On Tuesday 30 August 2005 10:15 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 21:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 August 2005 09:41 pm, Sven Köhler wrote:
> > > > init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means,
> > > > they should be run with `env -i` and
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 21:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 August 2005 09:41 pm, Sven Köhler wrote:
> > > init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means, they
> > > should be run with `env -i` and have only whitelisted variables given to
> > > them (and everything
>>>init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means, they
>>>should be run with `env -i` and have only whitelisted variables given to
>>>them (and everything that appears in /etc/conf.d/$service /etc/conf.d/rc
>>>and /etc/rc.conf) ...
>>
>>Now that may be too few variables. At le
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 09:41 pm, Sven Köhler wrote:
> > init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means, they
> > should be run with `env -i` and have only whitelisted variables given to
> > them (and everything that appears in /etc/conf.d/$service /etc/conf.d/rc
> > and /etc
> init.d scripts should have a pure env given to them ... which means, they
> should be run with `env -i` and have only whitelisted variables given to them
> (and everything that appears in /etc/conf.d/$service /etc/conf.d/rc
> and /etc/rc.conf) ...
Now that may be too few variables. At least t
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 05:32 pm, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 12:01 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 August 2005 12:04, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > Um, that's kinda like behaviour by design unless anyone can tell me
> > > otherwise.
> > >
> > > /etc/env.d/* just set sh
Roy Marples wrote:
>I just love replying to myself!
>
>On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 22:32 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
>
>
>>#!/bin/sh
>>
>>/bin/env -i \
>>CONSOLETYPE="${CONSOLETYPE}" \
>>IN_BACKGROUND="${IN_BACKGROUND}" \
>>IN_HOTPLUG="${IN_HOTPLUG}" \
>>/lib/rcscripts/sh/runscript.sh $*
> I've been looking into this and the only easy solution I can find is to
> move /sbin/runscript.sh to say /lib/rcscripts/sh, change it to
> source /etc/profile and then create a new /sbin/runscript.sh like so
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> /bin/env -i \
> CONSOLETYPE="${CONSOLETYPE}" \
> IN_BACKGROUN
I just love replying to myself!
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 22:32 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> #!/bin/sh
>
> /bin/env -i \
> CONSOLETYPE="${CONSOLETYPE}" \
> IN_BACKGROUND="${IN_BACKGROUND}" \
> IN_HOTPLUG="${IN_HOTPLUG}" \
> /lib/rcscripts/sh/runscript.sh $*
A quick reboot shows we nee
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 16:45 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
> > Luis Medinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
> > > AMD64 and x86 th
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 12:01 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 August 2005 12:04, Roy Marples wrote:
> >
> > Um, that's kinda like behaviour by design unless anyone can tell me
> > otherwise.
> >
> > /etc/env.d/* just set shell variables, so if you change one then you
> > need to
> >
>
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400
Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are comparing apples and oranges.. Most of the herd devs only have
> x86 and are not able to test amd64. That's the main difference.
Most of the mips devs only have 64-bit big endian SGI hardware, and
aren't able t
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:16:09 -0400 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on
| > | x86
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86
> | and its their responsability to do their QA.
>
> QA needs coordination. Otherwise we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Martin wrote:
| Hi list,
|
| Marco Morales is joining Gentoo to help with the netmon herd. He's
| known as soulse- on IRC.
|
Welcome aboard Marco :)
- --
Andrés Pereira
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDFMh
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86
| and its their responsability to do their QA.
QA needs coordination. Otherwise we end up with repeats of the "Gnome
not building on stable x86 for seve
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
> Luis Medinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
> > AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
> > tree that n
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
> AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
> tree that needs to be patched to work on AMD64 so we cannot cover
> AMD64/x86 und
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 15:57 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> >>> Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
> >
> >
> > That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth
> >
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth
time that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the standards the
other arches have to
Tom Martin wrote:
> Marco Morales is joining Gentoo to help with the netmon herd. He's
> known as soulse- on IRC.
Happy to have you on board, Marco. If you manage to keep some free time
outside of netmon, you are free to continue to do scouting for the
security folks :)
--
Thierry Carrez (Koon)
On 30/8/2005 10:46:54, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could *easily*
> be covered under the same keyword?
The big reason I think, is that few x86 people have a clue about amd64.
Contrast this with the mips team; I'd guess mo
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 11:24 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >>Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
> >>*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
> >>variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
> >>differences much more significant then th
Hi list,
Marco Morales is joining Gentoo to help with the netmon herd. He's
known as soulse- on IRC.
Marco is from Lima, Peru, is twenty-two years old and has just finished
his System Engineer bachelor degree. He currently works for a networking
company that uses Gentoo. Outside of computing, he
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:46:20 +0200
Francesco R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Never said this, I've a dual opteron running informix that can *only*
> run under a x86 environment.
> this is the profile for the main environment:
> make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2005.0
> an
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>>> Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
>>> *easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
>>> variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
>>> differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64.
>>
>>
>>
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:01 +0200, Francesco R wrote:
> > Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
> > *easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
> > variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
> > differences much more significant then that bet
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >>Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
> >
> > I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
>
> That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time
> that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you g
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64.
Sorry I disagree with this, differences exists
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
> *easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
> variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
> differences much more significant then that between x86 and
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time
that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the standards the other
arches have to follow to be part of Gentoo.
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 01:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hola all.
>>>
>>>Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
>>>arch.list
>>>categories
>>>use.desc
>>>use.local.d
On 08/30/05 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 01:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Hola all.
> > >
> > > Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
> > > arch.list
> > > categories
> > > use.d
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 01:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Hola all.
> >
> > Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
> > arch.list
> > categories
> > use.desc
> > use.local.desc
> > package.mask
> > updates
>
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> >No. *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time. I care
> >about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the
> >release. If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care.
> and *I* can't make a tree-wide serv
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> Basically stating that if I want the minimal 2005.1 x86 profile to
> build my own server profile off of, I can't really use the existing
> default-linux/x86/2005.1 ;
Ehh... There *is* no minimal 2005.1 profile. That has always been the
p
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:24 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> Aside from that, the parent implementation could stand a tweak or two.
> Further, assuming metapkg goes through, virtual is obsoleted. The
> inclusion of GRP_STAGE23_USE also bugs me a bit; yes it works right
> now, but what happens whe
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 23:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:43:35 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | There's nothing stopping you from creating a
> | default-linux/x86/ferringb profile and doing whatever you wish in it,
> | but editing default-linux/x86/2
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:57:37AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:17:39AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Don't mind moving them, BUT
> > > > - metadata is a stupid location for them for
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:43:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Re: not shoving work onto you, complicating your job, etc, I agree,
and actually is what I was getting at in the badly worded section
below
My point is pretty simple,
why should we spend a bunch of ti
40 matches
Mail list logo
