On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:55:02AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> and it works, i just tested that. so i'm not sure what that extended
> sed expression was supposed to accomplish but it did nothing to solve
> this issue.
>
Panic over, the issue is nothing to do with F11, SELinux, sed or
any ot
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 13:58:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > i'm checking right now if there's an option to "ls" to turn
> > *off* that feature, but i don't see one offhand. perhaps a better
> > lesson is that the way xterm's sinst
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 13:58:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > i'm checking right now if there's an option to "ls" to turn *off*
> > that feature, but i don't see one offhand. perhaps a better lesson is
> > that the way xterm's sinst
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 11/12/2009 04:42 PM, GNUtoo wrote:
> > > Is it practical? I think the answer is no. In my experience,
> > > tools like selinux have a tendency to require inordinate amounts
> > > of administrative burden that just isn't practical in a
> > > develo
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 11/12/2009 04:42 PM, GNUtoo wrote:
> >>Is it practical? I think the answer is no. In my experience, tools
> >>like selinux have a tendency to require inordinate amounts of
> >>administrative burden that just isn't practical in
On 11/12/2009 04:42 PM, GNUtoo wrote:
Is it practical? I think the answer is no. In my experience, tools
like selinux have a tendency to require inordinate amounts of
administrative burden that just isn't practical in a development
environment. I think requiring that selinux be disabled on bui
> Is it practical? I think the answer is no. In my experience, tools
> like selinux have a tendency to require inordinate amounts of
> administrative burden that just isn't practical in a development
> environment. I think requiring that selinux be disabled on build
> hosts
> is a reasonable req
Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> So it is not really fedora specific, but it is SELinux specific.
> Do we want to support SELinux as build host ?
Do we want to? Yes, it would be a nice thing to support.
Is it practical? I think the answer is no. In my experience, tools
like selinux have a tendency
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:58:23AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > PS: Personally I think it is a bad idea to change the output format of
> > > a utility that is more than 30 years old and that is so widespread.
> >
> > i have to agree but, frank
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:20:08AM +0100, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 07:36:32 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>
> > anyway, this is about the fourth time i've explained this, either
> > here or on the angstrom-devel list. that's the error, and it's
> > entirely
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:58:23AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > PS: Personally I think it is a bad idea to change the output format of
> > a utility that is more than 30 years old and that is so widespread.
>
> i have to agree but, frankly, i'm astonished that that fundamental a
> change c
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> PS: Personally I think it is a bad idea to change the output format
> of a utility that is more than 30 years old and that is so
> widespread. (and I did not even see an obvious way to get the old
> behaviour).
someone on the fedora list just sug
On Thursday 12 November 2009 13:58:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i'm checking right now if there's an option to "ls" to turn *off*
> that feature, but i don't see one offhand. perhaps a better lesson is
> that the way xterm's sinstall.sh script works is really hacky, using
> sed to allegedly rep
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2009/11/12 Robert P. J. Day :
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/11/12 Robert P. J. Day :
> >>
> >> > the above is switching on a symbolic mode, and that final line is
> >> > using sed to convert the symbolic mode to th
2009/11/12 Robert P. J. Day :
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/12 Robert P. J. Day :
>>
>> > the above is switching on a symbolic mode, and that final line is
>> > using sed to convert the symbolic mode to the corresponding numeric
>> > mode for installation.
>> >
>> >
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2009/11/12 Robert P. J. Day :
>
> > the above is switching on a symbolic mode, and that final line is
> > using sed to convert the symbolic mode to the corresponding numeric
> > mode for installation.
> >
> > that worked fine a few years back, but
On 11/12/2009 12:47 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
seriously, either the build of xterm_207 should be fixed, or that
package should be dropped in its entirety. it's been at least three
weeks since i pointed out that it doesn't build, and even explained in
detail *why* it doesn't build and how t
> > Work on OE is purely community driven, ...
>
> i'm well aware of that. i was trying to become a productive
> *member* of that community. at this point, i've pretty much lost
> interest.
That would be sad. Please don't let yourself be driven a way buy a
single incident. I appreciate you lo
2009/11/12 Robert P. J. Day :
> the above is switching on a symbolic mode, and that final line is
> using sed to convert the symbolic mode to the corresponding numeric
> mode for installation.
>
> that worked fine a few years back, but it fails on newer linux
> distros for which the long listing
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 07:36:32 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > anyway, this is about the fourth time i've explained this,
> > either here or on the angstrom-devel list. that's the error, and
> > it's entirely reproducible on my f11 s
On Thursday 12 November 2009 08:20:08 Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 07:36:32 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > anyway, this is about the fourth time i've explained this, either
> > here or on the angstrom-devel list. that's the error, and it's
> > entirely reproducib
On Thursday 12 November 2009 07:36:32 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> anyway, this is about the fourth time i've explained this, either
> here or on the angstrom-devel list. that's the error, and it's
> entirely reproducible on my f11 system. at this point, i'm leaving it
> with the powers that be,
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 06:56:41 Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 November 2009 06:47:22 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > seriously, either the build of xterm_207 should be fixed, or that
> > > package should be dropp
On Thursday 12 November 2009 06:56:41 Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 06:47:22 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > seriously, either the build of xterm_207 should be fixed, or that
> > package should be dropped in its entirety. it's been at least three
> > weeks since i
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 06:47:22 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > seriously, either the build of xterm_207 should be fixed, or
> > that package should be dropped in its entirety. it's been at
> > least three weeks since i pointed out that
On Thursday 12 November 2009 06:47:22 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> seriously, either the build of xterm_207 should be fixed, or that
> package should be dropped in its entirety. it's been at least three
> weeks since i pointed out that it doesn't build, and even explained in
> detail *why* it doesn
seriously, either the build of xterm_207 should be fixed, or that
package should be dropped in its entirety. it's been at least three
weeks since i pointed out that it doesn't build, and even explained in
detail *why* it doesn't build and how to fix it. to no avail.
so, a humble suggestion
27 matches
Mail list logo
