Re: [gentoo-dev] [G/FBSD] /usr/lib/charset.alias
On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i thought the packages that create that file do so because they were > utilizing some bundled crap ... No, they create that when the uses internal libiconv/gettxt on GLIBC systems and when using external libiconv in non-GLIBC sysems. That's because the locales in GLIBC are the same as handled by libiconv but it's not true with FBSD's libc. > regardless, i think this should be done on a global scale rather than > per-package ... why not add some bashrc-foo to your profile ? Don't think like this is a task for the profile, but maybe we can do something with FEATURES inside of portage. > can i get access to a fbsd box so i can test some of this crap ? i'd like > to investigate sed/e2fsprogs and why it installs those files ... My box right now has a bit of trouble, mainly for temperature. spb maybe has one. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) pgpGrmu0LSmF3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-embedded] Interactive command
Kristian Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just checked and pkg_config does not handle make menuconfig correctly > either :( Probably a bug. Sorry I didn't tune into this thread earlier... Most ncurses-based tools, including most menuconfig scripts, need to be attached to an interactive terminal in order to function properly. Some, and you mentioned vim as an example, include code to find a terminal. Some don't. Since emerge wraps everything for logging purposes, when you run menuconfig, it's attached to a pipe. What you'll probably need to do is something like make menuconfig 0/dev/tty || die "wombats!" which should attach dialog to your controlling terminal. -- Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. -- "Ghost in the Shell", Shirow Masamune pgpyiHUBK0ro4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 19:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: > > Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and > > nothing was done. Did you know why? > > hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never > posted to the bug > > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file > there, it should only ever contain files created by the user I the the resolution was pretty much that it is not that much of a schlep to maintain those lines of code in /etc/profile if the user/admin really wants it. -- Martin Schlemmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file > there, it should only ever contain files created by the user > -mike Hmm... what about bash-completion? bash-completion has installed /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it. - -- Beauty is one of the rare things which does not lead to doubt of God. -- Jean Anouilh Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC2HwhC3poscuANHARAul7AKDGBeScuVw1rtXT24dS4vOyXk8HHQCgmE9h tFYyw27aA3yj11A8/kL+tAg= =Lxc2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Does Window$ and MacO$ users, with all "facilities" and "system security controls" they have in their OSes are protected from shooting themselves in the foot? I don't think so. In this case particularly I don't think the risk is too big, since global customizations must be done only by root. I think that on the cited commercial OSes global customizations, that can break the entire system, can be easily done by any user. On 7/15/05, Michael Marineau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: > > > >>Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and > >>nothing was done. Did you know why? > > > > > > hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never > > posted to the bug > > > > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer > > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file > > there, it should only ever contain files created by the user > > -mike > > Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My > vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the > oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. > > speeking of shooting feet, it's be a pretty interesting statistic to see > how many times people have borked their system by accidently replacing > their fstab :-P > > -- > Michael Marineau > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gentoo Linux Developer > Oregon State University > > > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> package app-crap/FooBar
Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
done
That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgp0Uje3CMAkf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [G/FBSD] /usr/lib/charset.alias
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:05:09 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > regardless, i think this should be done on a global scale rather > > than per-package ... why not add some bashrc-foo to your profile ? > Don't think like this is a task for the profile, but maybe we can do > something with FEATURES inside of portage. No new FEATURES for trivial stuff like this, but what about using INSTALL_MASK? Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. pgpwrMuMkf0ks.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [G/FBSD] /usr/lib/charset.alias
On Saturday 16 July 2005 19:07, Marius Mauch wrote: > No new FEATURES for trivial stuff like this, but what about using > INSTALL_MASK? A mask for things that doesn't get installed? Yeah that could work, too. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) pgphG9rh1sq4W.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] uclinux/usermode/win4lin Removal Warning
These packages currently have no active maintainer to keep the sources updated and the kernel team is not able keep them updated with all the security bumps that are required due to manpower shortages. If nobody steps up to maintain them (meaning, solve incoming bugs and update the sources as needed for security issues) they will be package.mask'd in fifteen days and removed in thirty days with the exception of usermode-sources-2.6 being kept due to good contact with upstream. Any interested developers/candidates should let me know as soon as possible. Thanks! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > package app-crap/FooBar
>
> Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
>
> for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> done
>
> That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> users added it to the .default file.
>
> Marius
>
> --
> Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
>
> In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
>
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
login?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
> this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
>
> So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
>
> On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > > package app-crap/FooBar
> >
> > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> >
> > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > done
> >
> > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > users added it to the .default file.
