On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> Maybe the answer depends to the reason, that the discouraged option was
> provided for some _unknown_ reason. I absolutely agree that dropping
> --asroot is something we can accept. But I'm likely not the only one
> who noticed that backwards c
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 03:55:23 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:25:11 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > I myself would dearly love to know what precisely about removing a
> > discouraged option qualifies as a major change.
>
> Maybe the answer depends to the reason, that the discourag
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:25:11 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> I myself would dearly love to know what precisely about removing a
> discouraged option qualifies as a major change.
Maybe the answer depends to the reason, that the discouraged option was
provided for some _unknown_ reason. I absolutely agr
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Doug Newgard wrote:
> Yeah, it's not like sed options are defined by POSIX or anything...
>
> Your entire problem here seems to be that you don't like the
> development style of pacman. In that case, get involved instead of just
> whining about it after the fact. It
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
>
> The attitude to ignore the Linux ecosystem all in all, that became a
> fashion a while ago is disgusting. The way to diss software contributed
> by others, the way to disgrade other users who might have less
> knowledge, who might belong to a
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:56:31 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:45:10 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:32:58 +0100
> > Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > > > How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do w
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:45:10 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:32:58 +0100
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > > How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do with anything
> > > in this thread?
> >
> > A few people mentioned
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:32:58 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do with anything
> > in this thread?
>
> A few people mentioned that they run into issues. Did you miss their
> messages?
>
> For
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do with anything in
> this thread?
A few people mentioned that they run into issues. Did you miss their
messages?
For example:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:48:14 +0100, Marcel Kleinfeller wrote:
[
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 01:47:05 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:09:19 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > Well, you could at least actually quote what I really said:
> >
> > "[...] it was a straightforward change with absolutely no impact"
> > ... now wait for it :) ...
> > "beyond the
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:09:19 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Well, you could at least actually quote what I really said:
>
> "[...] it was a straightforward change with absolutely no impact"
> ... now wait for it :) ...
> "beyond the impact of running makepkg --asroot by hand instead of by
> proxy."
>
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:59 AM, pete nikolic wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 23:09:01 -0600
> Eli Schwartz wrote:
>
>> No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
>> impact
>
>
> Sent to the correct header this time .
>
> Apologies Mark
>
>
> That statement is the
Em 04/01/2015 16:48, "Marcel Kleinfeller" escreveu:
>
> I think this propably relays to this issue.
> When I try to actualize with packer as root, it fails because of --asroot
and when I try to use it like I should, it simply tells me, everything
would be up-to-date.
>
> [marcel@oompf ~]$ pacman -
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Marcel Kleinfeller wrote:
> [...] it simply tells me, everything would be up-to-date.
> Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
> Edit btsync PKGBUILD with $EDITOR? [Y/n] y
> Edit btsync.install with $EDITOR? [Y/n] n
> makepkg: Ungültige Option '--asroot'
> The build fa
I think this propably relays to this issue.
When I try to actualize with packer as root, it fails because of
--asroot and when I try to use it like I should, it simply tells me,
everything would be up-to-date.
[marcel@oompf ~]$ pacman -Qet | grep packer
packer 20140810-1
[marcel@oompf ~]$ pack
That the '--asroot' option was dropped is an anti-feauture in my opinion.
The package developers introduced code so that you can't run it as root.
What's the problem to _not check_ whether it's run as root or not?
Respecting backwards compatibility is more complicated than just never
removing features from software. Sometimes less is more: extra features can
be bad for maintenance, a source of bugs, or a source of vulnerabilities.
Sometimes features are added as workarounds or hacks in lieu of a proper
solut
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 23:09:01 -0600
Eli Schwartz wrote:
> No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
> impact
Sent to the correct header this time .
Apologies Mark
That statement is the Absolute height of obnoxious arrogant ignorance ans hows
your
thin
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 00:18:25 -0500
Mark Lee wrote:
> > No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
> > impact
That statement is the Absolute height of obnoxious arrogant ignorance ans hows
your
thinking for what it is .. i am so i am right attitude .. disgu
On 01/04/15 00:40, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
DId you read any of Ralf's messages? He prefaces by commenting about
backwards compatibility and Torvalds' comments.
This isn't just about makepkg; this is about backwards compatibility as
well. Just becau
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
> DId you read any of Ralf's messages? He prefaces by commenting about
> backwards compatibility and Torvalds' comments.
>
> This isn't just about makepkg; this is about backwards compatibility as
> well. Just because yaourt changed it's process to
On 01/04/15 00:09, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
An AUR (unofficial package) shouldn't be restricting the development of an
official package. But, a dialogue regarding any differences surely can take
place.
No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforwa
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
> An AUR (unofficial package) shouldn't be restricting the development of an
> official package. But, a dialogue regarding any differences surely can take
> place.
>
No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
impact
On 01/03/15 23:18, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
I believe the issue is deprecation of a feature utilized by an AUR (non
officially sanctioned) package (yaourt). It should be the responsibility of
the AUR maintainer to engage in discussions regarding depre
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
> I believe the issue is deprecation of a feature utilized by an AUR (non
> officially sanctioned) package (yaourt). It should be the responsibility of
> the AUR maintainer to engage in discussions regarding deprecation of
> official features; and i
On 01/03/15 21:24, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
Linux and BSD user space is software based on other software. Yaourt
and some other software does need pacman. Pacman needs bash, curl and
other packages and those packages depend on other packages too.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> Linux and BSD user space is software based on other software. Yaourt
> and some other software does need pacman. Pacman needs bash, curl and
> other packages and those packages depend on other packages too.
