Doug Goldstein wrote:
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
available via the layman module "openrc".
I would also like to g
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >> /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear
> >> after the module name.
> >>
> >> /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax r
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008 22:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for
> > per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ?
>
> It now supports per module per kernel version argu
On Monday 24 March 2008 22:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for
> per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ?
It now supports per module per kernel version arguments.
Thanks
Roy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org ma
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
/etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear
after the module name.
/etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring
variables based on the module name to be set with the module
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear
> after the module name.
>
> /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring
> variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters.
>
>
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad
conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/
looks/tested correct to me
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad
> >> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/
> >
> > looks/tested correct to me
>
> breaks for anything with a mod
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then late
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
> >>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
> > Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
> > teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
> >
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems,
Josh Saddler wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of
the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo,
and committed it to the tree this weekend.
Sin
Doug Goldstein wrote:
It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the
OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and
committed it to the tree this weekend.
Since my offer to work o
Doug Goldstein wrote:
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
available via the layman module "openrc".
I would also like to g
2008/3/20, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote:
> >
> >> I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if
> >> we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration
> >> will be, we
Roy Marples wrote:
On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote:
I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if
we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration
will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun.
I already provide do
On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote:
> I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if
> we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration
> will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun.
I already provide documentation with commands
Doug Goldstein wrote:
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available
via the layman module "openrc".
I would also like to g
All,
This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available
via the layman module "openrc".
I would also like to give the docs team a cha
20 matches
Mail list logo
