08.05.2013 07:59, Mike Frysinger пишет:
the guys who maintain the security CVE project [1] [2] (designed to be the
authority when it comes to indexing security related vulnerabilities in
projects) have a CPE specification [3] to make tracking CVEs back to a
canonical source in a machine
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:59:18PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
the guys who maintain the security CVE project [1] [2] (designed to be the
authority when it comes to indexing security related vulnerabilities in
projects) have a CPE specification [3] to make tracking CVEs back to a
canonical
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
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:56:51 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org 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
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while there are
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while there are problems with
On 05/08/2013 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some
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 dounit
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org 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
On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making
-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 lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks
-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 yng...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot
yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Mike Gilbert schrieb:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org 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
On 8 May 2013 21:51, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org 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,
On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
more accessible, while there are problems
On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:18:57 -0400
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:49:18PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
It looks like there is some consensus
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 Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:21:53AM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot schrieb:
On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org
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 seen
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org 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
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 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 keyword
On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:55:35 +0200
Ambroz Bizjak ambr...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:32:01 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org 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
On 05/08/2013 03:18 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:55:35 +0200
Ambroz Bizjak ambr...@gmail.com 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
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 when
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Ambroz Bizjak ambr...@gmail.com 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
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 4:06 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org 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
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.
That's
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 part.
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 new
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 looks
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 systemd
On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org 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
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, May 8, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org 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
45 matches
Mail list logo
