| 1 |
* Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> [130816 10:43]: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few people |
| 4 |
> > lost their net configs |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> And hence the value of having a group of volunteer guinea pigs |
| 9 |
> (anybody running ~arch) is demonstrated. That said, masking big |
| 10 |
> changes and calling for volunteers among the volunteers doesn't hurt. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Seems like we need to be more careful with code that runs outside the |
| 13 |
> sandbox. Config protection is nice, but it is useless when code runs |
| 14 |
> outside the sandbox. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Rich |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As one of those volunteer guinea pigs it all worked fine with the four |
| 19 |
~x86 and three ~amd64 machines I've upgraded to openrc-0.12:0. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
They vary in when they were installed from 2005 up to a couple months |
| 22 |
ago and are generally updated daily. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
All ~x86 are "servers" (though most have X, KDE, and Gnome installed, |
| 25 |
they're only accessed remotely.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Two of the ~amd64 machines are "desktops" (though they both run services |
| 28 |
as "servers.") |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If I can help narrow anything down further I'm happy to help. Or to |
| 31 |
test anything. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Todd |
Archives