On 01/05/12 14:36, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:36:17PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>
>>> Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-prot
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:36:17PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> > Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> >> On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect"
> > then it needs to be fixed.
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
>> On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect"
> then it needs to be fixed.
>>>
Long story short: older eclass compiled Python byte code in live
>>>
Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect" then it
needs to be fixed.
>>
>>> Long story short: older
On 30/04/12 11:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:40:26 +0200
> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 11:30, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
>>> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>>>
On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since late
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:42:56 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >> so the package *has to overwrite* files that are not owned by
> >> anyone (no package owns them).
> >
> > The usual approach to this problem was to have some cleanup code in
> > pkg_setup or pkg_preinst that would remove the old fil
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:40:26 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 11:30, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
> > Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:37:53 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 11:28, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:03 +0200
> > Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> Since lately Gentoo
On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect" then it
>>> needs to be fixed.
>
>> Long story short: older eclass compiled Python byte code
On 30/04/12 11:30, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
>>> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out file
On 30/04/12 11:28, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:03 +0200
> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect
with protect-owned [1] an
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
> > protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files
> > randomly on the filesystem due to rando
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:03 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect
> >> with protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files
> >>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect" then it
>> needs to be fixed.
> Long story short: older eclass compiled Python byte code in live
> file system, new one does it in src_inst
On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files randomly
> on the filesystem due to random errors, I thought it may be a good idea
> to provide a new feature limi
On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
>> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files randomly
>> on the filesystem due to random errors, I thought it may be a
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files randomly
> on the filesystem due to random errors, I thought it may be a good idea
> to provide a new feature limiting
Hello,
Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files randomly
on the filesystem due to random errors, I thought it may be a good idea
to provide a new feature limiting the locations where packages can
install.
In
18 matches
Mail list logo
