Branko Badrljica schrieb:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>> the mailing list is not bugzilla. any complaints you have about
>> USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread. it's a bug and should
>> be treated as such.
>> -mike
>>
>
> Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documen
Mark Loeser schrieb:
> Mike Frysinger said:
>> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
>>> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
>>> magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
>>> . . . is a silly idea. Good lord,
Joshua Saddler schrieb:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:54:31 +0200
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is
>> about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and you
>> should be able to recover from them and you should be ab
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> New dev-libs/glib, x11-libs/gtk+ and possible some other core libraries
> should be in tree (package.masked perhaps) so users and developers can
> help testing them. The current way they are moved from overlay into
> ~arch is forcing them t
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> [completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying]
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
>> we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was
>> synced wi
Dne středa 14 Říjen 2009 13:19:42 Nirbheek Chauhan napsal(a):
> [completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying]
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
> > we've seen many more bugs that only got d
[completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying]
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
> we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was
> synced with some developer overlay, or whe
On Wednesday 14 of October 2009 08:12:03 Eray Aslan wrote:
[...]
Please STOP already, all of you.
There is only one important fact nobody seems to comprehend - new openrc was
added to TESTING repository. That being said, if one uses packages from such
repository (portage subtree, whatever), on
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 02:12:03 Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 14.10.2009 03:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> >> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
> >> magically know everything and not to offer any documen
On 14.10.2009 03:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
>> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
>> magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
>> . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can yo
Branko Badrljica writes:
> 2. About using bugzilla- how the heck was I supposed to use it without
> net access ?
If openrc did not start your networking, what was preventing you
starting it yourself? Even if the upgrade also corrupted both
sys-apps/net-tools and sys-apps/iproute2[1], you could h
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 21:26:40 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:40:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > USE=oldnet is documented, end of story. you're complaining about a
> > *bug*, not lack of documentation. stop mixing the two as you're only
> > muddling this threa
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:40:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> USE=oldnet is documented, end of story. you're complaining about a *bug*,
> not
> lack of documentation. stop mixing the two as you're only muddling this
> thread.
I don't think you are going to find anyone here stating that th
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:33:35 -0400
Mark Loeser wrote:
> I'd say this isn't correct. Unstable isn't a pure testing playground.
> its meant for packages that should be considered for stable.
I happen to disagree. Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
we've seen many more bugs that only
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:48:01 Branko Badrljica wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the mailing list is not bugzilla. any complaints you have about
USE=oldnet have no
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:48:01 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> the mailing list is not bugzilla. any complaints you have about
> >>> USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread.
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 20:33:35 Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger said:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > > All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
> > > magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in
> > > adv
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the mailing list is not bugzilla. any complaints you have about
USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread. it's a bug and should be
treated as such.
Which is why I have
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the mailing list is not bugzilla. any complaints you have about
> > USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread. it's a bug and should be
> > treated as such.
>
> Which is why I have posted here to gripe a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the mailing list is not bugzilla. any complaints you have about USE=oldnet
have nothing to do with this thread. it's a bug and should be treated as
such.
-mike
Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such
changes in future.
I was told t
Mike Frysinger said:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
> > magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
> > . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shit
On Friday 09 October 2009 13:57:07 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1
> is there.
btw, i didnt thank you for handling this. so thanks. uNF.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Mittwoch, 14. Oktober 2009, sch...@subverted.org wrote:
>
> Oh, you mean the docs that only cover the "old" configuration mechanism
> and are only installed with USE=oldnet? How silly to think that changes
> that are likely to take testers' machines offline should be documented,
> if nothing el
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:15:52 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> This time, machine boots and sets both lo and eth0 without any error
> message, but it fails to set default route, so without manual "route add
> default gw 192.168.1.1" net is dead. And machine is stuck at "checking
> local filesystems
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
> magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
> . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11
> team would ha
Dawid Węgliński wrote:
sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
/usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
/usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default
As said, I already did that. In fact, that was the first thing I was
looking for. After seeing post here about radical changes in v0.5, that
was the first thing I
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:54:31 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is
> about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and you
> should be able to recover from them and you should be able to use bugzilla.
