On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:07:53 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote:
7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
My concerns with this, other than my abilities, are:
1. Showing proper respect to the guy who pioneered the effort to date,
and who may simply be out of town. (This disrespect would be alleviated
if there was an
Hans de Graaff wrote:
A possible solution would be for you (or someone) to become a proxy
maintainer, meaning that you'd get the bug reports and provide new
ebuilds, and a developer (most likely someone from the backup herd) would
review it and put it in the tree.
Hi Hans, thanks for the
On Saturday 15 December 2007, Randy Barlow wrote:
One of the challenging things about the BackupPC ebuild is that the
program needs to be configured to work with its own instance of apache
(run as user backuppc), and I think none of the ebuild contributors
are all too sure of the standard
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
(Apologies if this has already been mentioned)
Another (maybe less intrusive, although slightly less efficient) option
is to install the BackupPC_Admin CGI as setuid so that it runs as user
backuppc (this is how I run BackupPC-2.1.2-r1). This does not require a
On Saturday 15 December 2007, Randy Barlow wrote:
Yes, I am aware of that. The BackupPC ebuild should support either
way, as there is a speedup of about 15x (according to the BackupPC
author) when running the webserver as user backuppc. There should be
a USE variable controlling this.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Ah ok, I just thought it would be easier, to get things going and catch
up with upstream, to release an ebuild that only supports the suid mode
of operation, and then, taking the necessary time, improve it in future
releases, rather than supporting all the features
On Saturday 15 December 2007, Randy Barlow wrote:
Yeah, that's the kinds of differences of opinion that are in the bug
report, which is part of what makes this a more difficult ebuild to
write. Things like libraries are really easy because it's just a
configure make make install, but here
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
(btw, do gentoo initscripts
support starting multiple instances of a daemon, perhaps under different
users and using different parameters? I'd not bet on it, but I may be
wrong. If it's not supported, waiting for baselayout to support this may
take a long time, so it
8 matches
Mail list logo
