Re: [gobolinux-devel] Paper for linux.conf.au 2010

yay! (depending on paper acceptance, writing, etc.) Michael Homer wrote: > ... Multiple versions > of any program may inherently be maintained in parallel, (Of course, occasionally users experience a few problems, like we had with compiling for Qt 3 vs. Qt 4.. in that case ChrootCompile helped

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Paper for linux.conf.au 2010

excellent stuff! Michael Homer wrote: >> Did we try implementing it? I anticipate unexpected >> lacks-of-functionality in various alien package managers (though we can >> probably ask upstream to implement some of the accidentally-missing >> functionality when it's not too hard) > There may be so

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Paper for linux.conf.au 2010

Michael Homer wrote: > I am wondering about that too. "Alien" is a bit too incomprehensible to stand > on its own, but I'm not sure what generic term there is for all of those > package managers as a class. I've used "alien" and "third-party" in the text; > I guess "domain-specific" could cover

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Generic useflags

Jonas Karlsson wrote: > To clear things out: explicitly setting "gtk" in use flags will override > any ordering in the "gui" flags, meaning that even if the order is > "gui: qt gtk", "qt" will not be set (unless explicitly set). okay, I get it now, sorry for interpreting things the wrong way :-) a

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Generic useflags

Michael Homer wrote: > On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Michael Homer wrote: >>> On Sunday 06 July 2008 12:59:55 Isaac Dupree wrote: >>>> Michael Homer wrote: >>>>> Now, here comes your part in all this:

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Generic useflags

Michael Homer wrote: > On Sunday 06 July 2008 12:59:55 Isaac Dupree wrote: >> Michael Homer wrote: >>> Now, here comes your part in all this: tear the preceding to pieces and >>> show us why it's wrong. >> I'll try, even though it looks pretty entic

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Generic useflags

Michael Homer wrote: > Now, here comes your part in all this: tear the preceding to pieces and show > us why it's wrong. I'll try, even though it looks pretty enticing to me :-) > Where one of the flags encompassed by the generic flag was enabled > explicitly, > the generic flag would do nothi

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Software Installation

Matt Lawrence wrote: > The last email was a bit long. I'll try my best to make this short ;) > > You have an excellent package database system. This the core of any > installation method. However, what is needed is a flexible binary > package format. what needs to be flexible about it? For examp

Re: [gobolinux-devel] GoboLinux 015

Michael Homer wrote: > sudo Compile doesn't do anything; all scripts release sudo if started with it. > -Michael well, I imagine it makes you type in your password, roughly equivalent to `sudo -v && Compile`. Which might make a difference for when you have to type in your password later (or mig

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Licensing

Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez wrote: > If I had to choose a license, I'd go with ISC > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license). IMHO, licensing became pretty > counter-productive nowadays, in such a way that people might spend more time > dealing with licensing issues than coding. Again, IMHO.

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Fwd: [gobolinux-users] error in installing of thttpd

Jonas Karlsson wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:19:34 +0100, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The error in the forwarded message below got me thinking about >> Resources/Requirements. Lucas's patch currently adds users/groups as >> the very last thing in the compile/install process. I don't k

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Version-comparison viewer for packages/recipes/repos

There are a few apps with highly confusing version numbers. For example, Expect has a released 5.44.0 and 5.44.1, but they are "recalled": 5.43.0 is the actual latest version (as used by Linux-From-Scratch dev. version, for example). And there have been worse offender

Re: [gobolinux-devel] DevelScripts update

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > Recipe committers, > > Rejoice and update your DevelScripts, for now PutRecipe shall become > less annoying. I just made a change so that it only requires you to > write a trunk commit log for revisions >= 2. The idea is to > automatically handle the obvious cases (new pro

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Call for a GoboLinux 014 postmortem discussion on IRC

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > Saturday 5, 11am - US west coast (GMT-8) > Saturday 5, 5pm - Brazil (GMT-2) > Saturday 5, 8pm - Central Europe (GMT+1) > Sunday 6, 8am - New Zealand (GMT+13) Saturday 5, 2pm - US east coast (GMT-5), note to self :-) (hopefully I will be able to remember!) ~Isaac _

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [GoboLinux 014-release candidate 0000221]: Installer disallowing empty SuperUser password

Nathan Middleton wrote: > I'm in no way a developer, but having an interest in Gobo and wanting > it to succeed I'd like to just mention that you run a risk of possibly > being seen as "insecure" to some people by allowing a user to install > with an empty root password. I'm still trying to figure

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [GoboLinux 014-release candidate 0000221]: Installer disallowing empty SuperUser password

Jonas Karlsson wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:46:33 +0100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The following issue has been SUBMITTED. >> == >> http://bugs.gobolinux.org/view.php?id=221 >> Summary:Installer disall

[gobolinux-devel] what is NewDependencies?

