On 30/04/12 05:31, William Hubbs wrote:
> Correction here; as far as I know the council did not mandate
> separate /usr without initramfs. They just said that separate /usr
> is a supported configuration.
Separate /usr is a supported configuration, which blocks the armwaving
about "oh just use an
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files randomly
> on the filesystem due to random errors, I thought it may be a good idea
> to provide a new feature limiting
On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
>> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files randomly
>> on the filesystem due to random errors, I thought it may be a
On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files randomly
> on the filesystem due to random errors, I thought it may be a good idea
> to provide a new feature limi
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect" then it
>> needs to be fixed.
> Long story short: older eclass compiled Python byte code in live
> file system, new one does it in src_inst
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:03 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect
> >> with protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files
> >>
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
> > protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out files
> > randomly on the filesystem due to rando
On 30/04/12 11:28, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:03 +0200
> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect
with protect-owned [1] an
On 30/04/12 11:30, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision-protect with
>>> protect-owned [1] and sometimes packages just spit out file
Hello
Please remember to make your bugs related with glib-2.32/gtk+-3.4 issues
block bug 406437. That will allow us to get needed things stabilized in
the future when we stabilize newer glib/gtk+
Thanks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect" then it
>>> needs to be fixed.
>
>> Long story short: older eclass compiled Python byte code
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:37:53 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 11:28, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:03 +0200
> > Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> Since lately Gentoo
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:40:26 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> On 30/04/12 11:30, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
> > Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Since lately Gentoo devs force you to replace collision
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:42:56 +0200
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >> so the package *has to overwrite* files that are not owned by
> >> anyone (no package owns them).
> >
> > The usual approach to this problem was to have some cleanup code in
> > pkg_setup or pkg_preinst that would remove the old fil
Hi all,
this is just a friendly reminder: please *always* block bug reports
related to packages failing with gcc against proper tracker bugs[1][2].
They are aliased as 'gcc-4.x' to make your life easier.
This greatly decreases amount of work required for later
stabilization/keywording. TIA!
Cheers,
On 30/04/12 11:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:40:26 +0200
> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/12 11:30, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:24:58 +0200
>>> Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>>>
On 30/04/12 08:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since late
On 04/30/2012 11:50 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> Hi all,
> this is just a friendly reminder: please *always* block bug reports
> related to packages failing with gcc against proper tracker bugs[1][2].
> They are aliased as 'gcc-4.x' to make your life easier.
> This greatly decreases amount of work r
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 05:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this is all in busybox-1.20.0 which is now in the tree. if people want to try
> it out before i unmask it, that'd be great.
If you insist on calling other applets from C instead of using OS
functions, there is still no need to mount /proc an
Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/04/12 10:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect" then it
needs to be fixed.
>>
>>> Long story short: older
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
>> On 30/04/12 10:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> If the eclass doesn't work with FEATURES="collision-protect"
> then it needs to be fixed.
>>>
Long story short: older eclass compiled Python byte code in live
>>>
On Monday 30 April 2012 01:28:58 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:48:55AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > it leaves your system in a hard to recover state because you happened to
> > forget to check a filesystem option (which ironically isn't under
> > Filesystems in the kernel).
On Monday 30 April 2012 02:34:18 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i've added a new USE=sep-usr flag to busybox. when enabled, this
> > will install a static busybox at /ginit (and have the other busybox
> > paths symlink to that so there's no overhead). t
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
wrote:
> Binaries that are essential for system boot, and must be available in
> single user mode go in /bin and /sbin, with their libraries in /lib.
> This allows for /usr to be:
> 1) marked read-only for NFS mounts, which some of us rely on
On Monday 30 April 2012 06:35:20 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 05:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > this is all in busybox-1.20.0 which is now in the tree. if people want
> > to try it out before i unmask it, that'd be great.
