On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 23:53 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> I know Roy already did the sleep check in rc-services.sh which is small,
> and I think fairly acceptable
0.1 seconds by default. This is adjustable in /etc/conf.d/rc
Roy
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>As Gentoo/FreeBSD is always improving, I'm thinking is just the case of
>telling everyone how to correctly use enewuser without bailing out
>Gentoo/FreeBSD :)
>
>enewuser is often used with /bin/false as shell to create an user who can't
>login. Unfortunately t
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 02:35, Allen Parker wrote:
> On another note, Casey, you should attempt to figure out if
> anything you've said might have been taken the wrong way...
Oh, I know it was. If everything I said was taken how I meant it
then there wouldn't have been a disagreement. However
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 01:37 am, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 02:43, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > And as I've mentioned before I'd like MORE reports of packages
> > working well before they are moved to stable arch. Without those
> > stable working reports I don't have any
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 02:43, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> This problem IS fixed in ~arch:
>
> line 190 of both vpopmail-5.4.10.ebuild and
> vpopmail-5.4.9-r2.ebuild: chmod 4711 ${D}${VPOP_HOME}/bin/vchkpw
Ahh okay, that explains things a bit. I'm using x86, which means
5.4.6.
> So if this is s
Allen Parker wrote:
>
>yah, what he said!
>
>
>On another note, Casey, you should attempt to figure out if anything
>you've said might have been taken the wrong way... a while back, i
>managed to get myself banned from #apache after going off like an
>idiot and then making a comment that was inter
I'm not going to address Jory's behaviour here, but I would like to
look at the actual development stuff, namely the SUID status of vchkpw,
as I took care of vpopmail before Jory came on board.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 01:32:30AM +, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> > I would strongly recommend doing
yah, what he said!
On another note, Casey, you should attempt to figure out if anything
you've said might have been taken the wrong way... a while back, i
managed to get myself banned from #apache after going off like an
idiot and then making a comment that was interpreted as sarcasm when i
was
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 10:21 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
i think Nathan did a pretty good job of summing up anything i thought i might
add ;)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The will not allow it and I will not allow someone to go fooling in
> an ebuild I maintain. Not trying to be an ass here but we have
> something called respect for others when it comes to the tree and
> what they maintain.
Poor Jory. Respect isn'
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 09:32 pm, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> Hello all, I'm sorry to bring this here, but I don't know where else
> to take it, and feel that I was treated really unfairly.
in this case you would want to take it up with devrel (short for Developer
Relations)
you can find their ho
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml
"Developer relations should only be involved in a conflict when other
attempts to solve the issue have failed. Developers should attempt
polite discussion relating to the matter at hand to resolve conflict
between themselves. Developers within a sing
Hello all, I'm sorry to bring this here, but I don't know where else
to take it, and feel that I was treated really unfairly.
As you know, I recently inquired about ebuild development on this
list, and mentioned vpopmail. Jory Pratt answered my mail and
suggested that I submit a patch.
I then
Hi,
As Gentoo/FreeBSD is always improving, I'm thinking is just the case of
telling everyone how to correctly use enewuser without bailing out
Gentoo/FreeBSD :)
enewuser is often used with /bin/false as shell to create an user who can't
login. Unfortunately this doesn't work on Gentoo/FreeBSD
Roy Marples wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that our
>>init
>>scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup. If a
>>Gentoo
>>init script claims that a service started,
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:40 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:08 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> > My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
> > quite a few upstream developers just disagree with us on what proper
> > initialization means. Why should
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 16:43 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this?
He quoted me. His text was above mine.
People have met me. They know I exist. Though Eric might be a figment
of my shattered subconscious psyche. Who knows? :P
> O
not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:40:01 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked
> hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch
> the daemon
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 02:08 pm, Eric Brown wrote:
> I do see how timing could be an issue for sleeps, but I would personally
> much rather have a timeout variable in conf.d somewhere rather than no
> check at all.
because you're only looking at one side of the race condition
your check goes to
Not everyone can patch them, more people would be capable of writing
half-baked hacks that resolve most of the issues.
Anyway I guess the new baselayout sounds promising here.
> My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
> quite a few upstream developers just disagree w
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:08 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
> quite a few upstream developers just disagree with us on what proper
> initialization means. Why should our users suffer?
They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementi
Eric Brown wrote:
> Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or
>
> [OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I've
>
>
> found is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, the
>
> rc-scripts will give it an
A few responses:
(Please forgive the lack of normal formatting)
1) To Chris Gianelloni
I really do agree that it's silly for a daemon to lie about it's
initialization status. However, after actually haven taken some of
these issues upstream (in particular Apache 1.3). I realized that the
upstre
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that our
> init
> scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup. If a
> Gentoo
> init script claims that a service started, it should make an effort to c
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 12:42 pm, Eric Brown wrote:
> The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that
> our init scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup.
i'd disagree ... if a service sucks, it sucks
adding some code to try and guess whether the se
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or
> [OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I've
> found is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, the
> rc-scripts
Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or[OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I'vefound is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, therc-scripts will give it an [OK] status, and then it will die once it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Smith wrote:
> Scott Shawcroft wrote:
>
>> The bugday database would hold additional bug information. Not
>> the data found in bugzilla. We get the available info from the
>> bugzilla DB. The bugday DB is a supplement.
>
>
> your origional em
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 07:39 am, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 00:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 July 2005 12:03 pm, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > INSTALL_MASK is non cumulative.
> > > Please use INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib/charset.alias" as to
> > > not override the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Shawcroft wrote:
> The bugday database would hold additional bug information. Not the
> data found in bugzilla. We get the available info from the bugzilla
> DB. The bugday DB is a supplement.
your origional email said "User logins using user
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 00:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 12:03 pm, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > INSTALL_MASK is non cumulative.
> > Please use INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib/charset.alias" as to not
> > override the user in anyway.
> any harm with making it cumulative ?
>
Scott Shawcroft posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:53:25 -0700:
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
>
>> Scott Shawcroft wrote:
>>
>>> - Have pre-bugday and post-bugday podcasts designed to present
>>> information in an alternate form.
>>
>>
>> i like it, but also make it av
32 matches
Mail list logo