Some recipes have Resources/NewDependencies in addition to Resources/Dependencies - what does this mean? So far I'm just ignoring that file when updating the recipe's dependencies - what should I be doing? Isaac ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list goboli

[gobolinux-devel] Compile-cvs's UpdateRecipes bug

]UpdateRecipes UpdateRecipes: Updating recipes from store http://gobolinux.org/recipe-store /System/Links/Executables/UpdateRecipes: line 64: `${recipename}': not a valid identifier UpdateRecipes: Updating recipes from store http://gobo.calica.com/recipe-store /System/Links/Executables/UpdateReci

Re: [gobolinux-devel] New dependency loop

>> One thing we could do would be to implement extensions to >> the Dependencies format _first_ and worry about use-flags later. >> >> How about something adding a bracketed list of tags, like: >> >> Foo >= 1.0, < 2.0 [build-only, optional, i686] >> Bar >= 0.3.5 [runtime-only, !ppc] okay, then is

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] GoboLinux 014 snapshot 20070924

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > ALSA-Lib--1.0.13-r2--i686.tar.bz2 > ALSA-Utils--1.0.13-r1--i686.tar.bz2 > Linux--2.6.22.7-r4--i686.tar.bz2 I think ALSA should be upgraded to 1.0.14 to match the kernel (or the newer bugfix release "1.0.14a" for alsa-lib). I did NewVersions for myself sometime, but, s

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-commits] tools/BuildLiveCD/bin MakeSystemSettings

Lucas C. Villa Real wrote: > On 9/23/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:01:59 +0200, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> CVSROOT: /sources/goboscripts >>> Module name: tools >>> Changes by: Lucas C. Villa Real07/09/23 05:01:59 >

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Udev errors

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > On 9/18/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hisham Muhammad wrote: >>> Did it appear in /Programs/Udev/Settings, in >>> /Programs/Udev/115.x/Resources/Defaults/Settings or both? >> Both. >> >>>> Probably

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Udev errors

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > Did it appear in /Programs/Udev/Settings, in > /Programs/Udev/115.x/Resources/Defaults/Settings or both? Both. >> Probably is a Compile problem, somehow... > > Yes, I'm suspecting somewhere down the line Compile is not respecting > the "-e" flag. Does the oldest, origina

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Udev errors

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > On 9/17/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hisham Muhammad wrote: >>> That's because there is no longer a 50-udev-default.rules file. This >>> one you have is lingering in /Programs/Udev/Settings because of older >&

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Udev errors

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > On 9/17/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 50-udev-default.rules still references 'console' group a bunch, and I >> get messages about no console group existing; I didn't find any other >> rules from non-Udev that refer

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Udev errors

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > The Udev task had a lot of replicated stuff about mounting other > filesystems that shouldn't be there (this interfered when restarting > the Udev task with StopTask and StartTask, for example.), so I removed > those calls to mount. Sorry about neglecting to mention this be

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Udev errors

Hisham Muhammad wrote: > On 9/4/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hisham Muhammad wrote: >>> On 9/3/07, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm fighting with Udev as well. I'm w

Re: [gobolinux-devel] default Settings files that need certain permissions

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The copy in Defaults should never be edited, so I think it should stay > with the stricter permissions. Hmm.. when I found it, it referred to user "gobo", so it must have been modified sometime (?); and then I modified it some more so that it didn't refer to any partic

[gobolinux-devel] default Settings files that need certain permissions

(as far as I know this is a problem with all our Sudo recipes and I haven't found a way to fix it in the recipe) "sudoers" normally must be mode 0440 as well as user 0:group 0. In the recipe, Resources/Defaults/Settings/sudoers appears with mode 0440, which is wrong because it means it can't b

[gobolinux-devel] recipe svn permission errors?

sometime...yesterday? when trying to use PutRecipe I started getting all errors like svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/recipes/revisions' svn: PROPFIND of '/recipes/revisions': 403 Forbidden (http://svn.gobolinux.org) from svn. This appears to mean I can't commit recipes currently. Anyone know

Re: [gobolinux-devel] future plans

Paul Dann wrote: > I found a post somewhere (that I can't find any more!) that mentioned > a plan that I understood to be something along the lines of replacing > the program symlinking solution with a unionfs-based system. Did I > understand this correctly? Actually I think the eventual plan i

