On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:45:04 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:04:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > New udev and separate /usr partition
> > >
> > > Decide on whether a se
On 04/11/2012 09:12 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:21:20 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
OK, looks like I misunderstood how wxwidgets work and most opinions
point to enable wxwidgets by default in gnome profiles, ok with that
solution?
As I mentioned in the bug I'd like it default for
Hello all,
Similarly to github, bitbucket does enforce SSL by default, and
downloads are redirected to another, non-https URI. Thus, I'd like to
add the following thirdpartymirrors entry:
bitbucket http://cdn.bitbucket.org
The path part of URI is consistent with the usual https://bitbucket
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven J Long
wrote:
> As for the burden of ensuring that binaries installed to /{s,}bin don't link
> to libs in /usr, why not just automate a QA check for that, and let
> developers decide whether a fix is necessary? After all, core packages that
> do that even w
On 4/10/12 11:17 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:45:14PM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> On 4/10/12 7:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> I can name a couple of issues that are api limitations that we can't do
>>> anything about:
>>> - you can't search on cc: or keywords fiel
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Similarly to github, bitbucket does enforce SSL by default, and
> downloads are redirected to another, non-https URI. Thus, I'd like to
> add the following thirdpartymirrors entry:
>
> bitbucket http://cdn.bitbucket.org
>
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven J Long
> wrote:
>> As for the burden of ensuring that binaries installed to /{s,}bin don't
>> link to libs in /usr, why not just automate a QA check for that, and let
>> developers decide whether a fix is necessary? After all, core pa
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 04/10/2012 07:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote:
>> I suppose you could script that, but again, it just seems like a lot of
>> bother to implement an "alternative" that doesn't actually gain anything
>> over the traditional setup (plus making sure that partitions are mounted
>> bef
William Hubbs wrote:
> Another issue to consider is binaries that want to access things in
> /usr/share/*. If a binary in /{bin,sbin} needs to access something in
> /usr/share/*, you have two choices. move the binary to /usr or move the
> thing it wants to access to / somewhere which would involve
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Steven J Long
wrote:
> That might be true for some Linux-only packages, but I really find it hard
> to believe that any upstream targetting more than one OS (just adding a BSD
> is enough) with software that could be considered critical (I for one would
> include
All,
here is what I see on the current udev situation:
The council has made a decision that we will continue supporting
split out /usr.
This, however, was never in question. No one is planning to drop support
for separate /usr. Also, no one is planning on trying to force
stabilize udev-182 with
On 04/11/2012 07:13 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
On 04/10/2012 07:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote:
I suppose you could script that, but again, it just seems like a lot of
bother to implement an "alternative" that doesn't actually gain anything
over the traditional setup (plus making s
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:53:45 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> here is what I see on the current udev situation:
>
> The council has made a decision that we will continue supporting
> split out /usr.
>
> This, however, was never in question. No one is planning to drop
> support for separa
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> To allay any fears of that happening, I have opened a tracker [1] for
> issues which need to be resolved before newer udevs can go stable.
>
Probably wouldn't hurt for the initramfs maintainers to open a
stablization tracking bug for whateve
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:58:47PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Maybe we should create a new mailing list, say,
> gentoo-usr-discuss...@lists.gentoo.org.
No. I'm on enough mailing lists as is. :-)
William
pgpG9pgrCd8Qa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 14:53 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Does this answer any fears about trying to force an untimely
> stabilization?
It certainly helps me sleep at night, yes. Any... inconveniences forced
on me have to be fixed over 40 times.
Regards,
Tony V.
signature.asc
Description: This
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:53:45 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> here is what I see on the current udev situation:
>>
>> The council has made a decision that we will continue supporting
>> split out /usr.
>>
>> This, however, was ne
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 14:53 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Maybe we should create a new mailing list, say,
> > gentoo-usr-discuss...@lists.gentoo.org.
>
> Just to clarify, you are trolling right?
s/trolling/joking/
It's is not the first tim
18 matches
Mail list logo
