| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 16/08/13 10:57 AM, Todd Goodman wrote: |
| 5 |
> * Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> [130816 10:43]: |
| 6 |
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Markos Chandras |
| 7 |
>> <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few |
| 9 |
>>> people lost their net configs |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> And hence the value of having a group of volunteer guinea pigs |
| 14 |
>> (anybody running ~arch) is demonstrated. That said, masking big |
| 15 |
>> changes and calling for volunteers among the volunteers doesn't |
| 16 |
>> hurt. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Seems like we need to be more careful with code that runs outside |
| 19 |
>> the sandbox. Config protection is nice, but it is useless when |
| 20 |
>> code runs outside the sandbox. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Rich |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> As one of those volunteer guinea pigs it all worked fine with the |
| 25 |
> four ~x86 and three ~amd64 machines I've upgraded to |
| 26 |
> openrc-0.12:0. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> They vary in when they were installed from 2005 up to a couple |
| 29 |
> months ago and are generally updated daily. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> All ~x86 are "servers" (though most have X, KDE, and Gnome |
| 32 |
> installed, they're only accessed remotely.) |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Two of the ~amd64 machines are "desktops" (though they both run |
| 35 |
> services as "servers.") |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> If I can help narrow anything down further I'm happy to help. Or |
| 38 |
> to test anything. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
For everyone's information -- The conf.d/net removal on upgrade is a |
| 42 |
packaging issue, which could not have been tested prior to |
| 43 |
openrc-0.12.ebuild hitting the tree. There are details in |
| 44 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481336 if anyone's interested |
| 45 |
in why it's happening. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I've fixed the 0.12.ebuild in the tree now. It's a hack but it seems |
| 48 |
to be the best possible solution. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 52 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlIOT+QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB5cAD+KZaB/IOhTOQB90L5JEwPnBcO |
| 55 |
eJzbFHOqtxeJAQ/i6pgBAKukByT2wFolArwBoNxjo6e+D+uVEw+Rct2KPL3cXM7t |
| 56 |
=NhhK |
| 57 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives