Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer features in portage: cgroup, network-sandbox, ipc-sandbox

This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users

On Mon, May 20, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is > pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems > like a hack instead of something more robust. Why include systemd unit > files (by default

Re: [gentoo-dev] splashutils needs a maintainer

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 02:24 PM, Dustin C. Hatch wrote: > On 2/2/2013 13:19, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El mar, 29-01-2013 a las 15:55 +0400, Sergey Popov escribió: > >> 28.01.2013 23:26, Pacho Ramos пишет: > >>> Then, looks like no alternative is in good shape on Gentoo. What is > >>> Sabayon using

Re: [gentoo-dev] revdep-rebuild bikeshedding

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 03:57 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: [...] > +1 on the replace. +1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Inspiration

On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 22:12 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: > So what is the Zen of Gentoo? How about: My set-up is better than your set-up ;-) -a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future

On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 09:36 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> Seriously, I doubt that the average Gentoo user comes from > Distrowatch. > >> Gentoo is born from a necessity which is very different from the > usual > >> binary distro. Gentoo has never been about fame or marketing. > - - I came here because

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

[Oh no! How did I let myself get sucked into a gentoo-dev thread? ;-)] On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 13:31 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: [...] > I'll just throw out a couple of my own comments: > [ I'm skipping the first one because it doesn't interest me] [Comment about Gentoo's non-participati

Re: [gentoo-dev] init.d problem

On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 18:58 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 04 July 2006 18:43, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > We should think about mechanisms to check if the service is > > actually running. This could also be used for frequently service > > checks and notification. > > there is no fool pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Which license?

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:21 -0400, A. Khattri wrote: > > Im working on an ebuild for a package and Im not sure what license to use. > The package is Copyright Company "X" but has this underneath: > > > ## This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed > ## without fee for non-com

Re: [gentoo-dev] Looking for a vile maintainer

LOL. Sorry, subject line gave me the chuckles. -m -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] my apologies for the mess with this release of MySQL 5.0.16

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:26 -0600, Andrew Gaffney wrote: > It's really not the best idea to be using ~arch on a box with > important data. > And if you are going to be running ~arch, you should really know what > it means > to do so and how to use it properly. I recommend reading >

Re: [gentoo-dev] my apologies for the mess with this release of MySQL 5.0.16

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 10:51 -0600, Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Or you can just unmask it locally and stop whining. I think users have a valid reason to be concerned about this, but if that is the developer's intention (to unmask it locally) then may I suggest this information be provided somehow to th

Re: [gentoo-dev] my apologies for the mess with this release of MySQL 5.0.16

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 17:32 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote: > Albert Hopkins wrote: > > Now all-of-the-sudden MySQL 5 is marked -amd64 so now I must downgrade. > > Is this intentional? > > read the changelog, it says: > >24 Nov 2005; Jory A. Pratt <[EMAIL P

Re: [gentoo-dev] my apologies for the mess with this release of MySQL 5.0.16

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 22:51 +0100, Francesco R. wrote: > my apologies for the mess with this release of MySQL 5.0.16 and for the > one will come with the dev-db/mysql-4.1.15-r1 ebuild I'm confused. MySQL 5 seems to have been available on ~amd64 for quite sometime. I've already converted my data

[gentoo-dev] Identical Packages?

There are two packages in portage with the same category/name: dev-perl/Text-Reform dev-perl/text-reform (I know, they're not exactly the same ). They also have the same description, etc. Is this intentional? -m signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about XML files used in portage

On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 16:34 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Wednesday 21 September 2005 16:18, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > I think the problem here was that longdescription was in an ebuild, but > > was empty. > > > > Also, packages.gentoo.org doesn't use this data, but rather just the > > DESCRI

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about XML files used in portage

On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 09:21 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 07:28 -0500, Albert Hopkins wrote: > > 2. Are metadata.xml files a requirement for categories? There are > > a few categories that do not have one: > > * x11-proto &g

[gentoo-dev] Questions about XML files used in portage

I'm trying to incorporate into my project the metadata.xml files used in portage, but I have a few questions: 1. It seems like many of the package metadata.xml files \-escape "special" characters a la bash. This isn't really necessary in XML and if there are special character

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolution - GTK Useflag Situation

On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:24 +0900, Chris White wrote: [..] > Marduk, > > >I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both > sides: > > > >We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne. This distro > will > >include only older wares such as GTK1, Kernel 2.4, libc5, XFree86,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolution - GTK Useflag Situation

On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 13:43 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: [...] > Your decision to remove the gtk2 use flag takes away control from people > who were using it correctly (by what the description said). I'm not > against having gtk2 on my systems, but I prefer gtk1 interfaces, > primarily as they ar