility requirement for users, while the small group
preferring newnet could still benefit
On 20.09.2010 16:37, Richard Freeman wrote:
One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring
individual interfaces up and down.
openrc[newnet] used to have problems with ppp interfaces. I do not know
if it is still the case but there are some open bugs on bugzilla.g.o
regarding
All,
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one interface
for some reason, this
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
interface for some reason, this is not doable in that setup. I agree
this is a
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 9/19/10 9:14 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
So, yeah, what do you think? Is it worth it?
I second this GLEP. It seems like it will cleanly replace our hacked
eblits implementations from packages like php, glibc, and
On Sunday, September 19, 2010 20:27:50 William Hubbs wrote:
I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question.
The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet
option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild.
People migrating from stable will know
On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:21:25 Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
interface for some reason, this is not doable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why can't we keep both? There are strong advantages/disadvantages
either way and there are users invested in both new/oldnet. I know
this is more work on doc
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
Use oldnet. Why?
1. We already have a migration guide setup for it:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
Use
William Hubbs dixit (2010-09-20, 11:16):
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is
centering on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to
On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:49:08 Joshua Saddler wrote:
Wrong. It will. The GDP--that's effectively just me--will already have to
rewrite every single one of hundreds of pages of documentation to allow
for the new syntax and way of doing things present in the oldnet
behavior of OpenRC.
Hi!
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
who runs servers: DHCP is uncommon there, WLAN is very unusual,
as a result, they would not only have to switch the way they
configure their nets (people don't like that kind of
Tobias Klausmann dixit (2010-09-20, 20:34):
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
who runs servers: DHCP is uncommon there, WLAN is very unusual,
as a result, they would not only have to switch the way they
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:18:32PM +0200, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
Does that support configurations where I set static addresses
(including ipv6) and routes (also including ipv6) based on the SSID as
is allowed by the oldnet scheme of things? I (and probably lots other
???power users???) rely on
Eray Aslan wrote:
On 20.09.2010 16:37, Richard Freeman wrote:
One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring
individual interfaces up and down.
openrc[newnet] used to have problems with ppp interfaces. I do not know
if it is still the case but there are some open
On 09/20/2010 07:30 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
Under the new system I can put the code:
1) In a global eclass, any ebuild can likely use it
2) In a per-package eclass, only one package can use it
3) In a pkg eblit, only one package can use it
Per package eclasses are pretty much eblits with
William Hubbs posted on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:07:44 -0500 as excerpted:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:22:59AM +, Duncan wrote:
Keeping oldnet the default and only documented method, does seem to be the
most pragmatic/practical solution.
Given nightmorph's indication that he's not interested in redoing the docs
twice, or documenting both methods, that does
On Monday, September 20, 2010 23:03:54 William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:22:59AM +, Duncan wrote:
Finally, I'm not sure it absolutely needs it, but for clarity-sake and to
avoid second-guessing and debate continuing long past the point of
usefulness, I believe a council
William Hubbs posted on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:03:54 -0500 as excerpted:
[ Duncan wrote...]
However, if we keep newnet around as a masked USE flag until it's no
longer worth continuing, it'll give people already using it time to
switch back, and/or to build up their own site scripts as
36 matches
Mail list logo
