I take it there is no official way to define the permissions mask for a
macports user that would allow an admin user full control over content
owned by the macports user (but not the reverse)?
Not sure you can make extended ACLs propagate the right way.
The old school option is creating a
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:52 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 09:37:53 Brandon Allbery wrote:
I think someone did have this (try to) happen to them recently-ish. I also
I don't recall having seen this recently-ish issue discussed on a ML - or
it was about
Hi,
- On 10 Feb, 2015, at 13:57, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
~/.macports is used instead of /opt/local/var/macports when you run MacPorts
in
a root installation but without root privileges. As such, MacPorts will put
When `macportsuser root` in macports.conf?
No, when
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:30 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015, Brandon Allbery wrote regarding Re:
~/.macports
Not supported, not a great idea, not an outright installation-breaking
idea. (Among other potential problems, a Portfile bug could nuke your home
On Feb 10, 2015, at 5:47 AM, Clemens Lang wrote:
On 10 Feb, 2015, at 11:37, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
As I said, my ~/.macports on my Mac appears to be unused since november 2013
or
so. However, the tiny test install I have on my Linux system does contain a
lot
of things that appear to
At 5:45 PM -0500 2/10/15, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
Having both forums and mailing lists would be
harmful to the community. We'd end up with two
bubbles (one much smaller, probably) that don't
interact with each other.
The only way forums would work is if we migrated *all* discussion there.
On 10/02/15 17:32, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 17:10:37 Chris Jones wrote:
1) at least is solvable as you can configure your sudoers list to allow
your main user to run your port command (and that command only) through
sudoers without requiring a password.
I know
On 10/02/15 15:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 14:42:49 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
Not sure you can make extended ACLs propagate the right way.
The old school option is creating a common group for both users and have
appropriate umasks.
Yep. That's subject to the same
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Chris Jones jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk
wrote:
I for one so no particular reason why anyone would need a list of all list
members, whatever password protection or mangling you put into place. If
you want to send someone a mail and not sure if they are are member,
On Tuesday February 10 2015 10:49:40 Arno Hautala wrote:
list. There's no way to ensure they *won't* get a message.
Not by sending to the list, no. But there's always the option of sending to a
hand-picked selection of list members, if there's a reason to limit the
audience.
Censoring the
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:22 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 10:49:40 Arno Hautala wrote:
list. There's no way to ensure they *won't* get a message.
Not by sending to the list, no. But there's always the option of sending to a
hand-picked selection of
On Tuesday February 10 2015 17:10:37 Chris Jones wrote:
1) at least is solvable as you can configure your sudoers list to allow
your main user to run your port command (and that command only) through
sudoers without requiring a password.
I know that, but for some reason I've never managed
On Tuesday February 10 2015 12:30:07 Arno Hautala wrote:
Not by sending to the list, no. But there's always the option of sending to
a hand-picked selection of list members, if there's a reason to limit the
audience.
Also something that doesn't require having a public members list.
Hi,
I for one so no particular reason why anyone would need a list of all
list members, whatever password protection or mangling you put into
place. If you want to send someone a mail and not sure if they are are
member, just cc them as well and let the system sort the rest out.
I would be
On 10/02/2015, at 9:37 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 21:08:18 Ian Wadham wrote:
Hi Ian,
Taking this to macports-dev...
As I said, my ~/.macports on my Mac appears to be unused since november 2013
or so. However, the tiny test install I have on my Linux
Hi Ian,
- On 10 Feb, 2015, at 11:37, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, my ~/.macports on my Mac appears to be unused since november 2013
or
so. However, the tiny test install I have on my Linux system does contain a
lot
of things that appear to be copies, but also
Hi,
I noticed (= became annoyingly aware of the fact) that `port upgrade` does a
deactivate on the current port version before it even starts creating the
archive. Symptoms: while waiting for `port -nvk upgrade --force qt4-mac` to
finish, I got failure messages for starting kio_slave; that's
On Tuesday February 10 2015 10:05:30 Arno Hautala wrote:
Hi,
Just CC them. Most mail clients / list servers will consolidate the
duplicate message and even if it doesn't it's not the worst thing to
I realised later that I should have evoked knowledge of how many copies a
given person would
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:23 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
I realised later that I should have evoked knowledge of how many copies a
given person would get. There are valid situations in which you'd like (or
should) know if someone is on the list and would thus get a non-zero
On Feb 10, 2015, at 8:01 AM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to give members of the list access to the memberlist
Technically, yes. Mailman allows the list administrators to change the
visibility of the subscribers list.[1]
Practically, there's no need to
On Feb 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
To kick off the discussion: has a MacPorts forum site ever been taken into
consideration
Not since I've been paying attention, which has been a few years.
if so, what were the reasons not to provide one (a summary
On Feb 10, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Arno Hautala wrote:
get a duplicate. You and the list are in the To and CC fields with
this message. Did you get it twice?
No, not that I can see (= unless gmail hid an additional copy somewhere, but
it could also be that gmail consolidated the copies).
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's a feature of Gmail that deduplicates your mail. I do not
use Gmail and I do get duplicate copies of mailing list messages that are
also Cc'd to me.
As sent by Lawrence:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 16:41:19 Arno Hautala wrote:
If you're on BCC, Mailman wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Evidently. Is it clever enough to take various ways of representing the To: or
CC: addressing into account? Basically, does it look at the pure email address,
or does
not change for 5 weeks to this ticket, just wondering what is next to
progress...
