On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:32:59AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org when
Paul de Vrieze posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:11:06 +0200:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
>> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
>> @list
On Thursday 14 April 2005 05:57 pm, Olivier Crête wrote:
> You can do if/then/fi or
> use blah && { emake foo || die; }
>
> {} will not spawn a sub-shell... just execute them in the same shell so
> the die will work properly
both syntaxes are ugly imho but the best thing would be to use if/then/fi
On Thursday 14 April 2005 05:58 pm, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:54 pm, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > > use blah && ( emake foo || die )
> >
> > Yep, because that doesn't work.
>
> Wow. I've been doing it for years. What's broken about it, the nested die
> ro the "use blah &&"
maillog: 14/04/2005-14:10:34(-0600): Jason Wever types
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> > Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that I
> > sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. Off-list
> > emails should be reserved only for when
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
we use useq because it does not output blah.
"use" doesn't output anything anymore either and anything that depends
on it doing so is already broken.
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All. Seeing as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Protect the whole directory.
Do that, and you break all our webapp ebuilds.
Best regards,
Stu
- --
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Developer http://dev.gen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Wever wrote:
| That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone has a
| more suitable method in mind)
If I catch anyone trying to add CONFIG_PROTECT to
/var/www/localhost/htdocs, I'll happily break their fingers. Portage's
concep
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:05:25 -0500 Vibhav Garg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Caleb Tennis wrote:
| >So it seems repoman doesn't like nested die calls like this:
| >
| >use blah && ( emake foo || die )
| >
| i believe this is a question in the developer end quiz too:-)
It is now. It wasn't back in t
Caleb Tennis wrote:
>So it seems repoman doesn't like nested die calls like this:
>
>use blah && ( emake foo || die )
>
>
>
i believe this is a question in the developer end quiz too:-)
>But, without the parenthesis
>
>use blah && emake foo || die
>
>always dies (the emake functions just fine,
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:42:22 -0500 Caleb Tennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| use blah && ( emake foo || die )
Here's what The Doc will have to say about this:
``die`` and Subshells
-
.. Warning:: ``die`` **will not work in a subshell**.
The following code will not work as ex
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:54 pm, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > use blah && ( emake foo || die )
>
> Yep, because that doesn't work.
Wow. I've been doing it for years. What's broken about it, the nested die ro
the "use blah &&" part?
Caleb
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2005-14-04 at 16:42 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> So it seems repoman doesn't like nested die calls like this:
>
> use blah && ( emake foo || die )
>
>
> But, without the parenthesis
>
> use blah && emake foo || die
>
> always dies (the emake functions just fine, but it returns an error
if useq blah; then
emake foo || die "emake foo failed"
fi
we use useq because it does not output blah.
regards,
Stefan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 16:42 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> So it seems repoman doesn't like nested die calls like this:
>
> use blah && ( emake foo || die )
>
Yep, because that doesn't work.
> What's the trick? Wrap the emake in a if/then call?
Yes.
> Ignore repoman at the
> risk of potential
So it seems repoman doesn't like nested die calls like this:
use blah && ( emake foo || die )
But, without the parenthesis
use blah && emake foo || die
always dies (the emake functions just fine, but it returns an error once emake
is completed).
What's the trick? Wrap the emake in a if/then
Attached is the notes of Release Engineering meeting.
Seemed pretty productive on our part.
Devs: If you have not signed up for the devwiki yet, /topic
#gentoo-releng and ping me. I think the wiki is going to be a huge
headache saver for the next release. Sorry non-dev's, somethings must be
kept
Attached is the notes of Release Engineering meeting. Seemed pretty
productive on our part.
Devs: If you have not signed up for the devwiki yet, /topic
#gentoo-releng and ping me. I think the wiki is going to be a huge
headache saver for the next release. Sorry non-dev's, somethings must be
kept
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that I
sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. Off-list
emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not wan
Hi,
Another new developer has joined us to help out with hardened release
engineering (releng). His name is Robert Paskowitz and he is currently a
second year computer engineering student.
He has already made some contributions to genkernel and catalyst, and
will now be helping out with the harde
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 20:11 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> > new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> > @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has somet
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 16:42 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Try that on any of the technical lists (any of the kernel or debian
> lists, for example) and you'll get screamed at -- there you're expected
> to send to the poster and Cc: the list. But then, those lists don't
> require subscriptions to
On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org when the list thi
At 2005-04-14T09:32:59-0700, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to
> the new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
>
>>At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
>>list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
>>alone, so I'm n
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:23:19 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that
| I sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.
| Off-list emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not
| want to
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
> list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
> alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All. Seeing as
> I normally have
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 20:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Anyway, any objections against moving the current USE_EXPAND out of
> make.globals and into base's make.defaults? Those using <=2.0.50* won't get
> any additions (how it is now anyway) and anybody using a stacked profile
> (which requires >=2.
To all (yeah, cross-post, deal with it ;)),
After much discussion this morning (EDT) in #-releng, we've figured out
that the Release Engineering meeting is TODAY at 3pm EDT.
Dev's and Non-devs are welcome to join in on the melee that is going to
ensue. Usual discussion followed by an open-floor f
Ming Zhao wrote:
Heh, well put ;-) Couldn't have said it better myself. :-P
*getting back ontopic*
At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-T
--
Ming Zhao.
E-mail: ming at gentoo dot org
key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x92914A48
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since I failed to do so explicitly the first time around, I've updated the
Specification section of GLEP 36[1] to explicitly propose 1 repository per
project and the reasons for doing so. At the time of writing this www.g.o is
still showing the old re
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:11:10 +0200 Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were
| being sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the
| header and let the flames come" option which unfortunately looks like
| the o
Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were being
> sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the header and let
> the
> flames come" option which unfortunately looks like the only one to me and
> despite bein
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:11 +0200, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:06:18PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > > user_defined one if any) if the
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 18:06 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> > it.
>
> Are you gonna s
On Thursday 14 April 2005 11:01, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to
> > munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided
> > not to do
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:06:18PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> > it.
>
> Are you
maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> it.
Are you gonna start a poll on the forums?
--
() Georgi Georgiev () If it has sy
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to
> munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided not
> to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to
>
Hi all,
It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to
munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided not
to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to
reconsider this decision, or do we want the reply-to munging be disabled
aga
42 matches
Mail list logo
