On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:01:51 +0200, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> CVSROOT: /sources/goboscripts
> Module name: tools
> Changes by: Lucas C. Villa Real07/07/31 05:01:51
>
> Modified files:
> Compile/bin: PackRecipe
>
> Log message:
> Stay backwards co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is exactly the same as setting up a ChrootCompile environment and
> running a shell inside it instead of Compile.
That's very interesting; I'd like to give that a go. Do you think you
could give an example? I haven't had the opportunity to do much with
ChrootComp
Jonatan Liljedahl wrote:
> You should check out the ROX desktop environment. It uses the idea of
> AppDirs. And there's a lot of apps out there that can be converted
> easily into appdirs, even though there's also a lot apps that can't
> because they get hardcoded paths in them when compiled..
I
On 7/30/07, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/29/07, mpb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So write a "UseProgram" tool to manage PATH for you.
> >
> > > * It uses the binary path directly, whereas GoboLinux seems to be
> promoting
> > > the notion of the Program as a whole, which
Paul Dann wrote:
> MLA-Gobo wrote:
>> On Friday 27 July 2007 13:44, Paul Dann wrote:
>>
>>> My thoughts
>>> particularly lie with programs being re-locatable (ie not necessarily in
>>> the /Programs dir).
>>>
>> Out of curiosity, what do you see as the advantage for this?
>>
> Well
mpb wrote:
> How does Compile not already work for both root and non-root users?
>
It works fine, but it's not completely "safe". One of the problems
Recipes and Packages face is the dependency list. ChrootCompile is
designed to use an isolated environment so that we can be sure that the
rec
