On Jun 7, 2009, at 03:03, Joshua Root wrote:
On 2009-6-7 17:43, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
Looks like /Library is considered to be not a violation, so no
need for
destroot.violate_mtree.
This will be changing in 1.8, however.
I noticed your recent commit that removed this exemption. So how
On 2009-6-9 02:03, Blair Zajac wrote:
On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
On 2009-6-8 19:01, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jun 7, 2009, at 03:03, Joshua Root wrote:
On 2009-6-7 17:43, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
Looks like /Library is considered to be not a violation, so no need
for
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 09:09:44PM -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht said:
On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:54 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
I personally enjoy doing the launchd plist and avoid daemondo.
I'm kinda thinking the same thing. There is beginning to be a lot of good
Launchd examples out there and it's
On 2009-6-7 17:43, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
Looks like /Library is considered to be not a violation, so no need for
destroot.violate_mtree.
This will be changing in 1.8, however.
- Josh
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
Is it possible to create two launchd daemondo items with
startupitem.xx or some other intended method?
If not I suppose adding both launchd plists to port_dir/files and
using xinstall would be the macports way?
//Brad
___
macports-dev mailing
On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:54 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
I personally enjoy doing the launchd plist and avoid daemondo.
I'm kinda thinking the same thing. There is beginning to be a lot of
good Launchd examples out there and it's time consuming to try to get
daemondo to do the same things.
