On 05/04/2016 04:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote:
>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
On 05/05/2016 01:12 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote:
>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
> >>
> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git gre
On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
>>
Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the
Portage tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch
>
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
>
> >> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the
> >> Portage tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch
> >> any init scripts installed from elsewhe
> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
>> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the
>> Portage tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch
>> any init scripts installed from elsewhere. You should look for the
>> set of installed files instead.
> How is t
On 05/04/2016 02:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
>> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
>> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed
>> packages. That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but
>> I'l
> On Tue, 3 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed
> packages. That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but
> I'll deal with that latter). The trouble is that ther
On 05/04/2016 01:02 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 06:27 AM, Austin English wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
>> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1],
> ... and once more I have to ask:
>
> Is there any reason that Stuff Needs To Change because of a
On 05/04/2016 06:27 AM, Austin English wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1],
... and once more I have to ask:
Is there any reason that Stuff Needs To Change because of a packaging
conflict in *debian* where it really doesn't
Hi there,
I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
#!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed packages.
That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but I'll deal with that
latter). The trouble is that there are roughly 700 packages that need to
be upd
12 matches
Mail list logo