>
> This policy does only work, when
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> Companies are free to produce whatever crap they want. Unless you are a
> FSF (or
> RMS) fanatic, there is nothing wrong with DRM really.
>
> Cheers,
>
There is absolutely nothing right about denying people the right to use
their own property
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:57:11 -0500, Jeremy Audet wrote:
> > However, I like that Linus Torvalds made some clear statements to
> > the careless, ignorant systemd and dbus crowed, while he's not
> > against systemd and dbus, just against the new attitudes.
>
> Writing good software is hard. Providing
> However, I like that Linus Torvalds made some clear statements to the
> careless, ignorant systemd and dbus crowed, while he's not against
> systemd and dbus, just against the new attitudes.
Writing good software is hard. Providing the developers of that
software with concrete examples of use ca
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:59:41 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> Without going completely into the battle that can be started by the
> link you mentioned, what about the "choice and freedom" of the
> authors? Don't they have the "choice and freedom" to write their
> software as they see fit?
Linux and BSD
On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 03:45:35PM -0500, Christian Demsar wrote:
> Removing asroot reduces flexibility. For instance, when making packages on a
> live install usb. You'd have to create a new account and su into it.
Why? Just do what Arch LiveCD has been doing for ages (i.e. having the 'arch'
use
On January 3, 2015 10:59:41 AM EST, Doug Newgard wrote:
>Without going completely into the battle that can be started by the
>link you mentioned, what about the "choice and freedom" of the authors?
>Don't they have the "choice and freedom" to write their software as
>they
>see fit? This would cert
I'm going to disagree with you on both counts. While maintaining
backward compatibility is a good thing, there is often a cost, and very
often that cost is too high. In this case, maintaining cruft and
additional code complexity in order to maintain a feature that should
never be used anyway simpl
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 20:12:12 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> IMOH it isn't wise to ignore backwards compatibility. And btw. I
> dislike the claims mentioned by a link ...
> "Linux has never been about ‘choice’ or ‘freedom’ and those myths
> should just die out." ... underpinned with a link to redhat :(
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 22:08:37 +0100, Yamakaky wrote:
> > Again, I don't care about the makepkg options, I care about the
> > principle of backwards compatibility in general.
>
> idem, I was going to post about it.
"Ralf Mardorf on 2015/01/03 at 3:44 PM said:
Hi,
don’t get me wrong, most of my sc
Again, I don't care about the makepkg options, I care about the
principle of backwards compatibility in general.
idem, I was going to post about it.
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:52:30 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> If you are using yaourt
I do, but regarding the posted link Yaourt seems to be the biggest evil
ever. Ok, the opinion is based on at least one claim that is untrue,
since there's no need to run yaourt with root privileges. A fair
discussion,
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 20:53:30 +0100, Martti Kühne wrote:
[snip]
Calm down! At least I decided to use Arch and I don't quote Redhead
opinions ;). Assumed somebody likes Redhead opinions and does contribute
to Arch, I'm not against it. Regarding this thread at least one example
was given, why --asroot
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> In the past I sometimes had no reason _not_ to run makepkg as root, when
> I wanted to compile from ABS, located in /var/abs/. I'm aware about the
> drawback, that actually isn't relevant for my kind of computer usage +
> several available bac
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 11:28:05 -0800, Ian D. Scott wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 08:12:12PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > In the past I sometimes had no reason _not_ to run makepkg as root,
> > when I wanted to compile from ABS, located in /var/abs/. I'm aware
> > about the drawback, that actua
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 08:12:12PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> In the past I sometimes had no reason _not_ to run makepkg as root, when
> I wanted to compile from ABS, located in /var/abs/. I'm aware about the
> drawback, that actually isn't relevant for my kind of computer usage +
> several avai
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:35:52 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> '--asroot' was removed with deliberation and forethought.
>
> If anyone can think of a compelling reason the developers have not
> thought of, perhaps you will have luck convincing them. Random
> feature requests saying you want it probably
'--asroot' was removed with deliberation and forethought.
If anyone can think of a compelling reason the developers have not thought
of, perhaps you will have luck convincing them. Random feature requests
saying you want it probably don't qualify... at least explain why you are
not able to simply
Don't think you'll get it added back officially. See the discussion in
Allan's blog: http://allanmcrae.com/2014/12/pacman-4-2-released/
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> I am/was an '--asroot' user too. Does a feaure request makes sense?
>
> Happy New Year!
I am/was an '--asroot' user too. Does a feaure request makes sense?
Happy New Year!
On 12/30/14, Magnus Therning wrote:
> I just noticed that `makepkg` no longer accepts '--asroot', does that
> mean there now is no way to convince `makepkg` to build despite being
> run as root?
>
> /M
>
> P.S. I am fully aware of the problems with building as root, but as I'm
> only building pac
47 matches
Mail list logo