> Else i su
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:52:06 +0200
Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> Upstream already provides such a documentation as you can see above. Gentoo
> provides migration guide. I believe doc team will update use flag description
> as soon as it's possible.
In this case, "As soon as it's possible" means "whe
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 01:03:22AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 October 2009 00:59:26 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> > > sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> > > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> > > /usr/sha
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 20:41:51 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is
> > no excuse. blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead
> > of pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 18:59:26 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> > sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default
>
> That would be lovely if the concerns being rai
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 00:59:26 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> > sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default
>
> That would be lovely if the concerns being r
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default
That would be lovely if the concerns being raised weren't about 0.5.1,
that's the output from a 0.4.3 series install.
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 02:41:51 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is
> > no excuse. blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead
> > of pinning a specific version and then expecting a stab
Mike Frysinger wrote:
i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is no
excuse. blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead of
pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable system isnt going to
happen. Thomas is absolutely right here.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 01:33:27AM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> 1. Much of the time on Gentoo using of ~ packages is not user explicit
> choice but forced compromise.
> I don't remember exactly anymore what prompted me to enter openrc in
> package.keywords, but I surely remember having a few
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:33:27 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is
> > about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and
> > you should be able to recover from them and you should be a
Thomas Sachau wrote:
I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is about
TESTING new versions
and packages. You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from
them and you should
be able to use bugzilla. Else i suggest you move to a stable arch inst
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:43:49PM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Which I did. I don't have openrc in /etc/portage/package.use, so it was
> emerged with default USE flags ( if you count default as in "as set in
> make.conf" ). emerge -pv openrc woould emerge it as:
>
> sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 [0
Branko Badrljica schrieb:
> William Hubbs wrote:
>> If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that
>> there is a major regression and the package should be masked. On the
>> other hand, if the new network scripts do not work, I don't see that as
>> a show stopper. Yes,
William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break
stuff on significant percent of other users.
It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting,
since it was at qu
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:47 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> The default is to use the old net.ethx style network scripts, which
> still work as usual, so, that is why I said that I disagree about there
> being a regression. A regression means that something worked before,
> but it doesn't now, and t
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break
> stuff on significant percent of other users.
> It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting,
> since it was at quite inconvenient m
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:55:45 +0200, Branko Badrljica
wrote:
> Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break
> stuff on significant percent of other users.
> It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting,
> since it was at quite inconvenient mome
William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:23:32PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Saturday 10 October 2009 23:30:05 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin N??stac wrote:
On 10/9/09
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:23:32PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Saturday 10 October 2009 23:30:05 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin N??stac wrote:
> > > > On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wr
On Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2009, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> I agree with Nirbheek. You should always provide an updated documentation (
> and a news item if necessary ) when you release a new major update of such
> core packages. I would like to see new openrc masked until the
> documentation is read
On Saturday 10 October 2009 23:30:05 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin Năstac wrote:
> > > On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > >> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with n
On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin Năstac wrote:
> > On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> >> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
> >
> > No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
>
> Major
News item?
Will be/Wont be/In progress??
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:53:37AM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:57:07 +0200
> > Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi there!
> >>
> >> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1
> >> is
> >> there. It has
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin Năstac wrote:
> On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
>> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
>>
> No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
>
Major regression. It never pays to drop surprises on people like this
On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
>
No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:57:07 +0200
Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
Hi there!
As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 is
there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the
old-style network scripts called net.*.
Regard
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:57:07 +0200
Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 is
> there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the
> old-style network scripts called net.*.
> Regardless of this use-
On Пятница 09 октября 2009 21:57:07 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1
> is there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the
> old-style network scripts called net.*.
> Regardless of this use-
Hi there!
As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 is
there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the
old-style network scripts called net.*.
Regardless of this use-flag, the new init-script /etc/init.d/network is always
installed.
For tr
57 matches
Mail list logo