> >
> > Marius
> >
> > --
> > Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
> >
> > In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> > Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
> >
> >
> >
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
Could be /etc/env.d and env-update extended to support more things
like aliases and shell functions?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
> login?
>
> On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
> > this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
> >
> > So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
> >
> > On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > > > package app-crap/FooBar
> > >
> > > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> > >
> > > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > > done
> > >
> > > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > > users added it to the .default file.
> > >
> > > Marius
> > >
> > > --
> > > Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
> > >
> > > In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> > > Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > package app-crap/FooBar
>
> Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
>
> for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> done
>
> That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> users added it to the .default file.
If we do something like this, I'll rather not source it, but run it via
the current shell. This should discourage devs to install stuff
touching the environment there rather than /etc/env.d/.
-
# Append any additional sh scripts found in /etc/profile.d/:
for file in /etc/profile.d/*.sh ; do
if [ -x "${file}" ] ; then
"${file}"
fi
done
-
As for above, this is one of the examples why we rather did not add
it .. everybody want something added .. global control, per user
control, etc :/
--
Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:08 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: > I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing > custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on > login? no, because it would collide with the packages which are supposed to be installing files there like bash -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > package app-crap/FooBar
>
> Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
>
> for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> done
>
> That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> users added it to the .default file.
that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like they
couldnt just do 'echo blah >> /etc/profile.d/.default' at the end of
pkg_postinst or something
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 04:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > > package app-crap/FooBar
> >
> > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> >
> > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > done
> >
> > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > users added it to the .default file.
>
> If we do something like this, I'll rather not source it, but run it via
> the current shell. This should discourage devs to install stuff
> touching the environment there rather than /etc/env.d/.
that kind of limits the usefulness of profile.d then ... and again, not too
intuitive when it comes to the behaviors users would expect
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer > > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a > > file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user > > -mike > > Hmm... what about bash-completion? bash-completion has installed > /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it. well it doesnt matter since nothing actually uses profile.d :P but if we were to add profile.d support to baselayout, i would force you to remove this from bash-completion before hand -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [G/FBSD] /usr/lib/charset.alias
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:07 pm, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:05:09 +0200 > > "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > regardless, i think this should be done on a global scale rather > > > than per-package ... why not add some bashrc-foo to your profile ? > > > > Don't think like this is a task for the profile, but maybe we can do > > something with FEATURES inside of portage. > > No new FEATURES for trivial stuff like this, but what about using > INSTALL_MASK? ah, i'd forgotten about that sweet feature from iggy is INSTALL_MASK cumulative ? if it is, then bsd/darwin wh0res can simply add that to their base profile: INSTALL_MASK="/usr/lib/charset.alias" this of course assumes that *no package* should ever install that file, including your bsd libc ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort of cvs information), am I right? If so, some sort of checking script can detect Gentoo signed files on /etc/profile.d and just ignore them when scanning profile.d for user scripts. On 7/16/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer > > > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a > > > file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user > > > -mike > > > > Hmm... what about bash-completion? bash-completion has installed > > /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it. > > well it doesnt matter since nothing actually uses profile.d :P > > but if we were to add profile.d support to baselayout, i would force you to > remove this from bash-completion before hand > -mike > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 09:13 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: > All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort > of cvs information), am I right? not always -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
> > > point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont
> > > want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh
> > > into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar
> >
> > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> >
> > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > done
> >
> > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > users added it to the .default file.
>
> that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like
> they couldnt just do 'echo blah >> /etc/profile.d/.default' at the
> end of pkg_postinst or something
They could do the same to /etc/profile, no?
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgpdM3xx6eolf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/
On Saturday 16 July 2005 10:38 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > >
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
> > > > point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont
> > > > want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh
> > > > into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar
> > >
> > > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> > >
> > > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > > done
> > >
> > > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > > users added it to the .default file.
> >
> > that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like
> > they couldnt just do 'echo blah >> /etc/profile.d/.default' at the
> > end of pkg_postinst or something
>
> They could do the same to /etc/profile, no?
yeah could which is why we could just do a QA smackdown on package maintainers
who utilize /etc/profile.d ...
a quick grep shows that the following packages mention /etc/profile.d for some
reason or another:
dev-util/aegis (but it seems to correctly remove support)
x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*)
app-shells/bash-completion
app-shells/tcsh
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
