Luis.F.Correia wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Natanael Copa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>>> As a conclusion, i'm looking forward to it.
>> Meanwhile, someone else has offered me hosting and has
>> already set up a mediawiki and started to add pages there...
>>
>> Ev
Hello Paul,
> I'm glad to hear that someone with energy and good ideas is looking at
> this.
>
> "In a perfect world" what I'd like to see is binaries come with default
> sensible configurations, and the user is simply responsible for specifying
> and maintaining divergences from that configuratio
Natanael
I may have missed most of the 'alpine' info. Is there a URL depicting
what it is?
thanks
Erich
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media.
I would love to remove the documentation from the configuration files since it
is a PITA to maintain but when I've suggested that idea in the past, the
moans and cries have been absolutely pitiful to hear :-)
-Tom
I agree and stand corrected. :-)
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 09:04, Paul Traina wrote:
> Shorewall is another example,
> the documentation is in the configuration files. The average shorewall
> configuration file has 0 lines of active commands in it (grin) but has
> at least 150 lines of comments.
It is more correct to say that "
Eric,
This isn't magic. Debian solved this quite nicely years ago.
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime
I'm glad to hear that someone with energy and good ideas is looking at this.
"In a perfect world" what I'd like to see is binaries come with default
sensible configurations, and the user is simply responsible for
specifying and maintaining divergences from that configuration. There
are a whol
Hello Tom,
>
>> There is a very big problem with seperating the configs from the
>> packages itself. You loose the consistency between the two. For example,
>> if you update shorewall from version 2.x to 3.x (where the format of
>> config files change), shorewall won't work anymore.
>
> This is a p
Hi Eric,
--- "Eric Spakman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes you do lose, having the configs in separate files but you
solve alot
> > of other things.
> >
>
> There is a very big problem with seperating the configs from the
packages
> itself. You loose the consistency between the two.
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 07:40, Eric Spakman wrote:
> There is a very big problem with seperating the configs from the packages
> itself. You loose the consistency between the two. For example, if you
> update shorewall from version 2.x to 3.x (where the format of config files
> change), shorewa
Hello Natanael,
>
> Paul Traina mentioned some issues with the current apkg (lrp) format:
>
>
>> 2) It's insanely tedious to upgrade the software because the configs
>> are still stored with the binaries, and there are no tools for merging
>> diffs between the configs (e.g. ucf).
>
> What I have be
Eric Spakman wrote:
> Hello Natanael,
>> Meanwhile, someone else has offered me hosting and has already set up a
>> mediawiki and started to add pages there...
>>
>> Even If I don't join LEAF yet, I am willing to cooperate, share
>> experiences etc.
>>
> That would be very welcome! We (Bering-uClib
Hi!
> -Original Message-
> From: Natanael Copa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > As a conclusion, i'm looking forward to it.
>
> Meanwhile, someone else has offered me hosting and has
> already set up a mediawiki and started to add pages there...
>
> Even If I don't join LEAF yet,
Hello Natanael,
>
> Meanwhile, someone else has offered me hosting and has already set up a
> mediawiki and started to add pages there...
>
> Even If I don't join LEAF yet, I am willing to cooperate, share
> experiences etc.
>
That would be very welcome! We (Bering-uClibc team) definitly need your
Luis.F.Correia wrote:
> Hi there!
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Natanael Copa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> I have been working on something that could turn into
>> something that could satisfy this desire of playing with
>> newer stuff. It has went under the codename "Alpine" and
Hi there!
> -Original Message-
> From: Natanael Copa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I have been working on something that could turn into
> something that could satisfy this desire of playing with
> newer stuff. It has went under the codename "Alpine" and have
> been mentioned here in th
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 14:18, Natanael Copa wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:31:47 -0800
> Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 07:43, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > > So my question is: Are there any interest in a new branch in LEAF? (I
> > > mean anyone more than Mike Noyes
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:31:47 -0800
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 07:43, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > So my question is: Are there any interest in a new branch in LEAF? (I
> > mean anyone more than Mike Noyes ;)
>
> Everyone,
> Here is Natanael's description of Alpine,
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 07:43, Natanael Copa wrote:
> So my question is: Are there any interest in a new branch in LEAF? (I
> mean anyone more than Mike Noyes ;)
Everyone,
Here is Natanael's description of Alpine, for those that may have missed
it when it was posted.
http://www.mail-archive.com/lea
Hi Nataneal,
Certainly yes - both as a contributor and as a user. Call it Alpine or
ReBering, doesn't matter ...
-V
On 03/21/2006 09:43 AM, Natanael Copa wrote:
Hi,
I have been following the interesting discussions in this list latest
week moving on to 2.6 kernel and USB drives etc. I
20 matches
Mail list logo
