On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 19:24 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > I'm looking to minimize what is in a stage1 tarball, not increase it. I
> > would much prefer that we instead had a proper dependency tree, than
> > hacking around it. Applications that need to add users on Linux
> > *should* DEPEND on
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:24:44AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 19:34 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:41AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52P
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 19:34 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:41AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > OK. I've been looking at some of
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:41AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
> > > I've been thinking of
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
> > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
> > own eclass. This wil
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
> I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
> own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or
> otherwise early
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:03:00PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Because DEPEND is only needed for the actual build (src_* functions).
> With binary packages, all the pkg_* functions are run but DEPEND
> packages are not required to be installed. So anything external run in a
> pkg_* function mus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
| I've read the initial post a couple of times now, and I still don't
| get it.
|
| Could somebody please clarify how this differs from DEPEND?
Because DEPEND is only needed for the actual build (src_* functions).
With bin
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 12:38:44PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> /me begins clamoring for IDEPEND (install-time deps).
I've read the initial post a couple of times now, and I still don't
get it.
Could somebody please clarify how this differs from DEPEND?
Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| That is what I thought. I was just wondering if there were some other
| *DEPEND that I wasn't aware of that fit the bill of "needed for
| installing from a package but not needed afterwards". It doesn't
| *really* matter si
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 11:40 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> | These packages do not need shadow (though the system might, but that's
> | outside my scope) once they are installed, only to install. However, it
> | is not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| These packages do not need shadow (though the system might, but that's
| outside my scope) once they are installed, only to install. However, it
| is not needed to build. What *DEPEND is correct?
It fits into RDEPEND (oddl
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 12:52 -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
> > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
> > own eclass. This will
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 19:30 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 19:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I'd be willing to make all the changes to the tree to facilitate this,
> > and unless someone has a really good reason not to do so, I think I'll
> > probably do it
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
> I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
> own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or
> otherwise early
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 19:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'd be willing to make all the changes to the tree to facilitate this,
> and unless someone has a really good reason not to do so, I think I'll
> probably do it after the Thanksgiving holiday.
Well if you can give us an ISO date it woul
OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or
otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd. Two
examples of this are b
17 matches
Mail list logo
