"Configuration file" is a Debian thing, not a GNU thing. You are
applying the Debian package management standards to something which
is actually not Debian.
Dear me, why must you kick a dead horse? And kicking it in the wrong
place at that...
We do actually have "configuration files",
Oh dear, oh dear... Who let Thomas escape from his little solitary
prison? He could hurt himself you know.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But there are perfectly valid reasons to edit /libexec/rc, and as such
> it should be classifed as a configuration file. If so, it should get
> the same treatment as /etc/motd and friends get right now.
"Configuration file" is a Debian thing, not
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I won't get used to it since the behaviour of `make install' is
> wrong. That _I_ use it as a package manager is totaly irrelevant to
> the dicussion. Clobbering files that *will and should* get modifed by
> users is wrong.
You are applying t
Does make dist even work? Mmm... Nope.
Sighs... I'm going to bed now... Attached the wrong log; here is the
correct one.
make -C libpthread lndist no_deps=t
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ams/hurd/libpthread'
mkdir ../hurd-snap/libpthread
ln ./Makefile ./ChangeLog ./pt-attr.c ./pt-attr-d
On second thought, that breaks make dist, possibly among other things.
Just commit your original config/Makefile patch.
Done.
Does make dist even work? Mmm... Nope.
make -C libshouldbeinlibc lndist no_deps=t
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ams/hurd/+build/libshouldbeinlibc'
ln ../../li
>I guess the right thing would be to exclude it always and just have
>a make install-config target that does make -C config install.
>
> Untested.
>
> 2004-12-18 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makefile (other-subdirs): `config' removed.
> (install-config): New t
I would be perfectly fine with saying that runsystem, runttys, and rc, are
outside the scope of the core hurd package and should be separate (along
with motd and ttys). They can be in a separate source tarball, and that
would be a package that noone would use if there is a better replacement to
be
The /etc/login files are in the grey area, like rc would be if it
stilled lived in /etc. ;-)
O... Lets move it back. And remove that little executable bit, and
make runsystem do "/bin/sh /etc/rc".
I don't know if I'm serious or not about that; since rc doesn't have
to be written in sh...
I guess the right thing would be to exclude it always and just have
a make install-config target that does make -C config install.
Untested.
2004-12-18 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile (other-subdirs): `config' removed.
(install-config): New target.
Index:
>Was there anything wrong with this patch?
>
> Meh, late... This patch being the following, I think we can all agree
> that /etc only contains configuration files.
The /etc/login files are in the grey area, like rc would be if it stilled
lived in /etc. ;-) I think it would be better to decr
> But who knows, I might do that if people who actually use the Hurd
> (i.e. not you) pester about it long enough. :-)
That is usually the best way to prioritize the work items.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/l
>It's still not a configuration file.
>
> You are wrong.
I'm glad we can agree on that, pronoun binding notwithstanding. I
think we can move on now to where you send a patch to add a
nondefault option for the behavior you want.
I will leave that as an exercise for someone
>It's still not a configuration file.
>
> You are wrong.
I'm glad we can agree on that, pronoun binding notwithstanding.
I think we can move on now to where you send a patch to add a
nondefault option for the behavior you want.
Thanks,
Roland
> >Was there anything wrong with this patch?
> >
> > Meh, late... This patch being the following, I think we can all agree
> > that /etc only contains configuration files.
>
> The /etc/login files are in the grey area, like rc would be if it stilled
> lived in /etc. ;-) I think it would be
48:20 +0100
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: rc & runsystem
I think you mean the files in /etc/login, and not /etc/{ttys,motd}.
config/ChangeLog
2004-12-16 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile ($(installed_logins)): Don't overwrite already existing
It's still not a configuration file.
You are wrong.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Was there anything wrong with this patch?
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
>> Or did you mean "not to overwrite existing stuff"? If you didn't
>> then we both agree, and this whole discussion was pointless.
>
>No, I said overwrite selectively.
>
> No you didn't.
Give me a fucking break. When you find yourself arguing with someone
about what he himself s
> Or did you mean "not to overwrite existing stuff"? If you didn't
> then we both agree, and this whole discussion was pointless.
No, I said overwrite selectively.
No you didn't. You said:
,
| If you want to use make install for _overwriting_existing_stuff_
| selectively, you shou
> Or did you mean "not to overwrite existing stuff"? If you didn't then
> we both agree, and this whole discussion was pointless.
