From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D5515813A for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:15:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: relay-lists.gentoo.org@gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 540B0340441 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:15:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80263E03DF; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01c.sbp.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01c.sbp.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF7CCE01E4 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:14:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=cube.localnet) by smarthost01c.sbp.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1taCDT-004AVd-E3 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:14:49 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting init.d files from auto-update Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:14:49 +0000 Message-ID: <5874817.DvuYhMxLoT@cube> In-Reply-To: <87frld2gwp.fsf@gmail.com> References: <2207251.irdbgypaU6@cube> <5874190.DvuYhMxLoT@cube> <87frld2gwp.fsf@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Originating-smarthost01c-IP: [82.69.80.10] Feedback-ID: 82.69.80.10 X-Archives-Salt: 9eac16e2-96ef-4b46-ab45-2e0c8637ae0d X-Archives-Hash: 7548f3c2e927887434e994b56029c2e1 On Monday 20 January 2025 23:40:22 Greenwich Mean Time Alexis wrote: > Peter Humphrey writes: > > On Wednesday 15 January 2025 11:50:02 Greenwich Mean Time I > > > > wrote: > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/948143 > > > > That bug now has a patch, which proposes to move from > > sci-misc/boinc-7.24.1-r1 to -r2. The scale of the changes proposed seems > > to me too big for such a minor revision bump, but more than that, it has > > several diffs against separate files, and I'm not /au-fait/ enough with > > patching to know what to do with them all. > > > > Would anyone here like to have a go at it? > > Well, as the person who submitted that patch, i'd like to comment > on this. --->8 > So: > > * The move from -r1 to -r2 is required because a revision change > is required when there any changes to an ebuild, including to > Gentoo-provided files, that don't come from upstream. This in > turn requires a new ebuild file, which makes up a significant > amount of the patch. You misunderstand. I'm saying that the version change should be bigger, not just from -r1 to -r2. Perhaps 7.24.2? 7.25? > * There are small changes to the boinc.conf and boinc.init files, > which i consider to be the minimum required to address the > suggestions that were made. OK. > Specifically: --->8 > i find your post here quite odd, discouraging, and an example of > why i'm increasingly disinclined to devote so much time to > volunteer ICT work, - that i would instead be better served by > increasing my other volunteer work in other areas, where my > experience is of people's gratitude rather than of > entitlement. Rather than being appreciative of someone > volunteering to take on the work, and rather than asking > clarifying questions on the bug itself about what you don't > understand, you've written a post on a public list effectively > dismissing my work, assuming that it's fundamentally wrong. Okay > then. Where on earth did you get that idea? I only said I couldn't see what to do, and asked for help with it. -- Regards, Peter.