On Saturday 16 July 2005 10:38 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > >
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
> > > po
On Saturday 16 July 2005 09:13 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort
> of cvs information), am I right?
not always
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort
of cvs information), am I right?
If so, some sort of checking script can detect Gentoo signed files on
/etc/profile.d and just ignore them when scanning profile.d for user
scripts.
On 7/16/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:07 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:05:09 +0200
>
> "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > regardless, i think this should be done on a global scale rather
> > > than per-pack
On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a
> > file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
>
On Saturday 16 July 2005 04:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > that *only*
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo deve
On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:08 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
> login?
no, because it would collide with the packages which are supposed to be
installing files t
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo dev
Could be /etc/env.d and env-update extended to support more things
like aliases and shell functions?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
>
I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
login?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
> this directory subject to dev
So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAI
These packages currently have no active maintainer to keep the sources
updated and the kernel team is not able keep them updated with all the
security bumps that are required due to manpower shortages. If nobody
steps up to maintain them (meaning, solve incoming bugs and update the
sources as need
On Saturday 16 July 2005 19:07, Marius Mauch wrote:
> No new FEATURES for trivial stuff like this, but what about using
> INSTALL_MASK?
A mask for things that doesn't get installed? Yeah that could work, too.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gento
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:05:09 +0200
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > regardless, i think this should be done on a global scale rather
> > than per-package ... why not add some bashrc-foo to your profile ?
> Don't thin
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> packag
Does Window$ and MacO$ users, with all "facilities" and "system
security controls" they have in their OSes are protected from shooting
themselves in the foot? I don't think so.
In this case particularly I don't think the risk is too big, since
global customizations must be done only by root.
I th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file
> there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> -mike
Hmm
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 19:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> > nothing was done. Did you know why?
>
> hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we
Kristian Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just checked and pkg_config does not handle make menuconfig correctly
> either :( Probably a bug.
Sorry I didn't tune into this thread earlier...
Most ncurses-based tools, including most menuconfig scripts, need to be
attached to an interactive ter
On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i thought the packages that create that file do so because they were
> utilizing some bundled crap ...
No, they create that when the uses internal libiconv/gettxt on GLIBC systems
and when using external libiconv in non-GLIBC sysems. That's b
22 matches
Mail list logo
