maillog: 04/05/2005-00:00:38(+0100): John Mylchreest types
> Hi All,
>
> Can I please introduce into the tree sys-kernel/module-rebuild.
> This tracks linux-mod installed kernel modules, and also gives you the
> ability to remove/add/toggle the list of modules to rebuild.
>
> Basically.. followin
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 02:21 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this packages have registered utf8 according to use.local.desc:
> dev-db/sqlite
> media-vdeo/vlc
ok, the maintainer just put 'utf8' into use.local.desc for no reason ... the
packages dont actually use it
> net-dialup/drdsl
> net-dialup/fcd
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 00:00 +0100, John Mylchreest wrote:
> Can I please introduce into the tree sys-kernel/module-rebuild.
> This tracks linux-mod installed kernel modules, and also gives you the
> ability to remove/add/toggle the list of modules to rebuild.
>
> Basically.. following a kernel upg
Hi All,
Can I please introduce into the tree sys-kernel/module-rebuild.
This tracks linux-mod installed kernel modules, and also gives you the
ability to remove/add/toggle the list of modules to rebuild.
Basically.. following a kernel upgrade running: module-update rebuild,
will install all modul
El mar, 03-05-2005 a las 22:54 +0200, Simon Stelling escribió:
> Nice work, but do we really need that strong passwords? IMHO the
> passwords generated by portage should be changed right after emerging
> the piece of software anyway, although that might not be reality in many
> cases :( I didn't ha
On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:49:54 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 May 2005 12:10 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I think an easier solution would be a portage rescue set of
> > profiles.
>
> afaik the only thing it'd need is a 'make.defaults' and a custom
> 'packages' (
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 May 2005 12:10 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I think an easier solution would be a portage rescue set of profiles.
>
> afaik the only thing it'd need is a 'make.defaults' and a custom
> 'packages' (where we'd force a newer
Hi,
Lorenzo Hernández García-Hierro wrote:
> After reading and trying to work around the #88831 bug
> (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88831), I realized that the
> automatic generation of passwords and alike is done by using just the
> $RANDOM bash function, which is pretty weak (among tha
Hi,
After reading and trying to work around the #88831 bug
(http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88831), I realized that the
automatic generation of passwords and alike is done by using just the
$RANDOM bash function, which is pretty weak (among that, wrongly used,
can cause some overhead).
I w
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 12:10 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I think an easier solution would be a portage rescue set of profiles.
afaik the only thing it'd need is a 'make.defaults' and a custom
'packages' (where we'd force a newer version of portage of course)
i dont think we even need a set, we
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 02:30 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:21:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | as many know, i dont use unicode, so i'm a bit ignorant of it ...
> |
> | is there a good reason for having both a global 'unicode' USE flag and
> | a bunch
Chris Gianelloni posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Tue, 03 May 2005 12:10:14 -0400:
> I think an easier solution would be a portage rescue set of profiles.
> These would be minimal profiles not designed for actual use, but only for
> performing a portage update for those people that
On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:21:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| as many know, i dont use unicode, so i'm a bit ignorant of it ...
|
| is there a good reason for having both a global 'unicode' USE flag and
| a bunch of local 'utf8' USE flags ? or should i file bugs for people
| to s
as many know, i dont use unicode, so i'm a bit ignorant of it ...
is there a good reason for having both a global 'unicode' USE flag and a bunch
of local 'utf8' USE flags ? or should i file bugs for people to stop using
'utf8' and use 'unicode' instead ?
this packages have registered utf8 acco
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:21 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Is there a convenient profile archive somewhere? If not, perhaps one
> should be created, and at deletion from the tree, the profile dir in
> question is replaced with a file (or the empty dir with only that
> file) pointing to the archive. This
I've resigned the devrel lead position; dmwaters will be filling it. I'm
too unglued lately to deal with silly crap, and frankly Deedra's been
doing the vast majority of devrel managing for a long time anyway.
I'll be sticking around in devrel to maintain the quiz and provide
input.
--
Jon Po
Stephen P. Becker posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Mon, 02 May 2005 12:33:24 -0400:
> Removing old profiles will do nothing other than forcing them to set a new
> profile. Changing the profile won't stop people from doing security only
> updates.
Except that isn't quite correct,
On Monday 02 May 2005 20:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've just setup Omkhar with access. He's a new developer who's going to
> be helping with the PPC64 port.
Hi Omkhar, good to see I'm no more the last come ;)
--
Diego "Flameeyes" PettenÃ
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)
On Mon, 2 May 2005 19:02:29 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| State said problem for the general community. Guessing you're
| referencing the issue/request that being able to manage home, and
| 'global' installations?
|
| I'd still posit that the issue of installing to a user's h
On Monday 02 May 2005 21:22, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> Hi ebuild devs,
>
> Here's a glep draft now for (a part of) the long-term portage-goal
> "act as a secondary package manager" ...
How about packages that usually install into "/"?
Regards,
Jason Stubbs
pgpbBCO46FIdq.pgp
Description: PG
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 04:53 -0400, Aaron Walker wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
> > make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> > like chang
Brian Harring wrote:
> Sidenote re: fixing a large portion of the tree, eclasses and
> portage's base template for ebuilds would be the first start in
The work for eclasses is already done at all (less bugs), will
post them (where? bug 87877? new bug?) once glep is accepted.
~haubi
--
Michael
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Oh, and by the way, we don't follow FHS.
This makes things easier, so what's better - to omit this completely,
or just say (without a reference to FHS):
"This document prefers a filesystem hierarchy under this prefix as close
as possible to the current filesystem hierar
Alec Warner wrote:
> Brian Jackson wrote:
>>>It's fancy, but what about ROOT? You don't like it just because you'd have
>>>/usr/local/usr/bin/foo?
> ROOT doens't work for DEPENDS, only [R,P]DEPENDS which means I can't
> install everything for pkg FOO in ROOT="/opt" fex. Mostly useful for
> alt a
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:13:56PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>Why did you post this without addressing the problems I pointed out to
>>you previously? Writing something up as a GLEP doesn't magically fix all
>>the holes in it.
>
> State said problem for the general c
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 17:53, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
> > make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> > like change default USE flags for everyone. (Who would ever need to
g-cpan has been moved out of the portage package in cvs and now resides in
app-portage/g-cpan. Anyone installing it with collision-protects will get
errors until the next release of portage (when ye collision is no more). This
move was to facilitate our doing fixes/updates to g-cpan without pest
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 03:05 am, Stuart Longland wrote:
> Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > Stuart Longland wrote:
> >>Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than
> >>just things like Apache?
> >
> > Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems.
> > Upgrading gl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They
> make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> like change default USE flags for everyone. (Who would ever need to do
> that?!
Jan KundrÃt wrote:
> Stuart Longland wrote:
>
>>Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than
>>just things like Apache?
>
>
> Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems.
> Upgrading glibc is not a security update, IMHO :-).
>
Yep... 100% agree..
30 matches
Mail list logo