No, I said overwrite selectively. You want it to overwrite some
executables and not others, just because these two are implemented as
scripts you don't use the vanill
> This is getting silly, maybe I should just ask for that
> branch... :-)
Making a stink because you don't want to type
--disable-install-runsystem in configure commands when doing your
own hacking is what's silly.
It was a joke, lighten up...
The vanilla use of make install is
> This is getting silly, maybe I should just ask for that branch... :-)
Making a stink because you don't want to type --disable-install-runsystem
in configure commands when doing your own hacking is what's silly.
The vanilla use of make install is to populate an empty $(prefix) directory
with a p
> I agree with Roland that `make install' is not a package manager nor
> should we pretend that it is. On the other hand, the files we are
> talking about are basically templates that a package manager would
> modify and if we consider them as templates then I think not
> installing them is fine.
> It is about what _users_ expect, and this is what users
> expect, you have Neal, Harley and Marco back over there who think this
> is a good.
My position is the following: it is annoying to have which I have
modified overwritten.
As I understood the original patch, it elided this annoying beha
I have already told you. make install is there to install the
files that the sources provide.
Fine, how about removing rc, motd, ttys, etc completely from the
sources, and not install them at all?
And you are contradicting yourself anyway, since some files don't get
overwriten (the files p
I have already told you. make install is there to install the files that
the sources provide.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Sorry, you are just wrong.
Bah, really, can't you come up with anything better then "Because"?
I'm not stupid to reject a _good_ reason, but you don't have any
reason at all!
Atleast be a good enough sport to give one reason why it is "wrong".
And if it is wrong, then the whole override_conf h
Sorry, you are just wrong.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
It isn't about me or my hacks, you said yourself I could get a branch
for that. It is about what _users_ expect, and this is what users
expect, you have Neal, Harley and Marco back over there who think this
is a good.
^
Good Thing (TM).
__
make install is make install. It is not a package manager. Get
used to it.
No, I won't get used to it since the behaviour of `make install' is
wrong. That _I_ use it as a package manager is totaly irrelevant to
the dicussion. Clobbering files that *will and should* get modifed by
users i
make install is make install. It is not a package manager. Get used to it.
If you would like a configure switch or makefile variable to enable some
nonstandard behavior for your convenience while hacking, that is fine by me.
But don't get any fantasies about what the proper behavior is.
___
It has always been normal for packages to clobber config files in
make install.
Not in my experience, it has been normal to just not install
configuration files at all and let the user do it manually.
I would actually file a bug report for _anything_ that clobbers
configuration files. Infa
It has always been normal for packages to clobber config files in make
install. That's why users don't do make install, but use package managers.
These are not really config files in the normal sense that users generally
edit them. They are things in the GNU package that packagers usually change.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> daemons/ChangeLog
> 2004-12-16 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makefile (targets): Removed `rc' and `runsystem'.
> (special-targets): Variable removed.
> (runsystem, rc): Targets removed.
> (FORCE, $
c
and runsystem as configuration files, and overwriting config files is
just a no-no in my book (and I can't really count how many times I got
seriously pissed because it munged my tweaked versions).
Please? This is like the third time I'm annoying everyone with
rc/runsystem. :-)
dae
ts = rc getty mail.local console-run runttys runsystem
-special-targets = rc runsystem
+targets = getty mail.local console-run runttys
SRCS = rc.sh getty.c lmail.c console-run.c runttys.c
installationdir = $(libexecdir)
@@ -33,7 +32,6 @@
include ../Makeconf
-rc: rc.sh
getty: getty.o ../libsh
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>It's quite annoying, I agree. The same is true for /etc/motd and
>/etc/ttys, IMHO.
>
> Comments in the code contradict you...
>
> [hurd]/config/Makefile
>
> # Files that are copied verbatim to $(sysconfdir). But we never want
> # to overwri
> -# Copyright (C) 1996,99 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +# Copyright (C) 1996,99,04 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This copyright year it definitely wrong.
I have no objections to the rest of the patch.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTEC
I think you mean the files in /etc/login, and not /etc/{ttys,motd}.
config/ChangeLog
2004-12-16 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile ($(installed_logins)): Don't overwrite already existing
login files unless asked for.
Index: config/Makefile
=
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are making a system you should tweak both of them anyway, and
> in a sub-hurd it doesn't matter, since you'll be punted into a
> single-luser shell (or you should) by init. I personally consider rc
> and runsystem as configuration files, and
# If override_conf is set to `t' then install even on top of existing
# files.
Didn't know about this, cool. Infact, I wouldn't mind such a solution
for rc/runsystem.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
42 matches
Mail list logo