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Parted, readline and -Wl,--as-needed

Lucas C. Villa Real wrote: > On 7/18/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ImportRecipe: You don't seem to have a copy of the svn trunk/revisions >> tree. Fetch it? [Y/n] >> y >> ImportRecipe: Calling 'svn checkout'. This is going to tak

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Parted, readline and -Wl,--as-needed

Isaac Dupree wrote: > So I guess revising the Readline recipe to Actually after some investigation, it was easier than that, just needing: build_variables=( "SHLIB_LIBS=-ltinfo" ) Also I fixed up the recipe a bunch in miscellaneous ways. And it works with Parted 1.8.7 and gener

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Haskell Cabal build type?

>> Maybe a compatibility layer? A file of the format "RubyGems:rubyqt Qt >>> =3.0, <=4.0" that will make Compile do the right thing? I don't >> really like that solution, since we can't possibly keep up with every >> package in every packaging system. > > Sounds like an acceptable compromise. We c

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Haskell Cabal build type?

Isaac Dupree wrote: > I don't want to lose versioning for them totally. (inventing things) Now I remember what sort of thing I was concerned about... [er, looks like Hisham has already analyzed it quite well. You may skip to the "other considerations" section if you wish

[gobolinux-devel] minor Scripts issues

Bad things I noticed while reading through some gobo scripts :) (the versions from CVS.) I could make patches for these (probably). (of course I might be mistaken about some of them, so I just send this :) DevelScripts/bin/PutRecipe It sets compile_version to 1.8.2 even if a _later_ version wa

Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Haskell Cabal build type?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 7/17/07, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 7/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> A very vague thought: maybe what we need is a way to "talk" to other >>> package managers, to have a bridge between our management/dependency >>> system, a

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Parted, readline and -Wl,--as-needed

Isaac Dupree wrote: > So, how to approach this problem? Gentoo uses, for readline: # force ncurses linking #71420 sed -i -e 's:^SHLIB_LIBS=:SHLIB_LIBS=-lncurses:' support/shobj-conf || die "sed" seeing http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71420 (and http://gentoo-portag

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Write permissions to /Files/Compile

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonas Karlsson wrote: > What should the default permissions be on > /Files/Compile/{Sources,Recipes,LocalRecipes,Archives}? As they are > now, one have to change them if one wants to run Compile/MakeRecipe > etc as a regular user. > > Or should the wg

Re: [gobolinux-devel] USE-flags vs. Flavored Dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am very wary about how this would be determined (thinking about > community/social/flamewar implications, rather than technical issues). > I'd rather avoid this can of worms and stick to something that can be > unequivocall

[gobolinux-devel] Parted, readline and -Wl,--as-needed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 NewVersion Parted from the current 1.8.2 to any of 1.8.3 through the newest 1.8.7 fail to Compile, unable to find readline. Same for doing ./configure in a generic parted tarball on GoboLinux -- but not on Ubuntu, where the source tarball works. I've

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Support for Rootless when /bin/sh is dash?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > 2007/6/23, mpb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hi, >> >> Does the Gobo development team want to support Rootless on systems >> where /bin/sh is dash (instead of bash)? Kubuntu is one such system. >> I believe Xubuntu, Ubuntu and Debian also possibly set /bi

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Carlo Calica wrote: > On 5/5/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Noticing: >> One important use of forcing an install attempt despite unmatched >> dependencies is to check if those are indeed (still) needed depe

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Dependencies (was: USE flags & Xorg)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonas Karlsson wrote: >>> Dependency files are still a complication though, unless they're >>> changed into a shell-sourceable format. Ideally it would be compatible >>> with existing files though, so I guess that means using a comment. "# >>> :gtk" fo

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Patch for Functions/File

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aitor Pérez Iturri wrote: > Hi all, > I found a little bug in Gen_FileHash function in Scripts/Functions/File. > That function tries to call $sudo_exec with a redirection, and in order > to make the redirection to work with #0 privileges it should be c

Re: [gobolinux-devel] Initial support for /System/Index commited

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lucas C. Villa Real wrote: > ... UnionFS ... Hoping this might be helpful, I just ran into a LWN article followed by some interesting comments about unioning alternatives and what failings each one has http://lwn.net/Articles/217084/ Isaac -BEGIN

Re: [gobolinux-devel] /System/Index

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > There are unionfs's based on fuse. Last I looked (1.5 years ago) they > were fairly flakey but they should have progressed since then. On November 18 2006 I was checking out union fs's (downloading and compiling the sources to the userspace ones),