Doug Newgard on Sun, 2015/01/04 16:03:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 22:05:21 +0100
> Christian Hesse wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > pacman 4.2.0 gained support for verifying source tarballs with
> > kernel.org style signature. Some (even essential) packages could
> > benefit from that, linux and
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> Maybe the answer depends to the reason, that the discouraged option was
> provided for some _unknown_ reason. I absolutely agree that dropping
> --asroot is something we can accept. But I'm likely not the only one
> who noticed that backwards c
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 03:55:23 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:25:11 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > I myself would dearly love to know what precisely about removing a
> > discouraged option qualifies as a major change.
>
> Maybe the answer depends to the reason, that the discourag
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:25:11 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> I myself would dearly love to know what precisely about removing a
> discouraged option qualifies as a major change.
Maybe the answer depends to the reason, that the discouraged option was
provided for some _unknown_ reason. I absolutely agr
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Doug Newgard wrote:
> Yeah, it's not like sed options are defined by POSIX or anything...
>
> Your entire problem here seems to be that you don't like the
> development style of pacman. In that case, get involved instead of just
> whining about it after the fact. It
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
>
> The attitude to ignore the Linux ecosystem all in all, that became a
> fashion a while ago is disgusting. The way to diss software contributed
> by others, the way to disgrade other users who might have less
> knowledge, who might belong to a
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:56:31 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:45:10 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:32:58 +0100
> > Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > > > How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do w
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:45:10 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:32:58 +0100
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > > How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do with anything
> > > in this thread?
> >
> > A few people mentioned
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:32:58 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do with anything
> > in this thread?
>
> A few people mentioned that they run into issues. Did you miss their
> messages?
>
> For
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:14:02 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> How in the world do "minorities" have anything to do with anything in
> this thread?
A few people mentioned that they run into issues. Did you miss their
messages?
For example:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:48:14 +0100, Marcel Kleinfeller wrote:
[
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 01:47:05 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:09:19 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > Well, you could at least actually quote what I really said:
> >
> > "[...] it was a straightforward change with absolutely no impact"
> > ... now wait for it :) ...
> > "beyond the
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:09:19 -0600, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Well, you could at least actually quote what I really said:
>
> "[...] it was a straightforward change with absolutely no impact"
> ... now wait for it :) ...
> "beyond the impact of running makepkg --asroot by hand instead of by
> proxy."
>
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:59 AM, pete nikolic wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 23:09:01 -0600
> Eli Schwartz wrote:
>
>> No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
>> impact
>
>
> Sent to the correct header this time .
>
> Apologies Mark
>
>
> That statement is the
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 22:05:21 +0100
Christian Hesse wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> pacman 4.2.0 gained support for verifying source tarballs with
> kernel.org style signature. Some (even essential) packages could
> benefit from that, linux and git come to mind.
>
> How to handle this? Report a bug
Hello everybody,
pacman 4.2.0 gained support for verifying source tarballs with kernel.org
style signature. Some (even essential) packages could benefit from that,
linux and git come to mind.
How to handle this? Report a bug for every package? Provide a list here?
--
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 03:34:17PM -0500, Ido Rosen wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to add --time-limit / --stop-at added to ArchLinux's rsync
> since it's available in some other distributions. (This patch is
> distributed from the same source as rsync itself, just in a different
> tarball called rsync
Oops, don't know if the attachment went through. Pasted below for convenience:
# $Id$
pkgname=rsync
pkgver=3.1.1
pkgrel=3
pkgdesc="A file transfer program to keep remote files in sync"
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
url="http://rsync.samba.org/";
license=('GPL3')
depends=('perl' 'popt' 'acl' 'zlib')
bac
Hi,
I'd like to add --time-limit / --stop-at added to ArchLinux's rsync
since it's available in some other distributions. (This patch is
distributed from the same source as rsync itself, just in a different
tarball called rsync-patches, along with a bunch of other patches for
optional functional
Em 04/01/2015 16:48, "Marcel Kleinfeller" escreveu:
>
> I think this propably relays to this issue.
> When I try to actualize with packer as root, it fails because of --asroot
and when I try to use it like I should, it simply tells me, everything
would be up-to-date.
>
> [marcel@oompf ~]$ pacman -
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Marcel Kleinfeller wrote:
> [...] it simply tells me, everything would be up-to-date.
> Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
> Edit btsync PKGBUILD with $EDITOR? [Y/n] y
> Edit btsync.install with $EDITOR? [Y/n] n
> makepkg: Ungültige Option '--asroot'
> The build fa
I think this propably relays to this issue.
When I try to actualize with packer as root, it fails because of
--asroot and when I try to use it like I should, it simply tells me,
everything would be up-to-date.
[marcel@oompf ~]$ pacman -Qet | grep packer
packer 20140810-1
[marcel@oompf ~]$ pack
That the '--asroot' option was dropped is an anti-feauture in my opinion.
The package developers introduced code so that you can't run it as root.
What's the problem to _not check_ whether it's run as root or not?
Respecting backwards compatibility is more complicated than just never
removing features from software. Sometimes less is more: extra features can
be bad for maintenance, a source of bugs, or a source of vulnerabilities.
Sometimes features are added as workarounds or hacks in lieu of a proper
solut
23 matches
Mail list logo
