On 2016-07-29 13:10, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 28.07.2016 23:39, Tomasz Pala wrote:
who knows what device would become available at /dev/ipmi0 at next
reboot... (unless cleaned in rc.sysinit). This package should be banned,
+1
I'm considering C: ipmi-init somewhere, but I'm not sure where to p
On 28.07.2016 23:39, Tomasz Pala wrote:
And take a look at this ipmi.init - it creates static device node (in
non-devfs systems) with RANDOM (not permanently assigned in kernel) major!
if [ ! -c /dev/ipmi0 ] && [ $RETVAL -eq 0 ]; then
major=$(awk '/ ipmidev$/{print $1}' /proc/devices)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 14:08:35 +0200, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
>> Local IPMI handling is *required* for watchdog only,
>
> ipmievd is another local user.
Can be remote as well: -H. As it's more reliable to handle BMC from
separate machine than the monitored one. OTOH /dev/watchdog must be
h
On Thursday 28 of July 2016, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> Local IPMI handling is *required* for watchdog only,
ipmievd is another local user.
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-li
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 13:54:05 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>>> as you did not replaced existing "-init" solution with described one,
>
> One more thing: since apparently it's beyond your comprehension, that
And, please don't add S: apache to firefox. You know, local clients,
remote servers thin
't change
anything in already working machines, so it doesn't require any special
attention (except maybe for Suggest:
do_NOT_install-ipmi-init_do_it_the_proper_way_instead),
and this is your another bullshitting recently ("[packages/openvpn]
more bolder xz url note"), please do not
should not just go and remove the suggest.
This MUST NOT be suggested to anyone (sane).
> revert the change or finish the transition!
"Finishing" it equals Suggests: udev. Or removing the package entirely.
I don't support the former, and won't do the last in case someone
uld not just go and remove the suggest.
revert the change or finish the transition!
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 23:31:36 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>> it's soft dep. soft deps are to inform user of suggested packages
>
> And this one should not be suggested. This package should be entirely
> removed.
Similar cleanup was done years ago in lm_sensors:
http://git.pld-linux.org/gitweb.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 00:26:13 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> it's soft dep. soft deps are to inform user of suggested packages
And this one should not be suggested. This package should be entirely
removed.
> revert your removal.
Forget it.
--
Tomasz Pala
___
it's soft dep. soft deps are to inform user of suggested packages
revert your removal.
On 27.07.2016 22:06, gotar wrote:
commit 30c556b20dde02d4520b85755006804f1dcb1aec
Author: Tomasz Pala
Date: Wed Jul 27 21:06:04 2016 +0200
do not suggest some crafted script when ther
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:16PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> On Sunday 17 August 2008 23:51:48 blues wrote:
>>> - vim-rt should suggest vi-editor for instalation (or maybe it
>>> should be
>>> requi
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:16PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Sunday 17 August 2008 23:51:48 blues wrote:
> > - vim-rt should suggest vi-editor for instalation (or maybe it should be
> > required? What is purpose of vim-rt alone?)
>
> it's to avoid dependency
On Sunday 17 August 2008 23:51:48 blues wrote:
> - vim-rt should suggest vi-editor for instalation (or maybe it should be
> required? What is purpose of vim-rt alone?)
it's to avoid dependency loops in packages. besides that dependency loops are
not cool, they cause modified %config
ckage is installed and if not then write this
> > > question?
> >
> > ... and one more thing. When there are more than one Suggest it ask to
> > install them all. It should ask for each separately. Example:
>
> I made patch for that, please test it.
Works really good for m
Kamil Dziedzic wrote:
> Krystian Tomczyk wrote:
> > wine-0.9.49-1.i686 suggests installation of: binfmt-detector
> > Try to install it? [N/y]
> >
> > Maybe first test if package is installed and if not then write this
> > question?
>
> ... and one more thin
Krystian Tomczyk wrote:
> wine-0.9.49-1.i686 suggests installation of: binfmt-detector
> Try to install it? [N/y]
>
> Maybe first test if package is installed and if not then write this
> question?
It's already reported as a bug in our Bugzilla (bug #38).
--
Marcin Banasiak
>
> +1 I've tripped over this in other cases
>
>
+1
... and one more thing. When there are more than one Suggest it ask to install
them all. It should ask for each separately. Example:
some_package suggests installation of: package0, package1, package2
Try to install it? [Yes, No
Krystian Tomczyk wrote:
> wine-0.9.49-1.i686 suggests installation of: binfmt-detector
> Try to install it? [N/y]
>
> Maybe first test if package is installed and if not then write this
> question?
>
+1 I've tripped over this in other cases
Shad Sterling
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://shadsterling
wine-0.9.49-1.i686 suggests installation of: binfmt-detector
Try to install it? [N/y]
Maybe first test if package is installed and if not then write this
question?
--
Pozdrawiam
Krystian T.
"errare humanum est..."
___
pld-devel-en mailing
On Thursday 14 June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Here's most of what you need (I believe, untested):
>
> http://wraptastic.org/pub/jbj/rpm-4.4.2-suggests.patch
rpm works, poldek works
thx :)
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.
On Friday 15 June 2007, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > (aside)
> > I don't mind at all generating rpm patches.
>
> then it's not much to ask for patch that ignores uname() deps :)
ok. nevermind. it's already there ;)
http://cvs.pld-linux.org/SOURCES/rp
On Thursday 14 June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> (aside)
> I don't mind at all generating rpm patches.
then it's not much to ask for patch that ignores uname() deps :)
this would allow use package manager to upgrade PLD Ac -> PLD Th!
> What is hard for me is getting vendorized rpm to build on the
On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:34:34 Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> Send a URI to a relevant rpm-*.src.rpm, please, and I'll send you
>> the patch to parse and ignore the new-fangled Suggests: syntax.
>
> here: ftp://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/ac/PLD/SRPMS/
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:34:34 Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Send a URI to a relevant rpm-*.src.rpm, please, and I'll send you
> the patch to parse and ignore the new-fangled Suggests: syntax.
here: ftp://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/ac/PLD/SRPMS/SRPMS/rpm-4.4.2-41.src.rpm
thanks ahead :)
--
glen
__
On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:16:28 Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> Build failure with changed syntax are a different problem. Point
>> me at whatever you are calling rpmbuild, and I will send
>> you a teensy patch to parse and ignore the new-fangled Sugg
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:16:28 Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Build failure with changed syntax are a different problem. Point
> me at whatever you are calling rpmbuild, and I will send
> you a teensy patch to parse and ignore the new-fangled Suggests:
> syntax. That's likely the most expedient hack, bu
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> can someone with enough rpm hackery mana backport or make rpm
> ignore Suggests?
> it would ease Th/Ac parallel developement.
>
> $ ./builder -g spamassassin
> P spamassassin.spec
> # $Revision: 1.127 $, $Date: 2007/05/11 16:48:16 $
> error: l
can someone with enough rpm hackery mana backport or make rpm ignore Suggests?
it would ease Th/Ac parallel developement.
$ ./builder -g spamassassin
P spamassassin.spec
# $Revision: 1.127 $, $Date: 2007/05/11 16:48:16 $
error: line 61: Unknown tag: Suggests: spamassassin-update
Error: package bu
29 matches
Mail list logo
