On Saturday, 15 February 2020 3:14:55 AM AEDT Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:31 AM Sam Jorna (wraeth)
wrote:
> > In this instance, at least two people (myself included) have drawn an
> > impression that led them to voice their concern in some way (I'm unsur
On Friday, 14 February 2020 2:21:32 PM AEDT Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:12 AM Mike Pagano wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 06:46:43PM +1100, Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 13 February 2020 5:40:46 AM AEDT Matt Turner wrote:
> > > >
On Thursday, 13 February 2020 5:40:46 AM AEDT Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:59 AM William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:54:19PM +1100, Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote:
> > > On Monday, 10 February 2020 7:55:01 AM AEDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > &g
;we' really need to read your useless comments
> everywhere, all the time and just get irritated for no benefit to
> Gentoo?
Perhaps I'm the one being ignorant here, but why are we lambasting someone for
seeking clarification about an unusual inclusion on a review thread?
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: 0xD6180C26
On 11/08/17 03:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Lets go down this rabbit hole.
Let's not.
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 10/08/17 11:42, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:50:45 +1000
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/17 06:35, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> FYI binpkgs have no hash. If someone did something malicious within
>>> the
On 10/08/17 11:47, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:25:34 +1000
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/17 10:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> Also your redistributing another's package
>>> in binary format which may
ministrator,
not Gentoo (as a distro), it remains with the administrator to adhere to
any relevant license restrictions. Plus the package manager can't tell
if you're distributing binaries or not.
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
package Manifest file works within a repository.
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 09/08/17 10:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:29:40 +1000
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/17 04:20, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:32:48 +0200
>>> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>
e installed it, rather than extracting
whatever upstream supplies verbatim. This includes things like any
wrappers, desktop files or symlinks created by the ebuild, or other such
downstream-isms.
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel"
wrote:
>Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge:
>>
>> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable.
>>
>> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)
>> carries with it an
ce
> that system units move from /usr/lib/system/system to
> /lib/system/system as you upgrade/re-install packages; this is normal.
> Units will function properly from both locations.
s:/lib/system:&d:
> As always, if you run into problems, please report a bug.
Otherwise, lgtm.
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 12/07/17 16:06, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:49:14 +1000
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>>
>> I have trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night, let alone
>> what I may or may not have merged a week, month or year ago, or w
On 12/07/17 15:36, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:19:32 +1000
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
>> On 12/07/17 15:14, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> Is it in system?
>>> Is it in a set?
>>> Is it in world?
>>
may not be a dependency, may or may not have been --oneshot'd.
It may have been installed as a dependency but the requiring package was
removed, or may have been installed as an orphan but is now a
dependency. Assuming that if it's not in a set it must be a dependency
is incorrect and misleading.
like system,
> profile, and set files.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624630
My point was that --unmerge is not intended to be dependency-aware.
--depclean is. As far as I can tell, that is the point others have been
trying to make as well, when pointing out the differences between -c and -C.
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
r those taking a hammer to a
problem or with a particular desire to recover a broken system.
Again, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to - removing a package
you've told it to remove (unless it's one of the few
almost-always-critical packages).
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
reventing
stabilisation of packages with some known issue. Therefore packages with
known issues don't get stabilised automatically.
Similarly, if the maintainer believes more comprehensive testing should
be done (eg. for critical base-system packages) a note could be made
somewhere of that requirement (metadata.xml?), meaning significantly
reduced workload for people like ago (if the maintainer doesn't
stabilise it beforehand).
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
19 matches
Mail list logo
