On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:48 -0300, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
> On Thursday 28 July 2005 23:50, Jeff Walter wrote:
> > Rafael,
> >
> > I have no clue if this will work, but maybe try the -n option. The
> > man says that it won't write to /etc/mtab, but I'm hoping it will ignore it
> > a
If you happen to be registering for an "Exhibit Hall" badge for the upcoming
LinuxWorld Expo in San Francisco, use priority code N0339 to let them know
that you're coming to support Gentoo!
The badges are free if registering in advance, and $35 at the door. However,
if you use this code the d
On Friday 29 July 2005 19:09, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I just don't see how his comment had anything to do with PATCHES.
Gasp - communication is not error free. News to you!? I mistook him, that's
all.
> Thus, your comment doesn't make any sense to me, either.
In my context it does, unfortunat
<цитата от="Stuart Herbert">
> We're working to provide support for both PHP4 and PHP5 running on the
> same box. At the moment, this work is available in a tarball overlay
> [1], along with a number of supporting eselect modules [2],[3],[4]. The
> overlay contains new dev-lang/php packages, and
On Friday 29 July 2005 19:02, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Don't get what you want to say... I read Diego's comment as an ironic one,
> that there's no need for the PATCHES variable, which is of course true, but
> you don't have to write "src_unpack(){ foo_unpack ; epatch some_patch }"
> just for a sing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
| On Friday 29 July 2005 18:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|>That doesn't really make any sense. You could just as easily use PATCHES
|>if you ran s/patch -p0
On Friday 29 July 2005 18:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> That doesn't really make any sense. You could just as easily use PATCHES
> if you ran s/patch -p0
pgpG7wF0z1ROa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
| On Friday 29 July 2005 17:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
|
|>This can be read as "it's good to use epatch" ? :P
|
|
| It's just less text to write PATCHES="foo ...", if you don't have a
src_unpack
| function in the partic
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> This can be read as "it's good to use epatch" ? :P
It's just less text to write PATCHES="foo ...", if you don't have a src_unpack
function in the particular ebuild.
Carsten
pgpVewopKrcSC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:31, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> from a QA point of view, no package should apply a patch, have the patching
> fail, but continue to emerge ... who knows what kind of garbage you'll end
> up with
This can be read as "it's good to use epatch" ? :P
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
On Friday 29 July 2005 11:14 am, Dan Armak wrote:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 17:58, Duncan wrote:
> > Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
> >
> > on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200:
> > > On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
> > >> Anyway, the effectiv
On Friday 29 July 2005 17:58, Duncan wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
>
> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200:
> > On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
> >> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and
> >> support pat
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:46 +0200:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
>> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and
>> support patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands.
> epatch alr
On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and support
> patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands.
epatch already takes care of failing, that's why I was thinking about that :)
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer
On Friday 29 July 2005 16:57, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote:
> > base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
> > supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today,
> > if patching fails the process do
On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote:
> base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
> supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if
> patching fails the process doesn't abort.
Why can't we just use epatch?
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pette
Hi all,
base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if
patching fails the process doesn't abort. So I propose:
==
--- base.eclass 11 Jul 2005 15:08:06 - 1.27
+++ base.ecla
On Friday 29 July 2005 02:34, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> "A chroot"? Better provide exact sequence of mounts, chroots which you
> execute. Otherwise people need to guess.
The relevant commands are:
mount -t ext2 /dev/hda1 /memory
mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/memory /union
mount -t squashfs /dev/hda2 /ne
On Thursday 28 July 2005 23:50, Jeff Walter wrote:
> Rafael,
>
> I have no clue if this will work, but maybe try the -n option. The
> man says that it won't write to /etc/mtab, but I'm hoping it will ignore it
> as well and just go for the mount. Also, you'll be remounting / as
> read-only e
19 matches
Mail list logo
