On 11/02/2011 08:33 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> I currently count 19 relevant files. If we keep the 100k limit and rotate
> yearly, this will be doable by hand in the foreseeable future and any attempt
> at automating is a complete waste of time.
>
> Opinions, flames, ...?
>
Just an observ
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:41:29 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 01:42:44 Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:11:46 +0100
> >
> > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> > > as there was only positive feedback to this suggestion, I'll create a
> > > ChangeLog file in
On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 01:42:44 Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:11:46 +0100
>
> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > > 1) Why is there no ChangeLog in the eclass directory?
> > > In my personal opinion this is missing there, if only for historical
> > > reasons... S
Dear all,
> 2) I'd like to suggest that for changelogs that grow beyond a certain size
> (e.g. profiles/ChangeLog) the file is "rotated" similar to /var/log
> logfiles. I.e. the current file is renamed with a date extension and a new
> file is started. This has the benefit that the archived file i
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:11:46 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> > 1) Why is there no ChangeLog in the eclass directory?
> > In my personal opinion this is missing there, if only for historical
> > reasons... Should we still start one?
>
> as there was only positive feedback to
On Wednesday 26 October 2011 19:40:24 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell,
> is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for
> keeping these before i punt them ?
hmm, seems a few packages in the tree want this functionality. but the
Dear all,
> 1) Why is there no ChangeLog in the eclass directory?
> In my personal opinion this is missing there, if only for historical
> reasons... Should we still start one?
as there was only positive feedback to this suggestion, I'll create a
ChangeLog file in the eclass directory during t
It appears that when adding any new license, one needs to send a
notice to gentoo-dev. I have added CCPL-Attribution-2.5 (see
attachment or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode)
and added it to the FREE-DOCUMENTS license group (same as
CCPL-Attribution-3.0, acked by Robin Jonson)*.
when i first wrote enew{user,group} oh-so-long-ago, the reason for the [extra]
arguments was the assumption that i am short sighted. i figured someone would
come up with some creative need for passing additional flags that i couldn't
possibly think of.
however, in the ~9 years since, all i hav
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:03:21PM +0100, enno+gen...@groeper-berlin.de wrote:
> I followed the threads about manifest signing with interest and even had
> a look at the manifest signing guide [4]. Sounds nice at first view.
> But, please correct me, if I'm wrong. I didn't find a place where these
Hello,
Am 29.09.2011 17:02, schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The issue of Manifest signing came up in #gentoo-hardened channel ...
> again. Its clearly a security issue and yet many manifests in the tree
> are still not signed. Is there any chance that we can agree to reject
> unsi
11 matches
Mail list logo