John
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
On Feb 10, 2015, at 5:29 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
I see them as complementary. Some people prefer mailing lists, others like
myself prefer to keep their incoming mail as few as possible.
Complementary implies that the items in question reinforce each other in a
Feedback was given to fix the patch (namely to remove the revision line). We
like to see corrected follow-up patches. Although ultimately the maintainers
have not responded to the ticket.
Cheers!
Frank
On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:45 PM, John Patrick nhoj.patr...@gmail.com wrote:
not change for 5
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org
wrote:
As far as I know, Gmail is unique in that it deduplicates for you and only
shows you one copy. I assume it uses the Message-ID to do so.
It's not unique; Cyrus imapd could be configured to do so in early versions
and
On 10/02/2015 22:29, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 16:24:30 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
I personally would not want to have to check Yet Another Source of MacPorts
Discussion. I don't see what benefit a forum would have over our mailing lists.
I see them as
On Feb 10, 2015, at 4:34 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Tuesday February 10 2015 16:41:19 Arno Hautala wrote:
If you're on BCC, Mailman wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Evidently. Is it clever enough to take various ways of representing the To:
or CC: addressing into account?
not change for 5 weeks to this ticket, just wondering what is next to
progress...
John
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
On Tuesday February 10 2015, Brandon Allbery wrote regarding Re: ~/.macports
Not supported, not a great idea, not an outright installation-breaking
idea. (Among other potential problems, a Portfile bug could nuke your home
directory; with a dedicates macports user, it would get a permission
On Tuesday February 10 2015 09:37:53 Brandon Allbery wrote:
I think someone did have this (try to) happen to them recently-ish. I also
I'm not saying it's impossible, but my home directory is mostly a skeleton
anyway, with symlinks to where the important stuff is. As long as ~/Library
isn't
Just CC them. Most mail clients / list servers will consolidate the
duplicate message and even if it doesn't it's not the worst thing to
get a duplicate. You and the list are in the To and CC fields with
this message. Did you get it twice?
It's only a mail list, but it feels weird to make that
On Tuesday February 10 2015 14:42:49 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
Not sure you can make extended ACLs propagate the right way.
The old school option is creating a common group for both users and have
appropriate umasks.
Yep. That's subject to the same conditions I enumerated in my previous email.
Hi guys,
I am the person who has this problem --- about 3 Gb of stuff in ~/.macports
and a Time Machine that goes berserk, running mtmd [1] at about 90% CPU
during port clean for example. I have had to turn Time Machine off.
On 10/02/2015, at 10:47 PM, Clemens Lang wrote:
- On 10 Feb,
On Tuesday February 10 2015 12:47:52 Clemens Lang wrote:
Hi Clemens,
~/.macports is used instead of /opt/local/var/macports when you run MacPorts
in
a root installation but without root privileges. As such, MacPorts will put
When `macportsuser root` in macports.conf?
I don't know if it's
Hello,
Would it be possible to give members of the list access to the memberlist,
possibly mangled in a way that addresses appear like
rjvbertin@g
or something similarly useful when you already know a person's address and just
want to verify if s/he is subscribed and thus doesn't need to be
On Feb 10, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
If by it you mean Mailman, then as far as I know, it does nothing to
deduplicate your mail.
http://www.list.org/mailman-member/node21.html
On Feb 10, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
It's
I do like the idea of a forum or something. Gmail helps with conversation
management, but trying to find conversations from long ago, even with the
archive kinda sucks. Especially for those of us that have mail back when
this was darwinports
—Mark
___
Mark E. Anderson
On Feb 10, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
If by it you mean Mailman, then as far as I know, it does nothing to
deduplicate your mail. It sends the messages it has been instructed to send.
So if a message is addressed To a mailing list you're subscribed to, and
On Feb 10, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
On Feb 10, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
If by it you mean Mailman, then as far as I know, it does nothing to
deduplicate your mail. It sends the messages it has been instructed to send.
So if a
On Tuesday February 10 2015 17:45:39 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
Complementary implies that the items in question reinforce each other in a
positive manner.
I think they would, but who am I ... =)
Having both forums and mailing lists would be harmful to the community. We'd
end up with two
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Ian Wadham iandw...@gmail.com wrote:
From now on I want to use sudo, have a local-port structure that is NOT in
/opt/local
and have NO modifications of standard permissions in /opt/local.
But how do I get there, *safely*, from where I am?
Note that MacPorts questions already get asked on a web-based forum-like
interface, namely Stack Overflow. But it's yet another place that fragments the
community. I subscribe to the MacPorts mailing lists. If a question comes in
that I know the answer to, I'll answer it. But I don't visit
On Wednesday February 11 2015 11:27:28 Ian Wadham wrote:
I am the person who has this problem --- about 3 Gb of stuff in ~/.macports
and a Time Machine that goes berserk, running mtmd [1] at about 90% CPU
during port clean for example. I have had to turn Time Machine off.
Expect to see that
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:57 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
~/.macports is used instead of /opt/local/var/macports when you run
MacPorts in
a root installation but without root privileges. As such, MacPorts will
put
When `macportsuser root` in macports.conf?
I don't know if
47 matches
Mail list logo
