В Пнд, 19/01/2009 в 17:18 +0100, Santiago M. Mola пишет:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Friedrich Oslage
> wrote:
> > Why not teach /sbin/runscript it's own version? With something like this
> > we could also do stuff depending on a specific version of openrc:
>
> That would be a good solu
On Sonntag, 18. Januar 2009, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'm raising this as an extension of bug 253076, but also because I see
> the potential for danger.
>
> To date, for an init script that has baselayout2-specific behavior, we
> have had some variant of [ -e /lib/librc.so ] in the init script.
>
Many times upstream Java projects don't include build.xml files or
proper build systems so we include build.xml files in $FILESDIR. In case
upstream some day adds one we usually use cp -i to detect if upstream
adds this file in new versions. If devs do their job properly, this will
never show to us
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 21:04 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Many times upstream Java projects don't include build.xml files or
> proper build systems so we include build.xml files in $FILESDIR. In case
> upstream some day adds one we usually use cp -i to detect if upstream
> adds this file in new vers
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 21:04 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Many times upstream Java projects don't include build.xml files or
>> proper build systems so we include build.xml files in $FILESDIR. In case
>> upstream some day adds one we usually use cp -i to detect if upstream
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 21:37 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 21:04 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Many times upstream Java projects don't include build.xml files or
> >> proper build systems so we include build.xml files in $FILESDIR. In case
> >> upst
Ferris McCormick wrote:
'cp -i' will at least ask a question, and I find that marginally better
--- it's confusing, but at least it says something. But it seems to me
that if we hit this case, no one (including the package owner) knows
which .xml file to use, so stopping the build makes sense, b
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:50:47 +0100
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > 'cp -i' will at least ask a question, and I find that marginally better
> > --- it's confusing, but at least it says something. But it seems to me
> > that if we hit this case, no one (including the package owner
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:50:47 +0100
> Jan Kundrát wrote:
>
>> Ferris McCormick wrote:
>> > 'cp -i' will at least ask a question, and I find that marginally better
>> > --- it's confusing, but at least it says something. But it seems to me
Why recently published stage3 tarball did not contain a /etc/make.conf.example?
http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/autobuilds/20090115/stage3-amd64-20090115.tar.bz2
but the /etc/make.conf said:
# Please consult /etc/make.conf.example for a more detailed example.
If plan to remove th
Cheng Renquan wrote:
> Why recently published stage3 tarball did not contain a
> /etc/make.conf.example?
>
> http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/autobuilds/20090115/stage3-amd64-20090115.tar.bz2
>
> but the /etc/make.conf said:
>
> # Please consult /etc/make.conf.example for a more d
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Cheng Renquan wrote:
>> Why recently published stage3 tarball did not contain a
>> /etc/make.conf.example?
>>
>> http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/autobuilds/20090115/stage3-amd64-20090115.tar.bz2
>>
>> but the /etc/make.conf
Cheng Renquan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>> Cheng Renquan wrote:
>>> Why recently published stage3 tarball did not contain a
>>> /etc/make.conf.example?
>>>
>>> http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/autobuilds/20090115/stage3-amd64-20090115.tar.bz2
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
