On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> We still need something that is "array like" for want of a better
> phrase, so how about delimiting using ; like so
> config_eth0="10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0; 10.1.1.2/24"
if you want to allow one liners, then i dont see any other real option
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> He's not "screwing up" anything. He's making changes he wishes as the
> author and maintainer of the package. If someone doesn't like it, they
> can fork it and maintain their own package. Isn't that just wonderful?
> Seriously, Roy can wor
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Another idea; have baselayout install different versions of
> init.d/conf.d and default shell for runscript depending on USE flags
that'll just lead to horrible bit rot and code duplication i would think
-mike
pgpoE6NHhLauz.pgp
Description:
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Please read over what's been talked about elsewhere in this thread. He
> is not trying to break existing functionality at all. Only extend it to
> be posix aware (additionally)
erm, no ... our code is a superset of POSIX, so technically yes he is bre
He's not going to waste someone else's time, and as he said there will be
compatibility with current configuration files, I don't think there's any
downside to users.
FWIW, speaking as a user, I value stability over speed. But if I have a
promise of stability (i.e. my current configs will s
On Friday 09 February 2007, Ned Ludd wrote:
> baselayout is only about a half of a meg these days and probably
> getting smaller/faster with the addition of the multicall rc/runscript
> work he has been doing.
>
> Adding bash also requires ncurses which in turn mostly requires having
> a c++ aware
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:49:57 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words:
>
> busybox + single rcS file = fastest and simplest, smallest, best for
> very small filesystems, not as flexible
>
> bash + gentoo baselayout = most flexible, biggest, slower, best for
> feature-rich
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion because
> | all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times people have
> | said is not true.
>
> If you bothered to pay
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 14:49 -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On 2/8/07, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As somebody that's had to hand write many of those kinds of scripts. A
> > single rcS is not very ideal. Our init scripts are in fact mostly usable
> > by busybox. Granted there are a few s
If any of you were thinking of removing the latest stable version of a
package, don't. Even if you're the package maintainer, even if there
are open security bugs against it, even if someone has filed you a bug
requesting that it be removed. If it's the latest stable version on any
architecture, yo
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > How would you then reconcile the issues raised in this bug[1]
> > regarding /usr/lib and multilib support?
>
> /usr/lib/misc most likely, or /usr/libexec as you prefer, considering that
> the
> policy about th
On 2/8/07, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As somebody that's had to hand write many of those kinds of scripts. A
single rcS is not very ideal. Our init scripts are in fact mostly usable
by busybox. Granted there are a few special special cases, but then Roy
is offering to update those for fr
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 13:23 -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> I sort of missed this conversation, so apologies in advance if this
> has already been covered, but wanted to say that gentoo's initscripts
> are generally not suited for embedded systems.
>
> So making baselayout busybox-compatible doesn'
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > did you get a chance to see how hard it would be to integrate the
> > bash array code ?
>
> Integrate into what? You mean integrate into other shells?
mmm i thought you were looking to parse the config
I sort of missed this conversation, so apologies in advance if this
has already been covered, but wanted to say that gentoo's initscripts
are generally not suited for embedded systems.
So making baselayout busybox-compatible doesn't seem to be worth the
disruption and headaches it would cause. It
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:01:08 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > some init.d scripts use arrays as well
> >
> > Do we know which ones?
>
> grep for it :p
> netmount for sure right now
Well, netmount is baselayout, so that will kinda be done by default :)
> i guess my point was i
Ed Catmur wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:05 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > I am planning on moving the install locations of all the rox-base/* and
> > rox-extra/* applications from their current location (/usr/lib/rox) to
> > something a little more FHS-correct[1] and tolerant of multilib support.
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> How would you then reconcile the issues raised in this bug[1]
> regarding /usr/lib and multilib support?
/usr/lib/misc most likely, or /usr/libexec as you prefer, considering that the
policy about that is still unwritten and probably will not appe
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Thomas Rösner wrote:
> > AFAIR App Dirs provide internal arch distinction, so why not just put it
> > in /usr/share/rox?
>
> /usr/share is not a good place for any kind of executable.
Also, after compiling the AppDirs (in the few ca
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Thomas Rösner wrote:
> AFAIR App Dirs provide internal arch distinction, so why not just put it
> in /usr/share/rox?
/usr/share is not a good place for any kind of executable. /usr/lib is more
suitable for the purpose.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:05 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> I am planning on moving the install locations of all the rox-base/* and
> rox-extra/* applications from their current location (/usr/lib/rox) to
> something a little more FHS-correct[1] and tolerant of multilib support.
>
> The main reason for
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> But hey, I understand you like to go around bashing people. Does doing
> so scratch an itch of yours or something?
>
I guess we all misunderstood.
As long everybody won't have additional work (like changing all our
systems) I think nobody would complain.
If the posix
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
> > > c
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > 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
> >
Jim Ramsay schrieb:
I am planning on moving the install locations of all the rox-base/* and
rox-extra/* applications from their current location (/usr/lib/rox) to
something a little more FHS-correct[1] and tolerant of multilib support.
The main reason for this change is that I got a bug from amd
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:06:07 -0800
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Next question, then, since I am extremely, exquisitely glad to know
> that the existing, familiar, comfortable, (etc.) way of doing it will
> be allowed, how long will that last. That is, will we all be forced to
> migr
I am planning on moving the install locations of all the rox-base/* and
rox-extra/* applications from their current location (/usr/lib/rox) to
something a little more FHS-correct[1] and tolerant of multilib support.
The main reason for this change is that I got a bug from amd64 because
the /usr/li
Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:26:40 +0100
> Francesco Riosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> lol,
>> anyway stop this thread, Roy stated that the installed cfg files will
>> be managed via use flags that would satisfy everyone.
