On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:00:40 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/31/2011 03:46 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Anthony G. Basile
bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
A couple of days ago, bonsaikitten (Patrick), kerframil (Kerin
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for
www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right
implementation.
I think I agree with Ciaran that this should be implemented as a PMS
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:28:54 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
many users that might be?
If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:35:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't think we can start drafting until we agree on one solution.
AFAICS there are two major ideas:
1) using special USEflags for that (which I can draft if you like),
2) copying DEPENDENCIES syntax from exherbo. I guess
On 08/02/2011 03:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:00:40 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/31/2011 03:46 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Anthony G. Basile
bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
A couple of days ago,
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:28:58 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
I prefer capsetting in the PMS itself, with a nice clean function
which auto detects all the necessary conditions and transparently
preserves caps, as you suggest. Maybe this can be in EAPI=5.
Would need a spec,
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
BTW doesn't encrypting rootfs require initramfs anyway?
Yup.
On a side note. I've been experimenting with Dracut+LVM+RAID5 and
have found that it actually works pretty transparently. Now, I
haven't tried it with /usr not
On 08/02/2011 10:31 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:28:58 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
I prefer capsetting in the PMS itself, with a nice clean function
which auto detects all the necessary conditions and transparently
preserves caps, as you suggest.
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:51:22 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Would need a spec, along with a way of dealing with all the
problems: what happens if the build fs supports caps but the
install fs doesn't? What about if caps are supported on both but in
different ways (tmpfs
On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the PMS
altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting to a
selinux system where one relabels the entire filesystem with rlpkg.
So no, not something via pkg_postinst().
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:51:22 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/02/2011 10:31 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:28:58 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
I prefer capsetting in the PMS itself, with a nice clean function
which auto
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:05:34 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the
PMS altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting
to a selinux system where one
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the PMS
altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting to a
selinux system where one
On 08/02/2011 11:05 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Please don't.
Why would this be bad?
Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
you...).
Is rlpkg going behind the PM's back when it does selinux
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:19:21 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is rlpkg going behind the PM's back when it does selinux labelings?
Yup. Also, note that PMS has wording for selinux.
I know there are difference, but if there's a screwup in some policy, it
also leads to horribly
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as excerpted:
Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
you...).
Well, not anyone. I never had any problems with it.
(YMMV, but soon
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as
excerpted:
Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as
excerpted:
Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote:
That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use
portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if
they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies
that most people will
On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for
www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right
implementation.
I don't think we can start
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:56 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for
www-client/chromium, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello fellow developers,
I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
pcmanfm, and possible other applications too, require an icon-theme to
be
Markos Chandras schrieb:
- --: Not all packages include the same icons so users may end up with
missing icons for some applications. However, most icon themes should
include all the basic icons.
You could have USE flags for the virtual, so that some package could
depend on
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 21:20, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello fellow developers,
I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:18:17 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better
integration with the package manager than USE flags should result
in a better user experience.
Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 21:18, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:56 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm interested
On 08/02/2011 09:20 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
Hello fellow developers,
I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
pcmanfm, and possible other applications too, require an icon-theme to
be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/02/2011 07:30 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Markos Chandras schrieb:
- --: Not all packages include the same icons so users may end up with
missing icons for some applications. However, most icon themes should
include all the
On 8/2/11 11:18 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better
integration with the package manager than USE flags should result in a
better user experience.
Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind
you that most of
On 8/2/11 11:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
pcmanfm, and possible other applications too, require an icon-theme to
be present, no matter which one. So
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 21:48, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8/2/11 11:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
pcmanfm, and possible other
2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote:
That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use
portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if
they *do not* match the checksum
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote:
That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use
portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if
they *do not* match
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:46:54
+0200 as excerpted:
2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org
wrote:
That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use
portage.
El 03/08/11 03:31, c1p...@gentoo.org escribió:
wi¹~BBº“‚ã°êØvܬ»\‡Š
ôß(ÇW¨Ý‚é{Ò…Ä�
ô2‡°¼ÛûÜîÙ‹–õ–~HwX~/؉ý†íE[¬£ÜœŸdd‰¶§ã±8ÒŠ6gîvs
ã�X„òYFý5ù1çFØŸô
L`Ce¤ÎA‘]²´e¼s§eµ©ùÍáÍmÉãZÄþ²cxZ:Õ•ƒÙFyÚ‘wû–a—š|×:¤b~ØüœÔ§X‰AQ¬bR\ž‡|ĉ3u±«Ÿ4æØ7‡˜øU\ö/°tÛnæKß¡^¸Åڌ٤ÚbT;3ºI7%$œÎÆc™Öšoåi
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:19AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
Come on they can't be serious... this won't work against Gentoo devs,
will it?
It is concerning that the spammer used a valid list subscriber.
Crunching all attachments for validation or moderating
El 03/08/11 06:57, Robin H. Johnson escribió:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:19AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
Come on they can't be serious... this won't work against Gentoo devs,
will it?
It is concerning that the spammer used a valid list subscriber.
Crunching
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 07:27:23AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
El 03/08/11 06:57, Robin H. Johnson escribió:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:19AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
Come on they can't be serious... this won't work against
38 matches
Mail list logo
