-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were
>> discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going around
>> using
On 3/31/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
regardless of whether someone wishes to help fix bugs (thanks by the way), i
dont think we want to unmask these
Loud and clear - over.
That means it's going right into my local overlay until my son
eventually gets tired of playing pingus.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 02:06:14PM +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> That means it's going right into my local overlay until my son
> eventually gets tired of playing pingus.
Just install Doom :-]
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://for
On 3/30/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start up a spec
of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before it'd be an
official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my head:
- the main developers need to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:28 +0200
"Christopher Covington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
> would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
> the Internet. Why should the code Gentoo uses be written by Gentoo
> de
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0400
>> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were
>>> discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going arou
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:16 +0200, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:28 +0200
> "Christopher Covington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
> > would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
> > the
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point being made, then, is that for an official package manager to
> exist *for Gentoo*, it needs to be under *Gentoo's* control.
Well, the source is open, and there are already enough Gentoo devs working
on it, s
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some
> malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
> entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
> well. The
we've noticed that many things in the tree abuse the fact that the portage
helpers utilize environment variables to communicate ... for example, people
setting DOCDESTTREE by hand rather than using `docinto`
unless some one can give me a valid reason for this stuff, the plan is to fix
these ebu
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
> Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To make it more clear...If an official package manager is outside of
>> Gentoo's control, and the maintainer(s) of that piece of software decide
>> to do anything malicious (examples: inject
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On 3/31/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > regardless of whether someone wishes to help fix bugs (thanks by the
> > way), i dont think we want to unmask these
>
> Loud and clear - over.
>
> That means it's going right into my local o
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> "Christopher Covington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
> > would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
> > the Internet. Why should the code Gentoo uses be wr
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
> Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some
>> malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
>> entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
>>
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:27:19 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > ... Gentoo developers can take the latest release of said package
> > manager and continue development from that. That's the wonderful
> > thing about the GPL, no?
>
> Too late for all the affecte
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> That's uncalled for. There's no need to get nasty.
I applaud your intent, but feel it would have far more effect on the
atmosphere if applied to a few of your devs, rather than users who employ
milder terms?
It just seems knowingly unfair, and I don't believe that is you
Michael Krelin wrote:
>> The question is whether scripts that, say, parse emerge -pv output have
>> to carry on working.
>
> I think this requirement would put portage itself in quite uncomfortable
> situation.
>
It's a non-issue imo; it's up to script authors and maintainers (aka users)
to keep
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 23:39 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > That's uncalled for. There's no need to get nasty.
>
> I applaud your intent, but feel it would have far more effect on the
> atmosphere if applied to a few of your devs, rather than users who employ
> milder terms?
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Too late for all the affected users tho. Point is it's a major
> > security hole which no sane organisation would even consider for
> > mission-critical code.
>
> These arguments are getting weaker and wea
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:21:01 +0100
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > For the curious, Paludis non-compliance is being tracked at [2]. So
>> > far as I'm aware, there's no central list for Portage or Pkgcore
>> > non-compliance.
>> >
>>
> Michael Krelin wrote:
>>> The question is whether scripts that, say, parse emerge -pv output have
>>> to carry on working.
>> I think this requirement would put portage itself in quite uncomfortable
>> situation.
>>
> It's a non-issue imo; it's up to script authors and maintainers (aka users)
>
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> The effects are far reaching and shared by everyone. If an official
> package manager is outside of Gentoo's control, and the maintainer(s) of
> that piece of software decide to do anything malicious (examples: inject
> some dodgy code, remove documentation, take out acces
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 23:39 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > > That's uncalled for. There's no need to get nasty.
> >
> > I applaud your intent, but feel it would have far more effect on the
> > atmosphere if applied to a few
Hello.
Path of some utilities in coreutils-6.7-r1 changed from /usr/bin to /bin
and vice versa. This cause some scripts became broken as they relied on
the full path to executable. The question is: does there exist best
practice on how to avoid this problem in future? Should we set some
default PA
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Path of some utilities in coreutils-6.7-r1 changed from /usr/bin to /bin
> and vice versa. This cause some scripts became broken as they relied on
> the full path to executable. The question is: does there exist best
> practice on how to avo
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Path of some utilities in coreutils-6.7-r1 changed from /usr/bin to /bin
> and vice versa. This cause some scripts became broken as they relied on
> the full path to executable. The question is: does there exist best
> practice on how to avo
> Hello.
>
> Path of some utilities in coreutils-6.7-r1 changed from /usr/bin to /bin
> and vice versa. This cause some scripts became broken as they relied on
> the full path to executable. The question is: does there exist best
> practice on how to avoid this problem in future? Should we set some
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Alec Warner wrote:
> For cron, one would need to set the PATH to something sane though.
i thought sane cron systems would setup a sane PATH for you:
/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin
-mike
pgpKWhRZ0eMFs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 4/1/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
why ? are you not aware of portage's ability to unmask things ?
(not knowing you that much, I can't tell whether this was a joke or not)
I was expecting fixes proposed in bug #156496 to be looked over
someday, and end up in the tree or be d
29 matches
Mail list logo
