On Thursday 05 May 2011 09:25:18 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Mick wrote:
> > On Monday 02 May 2011 12:52:12 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > > Mick writes:
> > > > Thanks. Not sure if there is a difference between an env.d variable
> > > > and a profile.d variable.
> > >
> > > None you will notice, both /etc/
Apparently, though unproven, at 10:25 on Thursday 05 May 2011, Alex Schuster
did opine thusly:
> > Is the number prefix important? Does it have to be 99editor? If so, how
> > does one discover the correct number for each variable?
>
> Maybe the 99 is what eselect wants the number to be. If you
Mick wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2011 12:52:12 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Mick writes:
> > > Thanks. Not sure if there is a difference between an env.d variable
> > > and a profile.d variable.
> >
> > None you will notice, both /etc/profile.env and scripts in
> > /etc/profile.d/ are sourced in /etc
On Monday 02 May 2011 23:07:00 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 May 2011 11:16:36 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >>> > Does stable portage support the --autounmask option to emerge?
> >>>
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:36:58PM +0100, Mick wrote:
> I've unmasked the latest available after reading the changelogs:
>
> sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.2
>
> sys-apps/openrc-0.8.2-r1
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=295613
You are correct about the versions.
William
pgpoZK7YWDjzo.pgp
De
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2011 11:16:36 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>> > Does stable portage support the --autounmask option to emerge?
>>
>>> I use ~amd64 portage so I have supports that feature
Hey Mark,
the news item does not tell the exact version because there might be sub/rc-
versions until release. so on release date the devs will remove keywords of
the right versions. i read the dev mailing list a bit and it should be
baselayout-2.0.2 + openrc-0.8.2-r1
if no further -rc will be
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 11:16:36 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> > Does stable portage support the --autounmask option to emerge?
>
>> I use ~amd64 portage so I have supports that feature but what command
>> do I run today to unmask the version lev
On Mon, 2 May 2011 11:16:36 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Does stable portage support the --autounmask option to emerge?
> I use ~amd64 portage so I have supports that feature but what command
> do I run today to unmask the version level they will make stable next
> week? (For instance 0.7 instea
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:11:01 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> How will you / did you decide what versions to unmask?
>
> Does stable portage support the --autounmask option to emerge?
>
I use ~amd64 portage so I have supports that feature but w
On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:11:01 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> How will you / did you decide what versions to unmask?
Does stable portage support the --autounmask option to emerge?
--
Neil Bothwick
"Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy."
-- Robert Heinlein
signature.asc
Descri
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Mick wrote:
>
> I've unmasked the latest available after reading the changelogs:
>
> sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.2
>
> sys-apps/openrc-0.8.2-r1
>
> All seems to work fine here.
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>
baselayout-2.0.2 seems like the obvious choice.
openrc-0.8.2-r
On Monday 02 May 2011 18:11:01 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Mick wrote:
> > On Monday 02 May 2011 10:11:06 Thanasis wrote:
> >> Let me add that my system defaults to the _stable_ software branch.
> >
> > Thanks for the heads up. :)
> >
> > It seems then that Baselayout2/
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Mick wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2011 10:11:06 Thanasis wrote:
>> Let me add that my system defaults to the _stable_ software branch.
>
> Thanks for the heads up. :)
>
> It seems then that Baselayout2/OpenRC is being rolled out to stable. I'll be
> unmasking and upd
On Monday 02 May 2011 12:52:12 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Mick writes:
> > On Monday 02 May 2011 11:26:27 you wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Not sure if there is a difference between an env.d variable and
> > a profile.d variable.
>
> None you will notice, both /etc/profile.env and scripts in /etc/profile.d
Mick writes:
> On Monday 02 May 2011 11:26:27 you wrote:
> Thanks. Not sure if there is a difference between an env.d variable and
> a profile.d variable.
None you will notice, both /etc/profile.env and scripts in /etc/profile.d/
are sourced in /etc/profile. profile.env contains all stuff in /
on 05/02/2011 01:50 PM Mick wrote the following:
> Not sure if there is a difference between an env.d variable and a
> profile.d variable.
Me neither, but I think you should add it to env.d
In my system only a couple of packages (namely dev-java/java-config and
sys-fs/udisks) use profile.d
All ot
On Monday 02 May 2011 11:26:27 you wrote:
> on 05/02/2011 01:05 PM Mick wrote the following:
> > Another thing I found, is some incongruity about the file in which the
> > $EDITOR and $PAGER should be defined.
> >
> > The migration guide says:
> >
> > "The EDITOR variable is no longer found in /e
on 05/02/2011 01:05 PM Mick wrote the following:
> Another thing I found, is some incongruity about the file in which the
> $EDITOR
> and $PAGER should be defined.
>
> The migration guide says:
>
> "The EDITOR variable is no longer found in /etc/rc.conf. Both EDITOR and
> PAGER
> are set by def
Thanasis wrote:
Let me add that my system defaults to the _stable_ software branch.
They are giving a heads up that the update is coming. I think it is
going stable in a few days, about a week since the package was added to
stable.
I'm just hoping this will be a clean upgrade. They
on 05/02/2011 12:43 PM Mick wrote the following:
>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml
>
> I've been through the migration guide. In the section about udev it mentions
> /etc/runlevels/sysinit. Is this something added by baselayout2/OpenRC? I
> don't seem to have this in my r
On Monday 02 May 2011 10:43:59 Mick wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2011 10:03:11 Thanasis wrote:
> > I am running default/linux/amd64/10.0/no-multilib profile, and I got the
> > following news item, after syncing this morning:
> >
> > # eselect news read
> >
> > 2011-05-01-baselayout-update
> >
> >
On Monday 02 May 2011 10:03:11 Thanasis wrote:
> I am running default/linux/amd64/10.0/no-multilib profile, and I got the
> following news item, after syncing this morning:
>
> # eselect news read
>
> 2011-05-01-baselayout-update
> Title Baselayout update
> Author
On Monday 02 May 2011 10:11:06 Thanasis wrote:
> Let me add that my system defaults to the _stable_ software branch.
Thanks for the heads up. :)
It seems then that Baselayout2/OpenRC is being rolled out to stable. I'll be
unmasking and updating a couple of boxen today, taking advantage of some
Let me add that my system defaults to the _stable_ software branch.
I am running default/linux/amd64/10.0/no-multilib profile, and I got the
following news item, after syncing this morning:
# eselect news read
2011-05-01-baselayout-update
Title Baselayout update
AuthorChristian Faulhammer
AuthorWi
26 matches
Mail list logo
