On 8/16/2012 6:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
The limited-visibility build feature discussed a week or so ago would
go a long way in detecting unexpressed build dependencies.
[snip]
If portage has the
dependency tree in RAM then you just need
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> The limited-visibility build feature discussed a week or so ago would
>> go a long way in detecting unexpressed build dependencies.
>
> I can't say that is a coincidence, but my intent wo
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> The limited-visibility build feature discussed a week or so ago would
> go a long way in detecting unexpressed build dependencies.
I can't say that is a coincidence, but my intent would be to include
@system as implicit dependencies, at least
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> On 8/16/2012 4:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
[snip]
>
>
> tldr: I like, approve and otherwise +1 the idea of somehow paring down or
> eliminating @system but I think it's going to be fairly challenging, so more
> discussion on this topic
On 8/16/2012 4:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
It also sounds like something like that could be a benefit to shrinking @system.
I think the solution to the circular dependency issue isn't to make
Portage able to completely bootstrap the whole sy
On 08/16/2012 04:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> And since ssh was brought up - this is what happens with hacks like
> this. When you combine the "default install" with the "minimum deps
> for everything" list you end up with an ssh you can't get rid of
> without the package.provided hack (which real
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> It also sounds like something like that could be a benefit to shrinking
> @system.
>
I think the solution to the circular dependency issue isn't to make
Portage able to completely bootstrap the whole system, but rather just
to make it capable
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:18:24 -0400
> Michael Mol wrote:
>> I've occasionally noticed portage tell me about circular dependencies,
>> where the most straight forward resolution is to emerge some package
>> in the loop twice. The first time,
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:18:24 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> I've occasionally noticed portage tell me about circular dependencies,
> where the most straight forward resolution is to emerge some package
> in the loop twice. The first time, with a USE flag disabled (avahi and
> gtk are the usual suspect
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400 as excerpted:
>
> > Right now having decent KDE and Gnome support with all the bells and
> > whistles[...] isn't that hard, [It] will likely get harder, which means
> > i
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400 as excerpted:
> Right now having decent KDE and Gnome support with all the bells and
> whistles[...] isn't that hard, [It] will likely get harder, which means
> in practice what we'll probably have is a reasonable compromise which
> will never
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:43:02 +0200 as
excerpted:
> Rich Freeman schrieb:
>> So, I could see how many linux users might think that interpreting a
>> complex root= parameter is a kernel function, when it is really just
>> the fact that they use an initramfs.
>>
>
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think that people get this confused because 99% of linux users have
> an initramfs (and about 2% of Gentoo users it seems), and most
> initramfs implementations DO interpret the root=parameter. If you
> specify an initramfs then the kernel
Rich Freeman schrieb:
> So, I could see how many linux users might think that interpreting a
> complex root= parameter is a kernel function, when it is really just
> the fact that they use an initramfs.
>
> If somebody is running with root=LABEL=foo or something like that
> without an initramfs I'
Il 12/08/2012 14:25, Rich Freeman ha scritto:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Duncan<1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
Peter Stuge posted on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:12:38 +0200 as excerpted:
What software parses the filesystem labels when you boot with openrc?
(I ask because I never use labels myself
Il 12/08/2012 11:43, Duncan ha scritto:
Peter Stuge posted on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:12:38 +0200 as excerpted:
viv...@gmail.com wrote:
First problem udev/SD has is that it can't see all the file system
labels, for some reason it only see sda and sdb so it's able to partly
proceed in the boot sequ
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Peter Stuge posted on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:12:38 +0200 as excerpted:
>>
>> What software parses the filesystem labels when you boot with openrc?
>>
>> (I ask because I never use labels myself.)
>
> Short answer, mount and udev,
Peter Stuge posted on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:12:38 +0200 as excerpted:
> viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> First problem udev/SD has is that it can't see all the file system
>> labels, for some reason it only see sda and sdb so it's able to partly
>> proceed in the boot sequence, mount / (root) but can't mo
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:43:26 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:04:40 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:47:38 +0200 as excerpted:
>>
>> > Or anything else what can be spawned for shell. And a lot more
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> The whole point of the debate should be if easier to have systemd split
> itself in usable components so people with certain focuses could
> leverage it on linux and replace those on non-linux (apparently not a
> chance) or have what we curren
On 08/10/2012 09:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> vdr is a first example which comes to my mind. They workaround program
> configuration limitations and the init.d scripts become a complex
> extra-configuration parser + plugin loader. Well, another thing here is
> that upstream AFAIK is not willing to
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:04:40 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Michał Górny posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:47:38 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:30:02 +0200 Luca Barbato
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:26:53 +0200 as
excerpted:
> Olivier Crête schrieb:
>> Can we also have a desktop that doesn't use X?
>
> Yes, through Wayland or DirectFB.
Me too!
Seriously, they're working on it, ubuntu already has a target switch-to
date (tho it's p
Michał Górny posted on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:47:38 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:30:02 +0200 Luca Barbato
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 Luca Barbato
>>> wrote:
[W]e could discuss about why reinventing shellscr
Peter Stuge posted on Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:22:54 +0200 as excerpted:
> Internet not required:
>
> $ rev <<< foobar
> raboof
> $ tac [...]
Thanks.
I'd read about those before (at least tac), but they aren't links (stale
or not), so I'd forgotten them...
Hmm... links to the manpages might solve
Duncan wrote:
> I believe there's quite a few list readers who have a similar respect
> for his efforts.
I believe so too!
I think it's a great effort. It may not fit my use cases, but I don't
care about that - even if it is *only* Walter scratching his own itch
I agree that it's important to sho
Dale posted on Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:36:30 -0500 as excerpted:
> What I don't like about the way Walter, mdev, is being treated is this.
> People say that if you don't like the way udev is going, WRITE CODE. If
> you are not going to write code, don't complain about udev. Then
> Walter, I think I
Kent Fredric wrote:
> > (While the link I had saved was stale it did mean I still remembered
> > enough about it to plug the idea into google and successfully find it.
> > Link updated. =:^)
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=reverse+hgual%20doog%20a%20ekil%20sdnuos%20taht
>
> Google not required ;D
On 8 August 2012 22:55, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> LOL! THAT's what it was! Along the same lines...
>
> ...senil emas eht gnolA !saw ti tahw s'TAHT !LOL
>
> http://www.textreverse.com/
>
> (While the link I had saved was stale it did mean I still remembered
> enough about it to plug
Michał Górny posted on Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:13:21 +0200 as excerpted:
> Sorry for the confusion caused to you and the others. You need to read
> it bottom-to-top. I reversed the line order for Sylvain who seems to
> prefer reading that way.
LOL! THAT's what it was! Along the same lines...
...se
30 matches
Mail list logo
