Kent Fredric posted on Wed, 04 Sep 2013 23:38:40 +1200 as excerpted:
> I see. I have a few gvim instances also reading/writing to that terminal
> I didn't know about, interesting.
Which brings up the privacy point. Anything getting this fancy and
convoluted in terms of implementation is going t
Dnia 2013-09-04, o godz. 22:19:30
Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
> Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:48 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a écrit :
> > On 04/09/13 03:44 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a
> > > écrit : [snip]
> > >>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/09/13 03:44 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a
> écrit : [snip]
>>
>> By gdk-pixbuf.cache , you mean the 'loaders.cache' file that the
>> eclass is now continuously updating? Wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/09/13 03:48 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> No, it still does collide that first time if
> FEATURES="collision-protect" is enabled. In fact, I do not
> believe there is (by design) any way for this ebuild to 'take
> ownership' of a file it doe
Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a écrit :
> On 04/09/13 02:57 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
[snip]
> > Is there any other solution or is there any other point that would
> > move the balance from one solution to another ?
> >
> > This solution would also be applied
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/09/13 04:19 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:48 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a
> écrit :
>>
>> You had FEATURES="collision-protect" enabled" or the default
>> FEATURES="protect-owned" ?
>
> the default, but s
Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:48 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a écrit :
> On 04/09/13 03:44 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a
> > écrit : [snip]
> >>
> >> By gdk-pixbuf.cache , you mean the 'loaders.cache' file that the
> >> eclas
On 09/04/2013 12:44 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 septembre 2013 à 15:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius a écrit :
>> If you want to do that *and* maintain whatever is currently in that
>> file, you can use the trick sys-apps/openrc used to do: in
>> pkg_preinst, copy the system file (
Dnia 2013-09-04, o godz. 20:57:41
Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
> One last point to handle, how to migrate gdk-pixbuf.cache so that it is
> owned by the ebuild ?
>
> I've discussed this with Michał and it seems two options are possible.
>
> 1. rm the file on the filesystem in pkg_preinst in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/09/13 02:57 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> One last point to handle, how to migrate gdk-pixbuf.cache so that
> it is owned by the ebuild ?
>
> I've discussed this with Michał and it seems two options are
> possible.
>
> 1. rm the file on
One last point to handle, how to migrate gdk-pixbuf.cache so that it is
owned by the ebuild ?
I've discussed this with Michał and it seems two options are possible.
1. rm the file on the filesystem in pkg_preinst in gdk-pixbuf ebuild
pros:
- works immediately without fiddling with profiles (see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/09/13 01:28 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 02.09.2013 19:29, Ian Delaney (idella4) пишет:
>> idella4 13/09/02 15:29:57
>>
>> Modified: ChangeLog Added:
>> sendpage-1.1.0-r2.ebuild Removed:
>> sendpage-1.1.0-r1.ebuild Log: revbump ->
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/09/13 08:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:37:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 12:24:49 Markos Chandras
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> On 3 September 2013 12:17, Michał Górny
>>> wrote:
Dnia 2013
William Hubbs writes:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:41:28PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> That is a bug in pybugz and not an argument, you know.
>
> I said "things like pybugz".
>
> Bugzilla allowing control characters in the xml is the issue. The python
> xmlrpc library raises an exception for m
Dnia 2013-09-04, o godz. 23:45:44
Kent Fredric napisał(a):
> On 4 September 2013 21:59, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > And how are you going to implement this? I doubt that fd/vt input has
> > any sort of 'writing process id' indicator.
> >
>
>
> Though granted, my other post is not going to be us
On 4 September 2013 21:59, Michał Górny wrote:
> And how are you going to implement this? I doubt that fd/vt input has
> any sort of 'writing process id' indicator.
>
Though granted, my other post is not going to be useful on a line-by-line
basis.
The obvious easy approach is have an exec laun
On 4 September 2013 21:59, Michał Górny wrote:
> And how are you going to implement this? I doubt that fd/vt input has
> any sort of 'writing process id' indicator.
>
In one terminal:
cat -vET
In another:
pgrep -x cat # 199935
ls -la /proc/199935/fd/
dr-x-- 2 kent kent 0 Sep 4 23:29
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:59:37 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> And how are you going to implement this? I doubt that fd/vt input has
> any sort of 'writing process id' indicator.
Yeah, will require some inspection into how this works and what
information we have available; if that indicator isn't prese
Dnia 2013-09-04, o godz. 11:24:22
Tom Wijsman napisał(a):
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:17:11 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 18:57:12
> > "Walter Dnes" napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:15:39PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
> > >
> > > > That is not what this
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:17:11 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 18:57:12
> "Walter Dnes" napisał(a):
>
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:15:39PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
> >
> > > That is not what this is about, this is about having escape
> > > sequences in build logs obtained f
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:03:14 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 4 September 2013 08:11, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > And then I asked the questions that I'd like to see answered:
> >
> >
> > Why do they not belong there? What do people have to do who want
> > them?
> >
>
> If anyone needs a poster chil
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:25:14 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 03 Sep 2013 23:16:11 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > Currently the logs aren't
> > search and grep compatible because you have no indication where the
> > last error is and which process has outpu
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:43:24 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:44:45PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
>
> > +1 I am still not convinced we are experiencing an actual practical
> > problem for the majority of the build logs that are attached; we've
> > been doing this for years, wh
Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 19:53:22
James Cloos napisał(a):
> (I think I forgot to mention when I wrote about keeping git-2 around for
> a while that I like the plan for git-3; that should have been explicit.)
>
> It looks good.
>
> I haven't worked out what the storage names under EGIT3_STORE_DI
Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 18:57:12
"Walter Dnes" napisał(a):
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:15:39PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote
>
> > That is not what this is about, this is about having escape sequences
> > in build logs obtained from Bugzilla; because, they aid in skimming
> > through logs (until we
25 matches
Mail list logo
