This fixes the ConfigProtect class, etc-update, and dispatch-conf to
account for non-existent files (rather than directories) that are
listed directly in CONFIG_PROTECT. It has been valid to list files
directly in CONFIG_PROTECT since bug #14321. However, the support for
non-existent files added fo
In /etc/portage/profile, we already have support for using directories
in the place of regular config files (portage1_directories = True). So,
go ahead and enable package.bashrc there too.
We could also support /etc/portage/package.bashrc, but that would be
more complicated since /etc/portage/bash
On 10/24/2014 03:51 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> Reviewed-by: me. :-] Go ahead & push!
Thanks, it's in git now:
https://github.com/gentoo/portage/commit/3c1366520d6ac404994d1d2c75d8750b16a4331c
--
Thanks,
Zac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reviewed-by: me. :-] Go ahead & push!
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iF4EAREIAAYFAlRK19QACgkQ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/10/14 22:57, Zac Medico wrote:
> 1) Replace self.configdict["BASHRC_FILES"] with self._pbashrc,
> since configdict is used for other unrelated things. Also make it
> an immutable tuple instead of a list. 2) Test if profile.bashrc
> exists befor
>From c503f583858142b1621924f69a956d4ac017a6ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zac Medico
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:46:30 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] bin/ebuild: allow useful phases with pkg_config
It makes sense to run pkg_config by itself, but special phases like
"clean", "digest", and "manifest" can
On 10/24/2014 12:24 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> From 5400ba6ecbccf946aa4d5a8ddaaa2e1d7b784d3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: David James
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:40:28 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] If a binhost file sets a TTL header, honor it.
The first patch needs a small tweak to avoid an UnboundL
On 10/24/2014 12:25 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 24/10/14 04:00, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Should we go ahead and merge this now that 2.2.14 is released?
> ACK from me.
Thanks, I've pushed them to git now:
https://github.com/gentoo/portage/commit/60ee4deefb701d532fdd279caa989e7a6f4b8400
https://
>From 5400ba6ecbccf946aa4d5a8ddaaa2e1d7b784d3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David James
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:40:28 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] If a binhost file sets a TTL header, honor it.
BUG=chromium:381970
TEST=Run it locally and verify TTL headers are respected.
Change-Id: I54b2afa6fefdb3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Friends,
I accidentally pushed a GPG signed commit. This isn't a problem;
merely pointless at this stage, as it won't be used.
But following this accident I thought I should ask, is it OK to just
start GPG signing commits now? It's default in my gi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/10/14 04:00, Zac Medico wrote:
> Should we go ahead and merge this now that 2.2.14 is released?
ACK from me.
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Usin
11 matches
Mail list logo