>
> I say maybe a USE flag or something else. May not need
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion because
| all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times people have
| said is not true.
I can count to one.
If you
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:28:52 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion
> because | all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times
> peop
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:59 +0100, Jose San Leandro wrote:
That is enough once you know how to write ebuilds.
We were thinking of a GUI to soften the learning curve to non-experts.
Probably not useful for a Gentoo developer, but could provide an easy way to
write ebuil
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:17:58 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:32:45 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | Actually, that's one of the joys of open source. There *doesn't*
| > | need to be *any* justification *
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion because
| all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times people have
| said is not true.
If you bothered to pay attention, you'll note that Roy *did
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:26:40 +0100
Francesco Riosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> lol,
> anyway stop this thread, Roy stated that the installed cfg files will
> be managed via use flags that would satisfy everyone.
I say maybe a USE flag or something else. May not need one, we'll see.
Existing co
On Thursday 08 February 2007 14:20, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:13:37 +0100 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | > Ooh, an ad hominem!
> > |
> > | Is that the name
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:13:37 +0100 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Ooh, an ad hominem!
> |
> | Is that the name of paludis' bug reporting tool?
>
> No, that would be trac, as you know fi
frilled wrote:
>>> Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a project
>>> that is developed and used by a lot of people.
>>>
>> As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config files.
>>
>
>
> And once again nobody thinks of the user base. Changing config
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:32:45 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Actually, that's one of the joys of open source. There *doesn't* need
> | to be *any* justification *whatsoever* for Roy to do anything he
> | likes. After all, that's how many projects st
Wernfried Haas ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ooh, an ad hominem!
Is that the name of paludis' bug reporting tool?
lol,
anyway stop this thread, Roy stated that the installed cfg files will be
managed via use flags that would satisfy everyone.
Christopher Covington wrote:
Apropos ebuild-aware text editor, has anyone written an eclipse plugin
yet? I find that setting up ebuild as an external tool is basically
all I need but syntax highlighting and eclass reference would make
things prettier.
I have no idea of the status, but I recentl
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:13:37 +0100 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Ooh, an ad hominem!
|
| Is that the name of paludis' bug reporting tool?
No, that would be trac, as you know fine well. Do you have anything
useful to
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Ooh, an ad hominem!
Is that the name of paludis' bug reporting tool?
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: fo
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:59 +0100, Jose San Leandro wrote:
> That is enough once you know how to write ebuilds.
>
> We were thinking of a GUI to soften the learning curve to non-experts.
> Probably not useful for a Gentoo developer, but could provide an easy way to
> write ebuilds to project mai
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:32:45 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Actually, that's one of the joys of open source. There *doesn't* need
| to be *any* justification *whatsoever* for Roy to do anything he
| likes. After all, that's how many projects start out. Someone
| decides they
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:28:34 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| He's not "screwing up" anything. He's making changes he wishes as the
| author and maintainer of the package. If someone doesn't like it,
| they can fork it and maintain their own package. Isn't that just
| wonderfu
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Deep Space Nine, then Voyager, then Enterprise... sounds good to me ;)
> baselayout-deep-space-nine ;) Portage would hate such versioning scheme ;)
I would love it, it would be perfect with the naming convention I'm using for
my boxes :)
/me
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:32:20 +0100 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a
> | > project that is developed and used by a lot of people.
>
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 08:18 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:58:20 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > A far better justification than you've given currently.
> |
> | How about hacking on open source is done so that people can scratch
> | an itch. No devel
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:02:38AM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> Who said that there would be loss of functionality?
>
> I'm just suggesting a new config while supporting the old one.
That sounds great, especially for all the slackers unwilling to change
their config files. :-)
cheers,
Wer
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:38:04 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:32:20 +0100 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a
> | > project that is developed and used by
That is enough once you know how to write ebuilds.
We were thinking of a GUI to soften the learning curve to non-experts.
Probably not useful for a Gentoo developer, but could provide an easy way to
write ebuilds to project maintainers themselves, not to Gentoo resources.
On Thursday 08 Februar
Apropos ebuild-aware text editor, has anyone written an eclipse plugin
yet? I find that setting up ebuild as an external tool is basically
all I need but syntax highlighting and eclass reference would make
things prettier.
On 2/8/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007
>
>> Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a project
>> that is developed and used by a lot of people.
>>
>
> As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config files.
>
And once again nobody thinks of the user base. Changing configuration
file syntax me
On Thursday 08 February 2007 10:38 pm, Jose San Leandro wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A friend of mine and myself are willing to develop some tools to help
> ebuild development.
>
> We have some constraints, but we are thinking on something like:
> 1) A tool to ease writing ebuilds. It would take some param
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:32:20 +0100 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a
| > project that is developed and used by a lot of people.
|
| As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config fil
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Which is all very well, but not sufficient reason to screw up a project
> that is developed and used by a lot of people.
As if we were all gonna die without bash arrays in our config files.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:42:14 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:38:08 +0100 Jose San Leandro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| A friend of mine and myself are willing to develop some tools to help
| ebuild development.
All the common cases should be handled by default functions, package
manager functions and eclasses. Thus, writing ebuilds sho
Hi all,
A friend of mine and myself are willing to develop some tools to help ebuild
development.
We have some constraints, but we are thinking on something like:
1) A tool to ease writing ebuilds. It would take some parameters, i.e.:
1.1) Where are the sources?
1.2) Decompression algorithm?
Donnie Berkholz 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?
>
> What did they call the Star Trek after NG? =)
Deep Space Nine, then Voyager, then
Greg KH wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:58:20 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > A far better justification than you've given currently.
|
| How about hacking on open source is done so that people can scratch
| an itch. No developer has to be a slave to the demands of others if
| it doesn't scratc
62 matches
Mail list logo