>
> If you insist on calling other applets from C instead
On Monday 30 April 2012 02:16:40 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> > > I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
> > > authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf de
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source
> and distribute a favored binary-only derivative.
err, they distribute a Chromium source tarball, a
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 02:34:18 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i've added a new USE=sep-usr flag to busybox. when enabled, this
>> > will install a static busybox at /ginit (and have the other busyb
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
>> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source
>> and distribute a favored binary-only
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
>> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source
>> and distribute a favored binary-only
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:14:19 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 30 April 2012 02:34:18 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > i've added a new USE=sep-usr flag to busybox. when enabled, this
> >> > w
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:14:19 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> >> > i've added a new USE=sep-usr flag to busybox. when enabled, this
>> >> > will install a static busybox at /ginit (and have the other busybox
>> >> > paths symlink to that so there's no
On 04/29/2012 09:45 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 15.04.2012 17:12, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> El dom, 15-04-2012 a las 16:02 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:59:50 +0200
>>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>
I am unsure about validate_desktop_entries() utility. It's currently
pro
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 19:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i don't know what you mean by "OS functions", but the whole point is that this
> code *cannot* execute *any* external program by default.
I meant calling mount(2) directly instead of executing Busybox's
"mount" applet, etc. First /dev mount a
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:32:35 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
> >> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in the
On Monday 30 April 2012 13:16:52 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 19:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i don't know what you mean by "OS functions", but the whole point is that
> > this code *cannot* execute *any* external program by default.
>
> I meant calling mount(2) directly instea
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 12:32:35 Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the d
El lun, 30-04-2012 a las 10:05 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 04/29/2012 09:45 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > On 15.04.2012 17:12, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> El dom, 15-04-2012 a las 16:02 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> >>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:59:50 +0200
> >>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>>
> I am
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 20:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i don't think it's a big deal ... busybox generally aims to be compatible with
> the utils it replaces, so if there's bugs/missing stuff, file a bug to get it
> added.
I did file a couple, and never heard back. Although you are probably
right
On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg-
config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable a
lighter alternative for embedded/alternati
On 30 April 2012 14:27, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs
>> pkg-
>> config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
>>
>> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but
On 04/29/2012 02:42 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El dom, 29-04-2012 a las 13:54 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 04/28/2012 01:17 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
According to upstreams homepage [1],
the current tagged v1.99.09 does support xulrunner 11.0.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it
> runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
>
> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to
> enable a lighter alternative f
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 22:00 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
[...]
> The answer I got from Gentoo's Mozilla Team when I proposed bumping it
> to latest from the Firefox tarball was that "use npapi-sdk or
> spidermonkey instead".
>
> Some which have needed more than just npapi-sdk or spidermonkey ha
On 04/30/2012 10:27 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 22:00 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
[...]
The answer I got from Gentoo's Mozilla Team when I proposed bumping it
to latest from the Firefox tarball was that "use npapi-sdk or
spidermonkey instead".
Some which have needed more
On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it
runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd l
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:00:59PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
> wrote:
> > Binaries that are essential for system boot, and must be available in
> > single user mode go in /bin and /sbin, with their libraries in /lib.
> > This allows for /us
On Monday 30 April 2012 15:42:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it
> >> runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config.
On Monday 30 April 2012 14:27:29 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> +1 for creating the virtual and migrating the tree to use
> virtual/pkgconfig. although, on the otherhand, you could just use
> package.provided for thesetype of unsupported experiments (like i'm
> doing with pkgconfig-openbsd)
ok, with no
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:00:26PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
> i've added a new USE=sep-usr flag to busybox. when enabled, this
> will install a static busybox at /ginit (and have the other busybox
> paths symlink to that so there's no overhead). this new applet has
> a hand written set of comm
On Monday 30 April 2012 22:57:29 Walter Dnes wrote:
> The one thing I'm leary of is moving the actual app from /bin/busybox
> to /ginit. IANACP (I Am Not A C Programmer), let alone a developer, so
> I may be missing something. Is there an overwhelming reason to depart
> from the standard locati
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 06:35:20 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> > there is still no need to mount /proc and parse
> > /proc/mounts in order to find out whether a directory is a mount
> > point, since Busybox has a "mountpoint" applet (and of course,
51 matches
Mail list logo
