On 2011-09-09 1:15 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Under what setup does it not work now? I would very much like to know
> if some recent OpenRC thing just hosed something. I'm dealing with
> torrential rain here, thunderstorms, and I cannot predict when my next
> power outage will be. Last thing I n
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> We have actually 3 polkit agent implementations in Portage:
>
> gnome-extra/polkit-gnome
> lxde-base/lxpolkit
> sys-auth/polkit-kde-agent
>
There's one more: gnome-base/gnome-shell
GNOME Shell has its own polkit-agent implementation, which
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 14:10:23 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2011-09-08 19:03:56 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> > Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
> > > Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
> >
> > 2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python,
> > ruby or php)
>
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 18:15:21 Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 09/08/2011 16:02, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > Seperate /usr without initramfs used to work. Now it doesn't. What you
> > are proposing is going to make it well neigh impossible to correct later
> > on. We could have done a proper fix i
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 05:27:05 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:17:21 +0300 Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> > Moving things as openrc to /usr/libexec will effectevely barake old
> > systems with separtae / and /usr. So it isnt good idea
>
> Old systems should migrate to initramfs,
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 03:20:01 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> please stop committing packages that is not possible to fetch right away.
> You can pick from three options:
> a) stop using mirrors://gentoo/ and put it on dev.gentoo.org to your
> public_html like most of us do
> b) mask the package
On 09/08/2011 16:02, Eray Aslan wrote:
> Seperate /usr without initramfs used to work. Now it doesn't. What you
> are proposing is going to make it well neigh impossible to correct later
> on. We could have done a proper fix instead of going with the flow.
> But I am not the one doing the codin
On 09/08/2011 10:35, Rich Freeman wrote:
> It may have changed, but at least in the past you couldn't have root on a
> raid5 without an initramfs - you definitely couldn't have it on LVM. So, if
> you wanted to run LVM on raid5, you had to have a separate root that was
> raid1 with the older meta
On 2011-09-08 6:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Could you stick to facts rather than pointless accusations?
It is not an accusation and it is not pointless. For the last time:
Seperate /usr without initramfs used to work. Now it doesn't. What you
are proposing is going to make it well neigh impos
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:33:03 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:35:48 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > PM needs to provide us with a nice ability to handle all that.
>
> I've yet to see a complete, detailed, accurate description of what
> "all that" really is. It's a bit hard to
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:35:48 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> PM needs to provide us with a nice ability to handle all that.
I've yet to see a complete, detailed, accurate description of what "all
that" really is. It's a bit hard to come up with an EAPI solution when
we don't know what the problem is.
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:10:23 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2011-09-08 19:03:56 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> > Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
> > > Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
> >
> > 2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g.
> > python, ruby or php)
> >
> >
2011-09-08 19:03:56 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
> > Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
>
> 2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python, ruby
> or php)
>
> The second one is already done in some eclasses, afaik php and ruby, but it
> might be a goo
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:03:56 +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python,
ruby or php)
The second one is already done in some eclasses, afaik php and ruby, but
it might be a g
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
>> Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
>
> 1) USE-flag based support to cross-compile packages (mostly implemented in
> multilib-portage)
> 2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python, ruby
> o
Tomáš Chvátal schrieb:
> Start collecting ideas for EAPI5.
1) USE-flag based support to cross-compile packages (mostly implemented in
multilib-portage)
2) USE-flag based support to install for different slots (e.g. python, ruby or
php)
3) (internal) USE-flag based support to re-install packages
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:46:01 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > 3) dobashcompletion foo
> -> dobashcomp foo || die
>
> Isn't that rather:
> newbashcomp foo ${PN} || die
Ah, sorry, you're right.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Descri
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
> 3) dobashcompletion foo
-> dobashcomp foo || die
Isn't that rather:
newbashcomp foo ${PN} || die
Ulrich
Hello,
As new bash-completion-r1 eclass is in the tree now, a quick migration
guide follows.
The new eclass is simpler and more consistent. It doesn't enforce
USE=bash-completion or put any bash-completion-specific deps on
packages. If any package _really_ needs that, it should put out
the necess
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:16:36 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> The changelog entry message is irrelevant in this case since the
> changelog already lists which files were removed ( -foo-1 -foo-2 ) so
> please don't make us restart the old discussion about changelogs which
> will lead us again to nas
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:52:55 +0300
Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 2011-09-08 11:19 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> > Whoever said we had to do what everyone else did? We're Gentoo,
> > not a pack of lemmings. If we have to, we should be able to create
> > an entirely new solution, never thought of before, t
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I'd rather say we should do the work on real issues rather than
> imaginate 'separate /usr' problem. Honestly, most of 'advantages' of
> separate /usr are just hacks avoiding other problems.
>
>
I guess the irony in my case was that having a
On 8.9.2011 16.16, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>>> (Consider my refusal to reply any more messages in this thread as
>>> an polite attempt of avoiding escalation and flame.)
>
>> Consider my email as a friendly and polite request to please change
>> your ChangeLog behaviour from now on.
>
>
> The
On 08-09-2011 16:16:36 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The changelog entry message is irrelevant in this case since the
> changelog already lists which files were removed ( -foo-1 -foo-2 ) so
> please don't make us restart the old discussion about changelogs which
> will lead us again to nasty and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/09/2011 04:07 μμ, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 08-09-2011 14:54:24 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 09/06/2011 11:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 06-09-2011 20:24:54 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Modified: ChangeLog Removed: libffi-3.
On 08-09-2011 14:54:24 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 09/06/2011 11:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 06-09-2011 20:24:54 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> Modified: ChangeLog
> >> Removed: libffi-3.0.10_rc8.ebuild libffi-3.0.9.ebuild
> >> Log:
> >> [This is a placeholder. Please ignore.]
Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:54:24 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 09/06/2011 11:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 06-09-2011 20:24:54 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Modified: ChangeLog
>>> Removed: libffi-3.0.10_rc8.ebuild libffi-3.0.9.ebuild Log:
>>> [This is a placeholder. Pleas
On 09/06/2011 11:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-09-2011 20:24:54 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Modified: ChangeLog
>> Removed: libffi-3.0.10_rc8.ebuild libffi-3.0.9.ebuild
>> Log:
>> [This is a placeholder. Please ignore.]
>
> Considering that you seem to do this on a regular basis:
> P
On 2011-09-08 11:19 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Whoever said we had to do what everyone else did? We're Gentoo, not a
> pack of lemmings. If we have to, we should be able to create an
> entirely new solution, never thought of before, that fixes the problem
> for all parties involved, yet allows us
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 04:19:32 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 20:35, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Joshua Kinard
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Never once have I had any issues
> >> with separate / and /usr, and none of them use an initramfs.
> >
> >
> > Ditto here
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:52:02 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2011/9/8 Michał Górny :
> >
> > Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll
> > commit this today.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Michał Górny
> >
>
> Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields one for AUTHOR and on
On 09/07/2011 20:35, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
>> Never once have I had any issues
>> with separate / and /usr, and none of them use an initramfs.
>
>
> Ditto here, but that doesn't mean that problems don't exist. Right now the
> problems are
2011/9/8 Michał Górny :
>
> Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll
> commit this today.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields one for AUTHOR and one for MAINTAINER,
Also in the code do not use the autotols-utils... but just pl
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:14:56 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > So, here it goes. However, I'm not sure if that even deserves
> > a dedicated function as the destination is pretty constant.
>
> > # @BLURB: A few quick functions to install bash-compl
34 matches
Mail list logo
