On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:00:40 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 07/31/2011 03:46 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Anthony G. Basile
> > wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> A couple of days ago, bonsaikitten (Patrick), kerframil (Kerin
> >> Millar) and myself wer
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for
> www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right
> implementation.
>
> I think I agree with Ciaran that this should be implemented as a PMS
> update. Let me
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:28:54 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> >
> > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
> > many users that might be?
>
> If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it
> contains no secre
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:35:05 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> I don't think we can start drafting until we agree on one solution.
> AFAICS there are two major ideas:
> 1) using special USEflags for that (which I can draft if you like),
> 2) copying DEPENDENCIES syntax from exherbo. I guess there's nothi
On 08/02/2011 03:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:00:40 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>
>> On 07/31/2011 03:46 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Anthony G. Basile
>>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
A couple of days ago, bonsaikitten (Pat
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:28:58 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> I prefer capsetting in the PMS itself, with a nice clean function
> which auto detects all the necessary conditions and transparently
> preserves caps, as you suggest. Maybe this can be in EAPI=5.
Would need a spec, along with a way
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> BTW doesn't encrypting rootfs require initramfs anyway?
>
Yup.
On a side note. I've been experimenting with Dracut+LVM+RAID5 and
have found that it actually works pretty transparently. Now, I
haven't tried it with /usr not on the rootfs - I
On 08/02/2011 10:31 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:28:58 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>> I prefer capsetting in the PMS itself, with a nice clean function
>> which auto detects all the necessary conditions and transparently
>> preserves caps, as you suggest. Maybe this
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:51:22 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> > Would need a spec, along with a way of dealing with all the
> > problems: what happens if the build fs supports caps but the
> > install fs doesn't? What about if caps are supported on both but in
> > different ways (tmpfs on some k
On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the PMS
>> > altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting to a
>> > selinux system where one relabels the entire filesystem with rlpkg.
>> > So no, not something via pkg_p
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:51:22 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 10:31 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:28:58 -0400
> > "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> >> I prefer capsetting in the PMS itself, with a nice clean function
> >> which auto detects all the necessary co
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:05:34 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> > I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the
> >> > PMS altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting
> >> > to a selinux system where one relabel
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> > I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the PMS
>>> > altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting to a
>>> > selinux system where one relabels the e
On 08/02/2011 11:05 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> Please don't.
>> >
>> > Why would this be bad?
> Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
> screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
> you...).
Is rlpkg going behind the PM's back when it does
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:19:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> Is rlpkg going behind the PM's back when it does selinux labelings?
Yup. Also, note that PMS has wording for selinux.
> I know there are difference, but if there's a screwup in some policy, it
> also leads to horribly screwed up sys
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as excerpted:
> Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
> screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
> you...).
Well, not "anyone". I never had any problems with it.
(YMMV, but soon en
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as
> excerpted:
> > Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
> > screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as
>> excerpted:
>> > Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
>> > screwed up systems (as anyone who's ev
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
Jonathan Callen wrote:
> That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use
> portage". Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if
> they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies
> that most people will *not* see
On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>> I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for
>> www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right
>> implementation.
> I don't think we can start drafting until
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:56 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> >> I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for
> >> www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello fellow developers,
I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
pcmanfm, and possible other applications too, require an icon-theme to
be prese
Markos Chandras schrieb:
- --: Not all packages include the same icons so users may end up with
missing icons for some applications. However, most icon themes should
include all the basic icons.
You could have USE flags for the virtual, so that some package could
depend on virtual/icon-theme[f
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 21:20, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hello fellow developers,
>
> I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
> for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
> pcmanfm, an
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:18:17 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better
> > integration with the package manager than USE flags should result
> > in a better user experience.
>
> Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 21:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:56 -0700
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700
>> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>> >> I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend de
On 08/02/2011 09:20 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hello fellow developers,
>
> I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
> for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
> pcmanfm, and possible other applications too, require an icon-theme to
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/02/2011 07:30 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> - --: Not all packages include the same icons so users may end up with
>> missing icons for some applications. However, most icon themes should
>> include all t
On 8/2/11 11:18 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better
>> integration with the package manager than USE flags should result in a
>> better user experience.
>
> Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind
> you that
On 8/2/11 11:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
> for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
> pcmanfm, and possible other applications too, require an icon-theme to
> be present, no matter which one.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 21:48, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 8/2/11 11:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> I would like to discuss the possibility to create a new virtual package
>> for all the icon-theme packages. According to this bug[1], it seems like
>> pcmanfm, and possible other applications t
2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
> Jonathan Callen wrote:
> > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use
> > portage". Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if
> > they *do not* match the checksum recorded in
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
> Jonathan Callen wrote:
> > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use
> > portage". Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if
> > they *do not* match the che
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:46:54
+0200 as excerpted:
> 2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen
>> wrote:
>> > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use
>> > portage". Portage w
El 03/08/11 03:31, c1p...@gentoo.org escribió:
> wi¹~BBº“‚ã°êØvܬ»\‡Š
> ôß(ÇW¨Ý‚é{Ò…Ä�
> ô2‡<°¼ÛûÜîÙ‹–õ–~HwX~/؉ý†íE[¬£Üœ&Ÿdd‰¶§ã±8ÒŠ6gîvs
> ã�X„òYFý5ù1çFØŸô
> L`Ce¤ÎA‘]²´e¼s§eµ©ùÍáÍmÉãZÄ&þ²cxZ:Õ•ƒÙFyÚ‘wû–a—š|×:¤b~ØüœÔ§X‰AQ¬bR\ž‡|ĉ3u±«Ÿ4æØ7‡˜øU\ö/°tÛnæ&Kß¡^¸Åڌ٤ÚbT;3ºI7%$œÎÆc™Öšoåi
> ´òÆÞ²�{jdÆŠ
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:19AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> Come on they can't be serious... this won't work against Gentoo devs,
> will it?
It is concerning that the spammer used a valid list subscriber.
Crunching all attachments for validation or moderating ever
El 03/08/11 06:57, Robin H. Johnson escribió:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:19AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
>> Come on they can't be serious... this won't work against Gentoo devs,
>> will it?
> It is concerning that the spammer used a valid list subscriber.
>
> Cr
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 07:27:23AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> El 03/08/11 06:57, Robin H. Johnson escribió:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:19AM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> > (klondike) wrote:
> >> Come on they can't be serious... this won't work again
On 08/02/2011 11:29 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:18:17 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better
>>> integration with the package manager than USE flags should result
>>> in a better user experience.
>>
>> Are you will
On 07/30/2011 01:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We've found that portage's unpack behavior is inconsistent for non-tar
> files compressed with gz|Z|z|bz2|bz|lzma|xz extensions [1]. Currently,
> it emulates tools like gunzip and bunzip2, unpacking them to the
> directory of the source
40 matches
Mail list logo
