On 23:04 Sun 14 Nov , Justin Bronder (jsbronder) wrote:
> pkg_setup() {
> enewgroup munge
> enewuser munge -1 -1 /var/lib/munge munge
> }
This is kind of a strange time to run these, since then you'll end up
with a new user and group even if the build fails or is killed. You'll
a
# Michael Sterrett (20 Nov 2010)
# Unsupportable. masked for removal on 20101220
# Use games-action/gltron instead
games-action/armagetronad
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is kind of a strange time to run these, since then you'll end
> up with a new user and group even if the build fails or is killed.
> You'll also end up with extraneous users and groups on build
> servers. Does this user/group need to be pres
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 21:28:02 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> (With the exception of mysql.eclass, which for some reason calls them
> from both pkg_setup and pkg_preinst.)
That's historical. In the very very early days you had to do that for
binaries to work properly. Nowadays just using pkg_setup s
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Does this user/group need to be present on the build system for some
> reason?
Dunno about that package in particular, but for many packages, the build
process involves assigning ownership of certain files and folders to
particular users and groups. For that, you'd need t
I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
patches added recently (see ChangeLog).
As always, bugs in packages should be assigned to that package's maintainer.
Bugs in GCC should be assi
On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
patches added recently (see ChangeLog).
revbump?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
> > who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some
> > important
> > patches added recently
On 11/21/2010 04:57 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some import
> On 11/21/2010 04:57 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
> >
> > Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >>> I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend
> >>> everyone who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as
matts...@sempron /usr/portage $ egrep -l 'IUSE=.*minimal' `find -name
'*.ebuild'`
^ shows lots of ebuilds with IUSE="minimal". Instead of having a
minimal use flag for these packages, shouldn't we have, possibly
local, use flags for whatever feature(s) the minimal flag turns off?
Thanks,
Matt
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
Alistair Bush wrote:
> > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to
what's going on behind the scenes. They're
12 matches
Mail list logo
