On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:14:14 -0500
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> >> Welcome to baselayout-ng
> >
> > please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
> > -mike
>
> Mike how about... yabl.. or
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> In the current code I'm running it's only the network stuff that uses
> arrays. If you're thinking about /sbin/functions.sh, well that can stay
> as bash as it's not used by baselayout anymore.
some init.d scripts use arrays as well
-mike
pgpim
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:44:20PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Welcome to baselayout-ng
>
> please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
Especially as what will you call the replacement for baselayout-ng?
baselayout-ng-ng?
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
>> Welcome to baselayout-ng
>
> please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
> -mike
Mike how about... yabl.. or ya-baselayout..
Yet Another Baselayout
Yet Another Wonderful Naming Convention...
--
Do
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:11:39 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Not being rude or anything, but what does it take to get this into
| peoples mindlessly thick skulls?
|
| THE CONFIG FILE HAS TO BE PARSEABLE BY ANY SHELL
|
| or
|
| EVERY SHELL HAS TO BE PATCHED
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> Welcome to baselayout-ng
please god do not use this name ... just call it baselayout-2
-mike
pgptSXGWYH9hT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:16 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> OK, so everyone wants to keep their conf.d/net in bash. Fine by me.
>
> Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
> bash.
Good. Maybe now we can get rid of the pretty much non functional
baselayout-lite which basi
Roy Marples wrote:
> OK, so everyone wants to keep their conf.d/net in bash. Fine by me.
>
> Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
> bash.
>
> Now that's out of the way, let's discuss configuration :)
>
> We still need something that is "array like" for want of a bet
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:11:39 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> THE CONFIG FILE HAS TO BE PARSEABLE BY ANY SHELL
Well, to be precise, it has to be parse-able by whatever runscript (->
runscript.sh) uses to source it. Currently that's hard-wired
to /bin/bash; you're suggesting it be ha
Roy Marples ha scritto:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:47:33 -0500
Patrick McLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So this means that you are planning to stop development of the
current baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
No. baselayout will get all the nice features that baselayout-ng will
get, except t
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:11:39 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Not being rude or anything, but what does it take to get this into
| peoples mindlessly thick skulls?
|
| THE CONFIG FILE HAS TO BE PARSEABLE BY ANY SHELL
|
| or
|
| EVERY SHELL HAS TO BE PATCHED TO UNDERSTAND BASH ARRAYS
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:47:33 -0500
Patrick McLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So this means that you are planning to stop development of the
> current baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
No. baselayout will get all the nice features that baselayout-ng will
get, except that it will force bash t
Patrick McLean ha scritto:
Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
So this means that you are planning to stop development of the current
baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
We still need something that is "array like" for want of a
Roy Marples wrote:
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
So this means that you are planning to stop development of the current
baselayout in favor of baselayout-ng?
We still need something that is "array like" for want of a better
phrase, so how about
OK, so everyone wants to keep their conf.d/net in bash. Fine by me.
Welcome to baselayout-ng which will be a virtual and will not require
bash.
Now that's out of the way, let's discuss configuration :)
We still need something that is "array like" for want of a better
phrase, so how about delimit
Roy Marples ha scritto:
Hi List
As some of you may be aware, I've started work on baselayout-2 which is
basically re-tooling it in C. One of the side goals is to eliminate the
need for using bash. You'll be pleased to know that it's working well
enough to boot Gentoo/FreeBSD.
[...]
what about
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:47:03 +0900
Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maillog: 07/02/2007-08:50:03(+0100): Jakub Moc types
> >
> > To be honest, I hate the idea of rewriting the network config; being
> > able to specify things like
> >
> > config_eth0=( "10.1.1.{1..10}/24 brd +" )
>
>
maillog: 07/02/2007-08:50:03(+0100): Jakub Moc types
>
> To be honest, I hate the idea of rewriting the network config; being
> able to specify things like
>
> config_eth0=( "10.1.1.{1..10}/24 brd +" )
The above reminds me how the current init scripts first checks if an
address already exists on
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:03:56 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:09:11PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:14:49 +
> > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why? What's wrong with requiring a shell that supports various
>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:50:10 +1100
Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was looking at http://www.afflib.org/LICENSE.txt and was wondering if
> it really had any Gentoo implications with adding it as a package.
>
> I asked a few questions. Does the following seem reasonable?
Just one comment
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:09:11PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:14:49 +
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why? What's wrong with requiring a shell that supports various
> > features beyond what POSIX specifies? Granted, choice of shell is
> > good, but not if
Was looking at http://www.afflib.org/LICENSE.txt and was wondering if it
really had any Gentoo implications with adding it as a package.
I asked a few questions. Does the following seem reasonable?
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123175
-- Forwarded Message --
Sub
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:27:46 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > No, I'm just interesting in killing bash array requirements in the
> > network config file.
>
> you need to kill them everywhere then ... network config isnt the
> onl
Roy Marples wrote:
> This email is about network configuration. Before I joined Gentoo,
> network configuration was done in bash arrays like so (note, that the
> variable name was changed in baselayout-1.11)
>
> ifconfig_eth0=(
> "10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0"
> "10.1.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.
Roy Marples wrote:
> Hi List
>
> As some of you may be aware, I've started work on baselayout-2 which is
> basically re-tooling it in C. One of the side goals is to eliminate the
> need for using bash. You'll be pleased to know that it's working well
> enough to boot Gentoo/FreeBSD.
Hm...
> So,
25 matches
Mail list logo
