Stuart Longland wrote:
> Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than
> just things like Apache?
Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems.
Upgrading glibc is not a security update, IMHO :-).
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
sig
On Mon, 2 May 2005 21:48:10 -0500
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clarify why portage, which _does_ function as a secondary pkg manager
> (collision-protect wouldn't exist otherwise) wouldn't suffice if
> someone gave enough of a damn to do the work?
Off-topic, but collision-protect
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 21:48 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > If you want some package manager
> > for your solaris/x86 box(just an example!), go talk to the people that
> > do openembedded.
>
> Clarify why portage, which _does_ function as a secondary pkg manager
> (collision-protect wouldn't
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:11:03PM -0500, Brian Jackson wrote:
> Well, I've got a bug open to have a different variable like ROOT that
> portage would read config files from. Maybe you could jump on that
> bandwagon, and see if you can make things work that way.
Assuming you're referencing CONFIG_
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 20:58 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brian Jackson wrote:
> > Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi ebuild devs,
> >>
> >>Here's a glep draft now for (a part of) the long-term portage-goal
> >>"act as a secondary packag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2005 08:45 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>>The only dish I have is what if a new profile doesn't support what they
>>are attempting to do? If something is profile masked ( gcc fex ) there
>>is no way currently for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>
>>Hi ebuild devs,
>>
>>Here's a glep draft now for (a part of) the long-term portage-goal
>>"act as a secondary package manager" ...
>>
>>Comments welcome,
>> haubi
>>
>>
>
> It's fancy, but w
On Monday 02 May 2005 08:45 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> The only dish I have is what if a new profile doesn't support what they
> are attempting to do? If something is profile masked ( gcc fex ) there
> is no way currently for a user to unmask it, even in /etc/portage.
yes there is, you just didnt r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The only dish I have is what if a new profile doesn't support what they
are attempting to do? If something is profile masked ( gcc fex ) there
is no way currently for a user to unmask it, even in /etc/portage.
In the end they just might symlink make.
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:13:56PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 14:22:15 +0200 Michael Haubenwallner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Hi ebuild devs,
> |
> | Here's a glep draft now for (a part of) the long-term portage-goal
> | "act as a secondary package manager" ...
>
>
Jan KundrÃt wrote:
> Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> > Removing old profiles will do nothing other than forcing them to set a
> > new profile. Changing the profile won't stop people from doing security
> > only updates.
>
> Okay, as long as "changing the profile" won't affect people *much* (I
> mea
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>Hi ebuild devs,
>
>Here's a glep draft now for (a part of) the long-term portage-goal
>"act as a secondary package manager" ...
>
>Comments welcome,
> haubi
>
>
It's fancy, but what about ROOT? You don't like it just because you'd have
/usr/local/usr/bin/foo?
--
Hi list,
I've just setup Omkhar with access. He's a new developer who's going to
be helping with the PPC64 port.
Straight from his quiz:
Born in Toronto, Canada, Omkhar works for a mutinational computer
corporation as a security consultant. Omkhar enjoys trying out new foods
and travelling to ne
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> This is really getting into a whole different
> discussion altogether about having a security update only tree, but
> there has been talk of this a few times before...search the mailing list
> archives.
Yep, of course I know; I wasn't asking for "stable" tree.
> Removin
> What is bad about doing *only* `emerge --sync` and security updates?
Nothing, however if they have been doing security only updates, I think
that their install won't be *too* far behind the stable tree. Besides,
at some point old ebuilds are completely removed from portage anyway,
and therefore
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Portage should have been warning such users about using a deprecated
> profile for some time now. So, they should have updated to a new
> profile by now. Surely most people have synced portage sometime recently
> and done an emerge -uD world. If somebody is using a port
> What would happen to users having *really* old version of Gentoo, say
> something from end of 2003? Is there an easy way to upgrade?
>
> TIA,
> -jkt
>
Portage should have been warning such users about using a deprecated
profile for some time now. So, they should have updated to a new
profile
On Monday 02 May 2005 10:47 am, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> Here's the repoman from this morning with the word "gnome" on the line:
i fixed the hppa crap last nite and started ia64
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Mon May 02 2005, 08:39:48AM CDT]
> On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 19:00 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Thanks for the note.
> >
> > My personal opinion is that this sort of news item is the sort of thing
> > that we need to do a better job of announcing widely. I'm going to CC
>
Stuart Longland wrote:
> I'd certainly welcome a cleanup here... clean out the dead wood. ;-)
What would happen to users having *really* old version of Gentoo, say
something from end of 2003? Is there an easy way to upgrade?
TIA,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
D
Here's the repoman from this morning with the word "gnome" on the line:
app-accessibility/gnopernicus/gnopernicus-0.10.5.ebuild:
~mips(default-linux/mips/2004.2) ['>=app-accessibility/gnome-speech-0.3.5']
app-accessibility/gnopernicus/gnopernicus-0.10.7.ebuild:
~mips(default-linux/mips/2004.2) ['
On Mon, 02 May 2005 14:22:15 +0200 Michael Haubenwallner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Hi ebuild devs,
|
| Here's a glep draft now for (a part of) the long-term portage-goal
| "act as a secondary package manager" ...
Why did you post this without addressing the problems I pointed out to
you previo
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 13:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > They
> > make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy
> > like change default USE flags for everyone.
>
> it's simple, dont bother touching the non-cascaded version. no one said you
> had to :P
Agreed. I do
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 19:00 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks for the note.
>
> My personal opinion is that this sort of news item is the sort of thing
> that we need to do a better job of announcing widely. I'm going to CC
> the GWN folks on this e-mail as well as our PR folks, to see if eit
Hi ebuild devs,
Here's a glep draft now for (a part of) the long-term portage-goal
"act as a secondary package manager" ...
Comments welcome,
haubi
--
Michael HaubenwallnerSALOMON Automation GmbH
Forschung & Entwicklung A-8114 Friesach bei Graz
mailto:[EMAI
On Monday 02 May 2005 10:11, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenà wrote:
> I'm moving the patches for packages which needs 2 or more patches every
> versions in patchset tarballs which get downloaded only when requested.
Okay as foser pointed out that wasn't so obvious, I'm referring just and only
to package
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> ... also known in its former lives as the "Bash Guide" and "The Doc".
I read few pages and I think quite are nice, good job.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Manager
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mai
Ok I was a bit quiet lately but that's only because I was vocal elsewhere
(irc) ;)..
You can find attached a little script I wrote last night to get a count of
files in $FILESDIR for packages to make sure they just are the few needed, as
I'm moving the patches for packages which needs 2 or more
28 matches
Mail list logo
