On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 03:57 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 09:52 +0100, Florian La Roche wrote:
> > At this point I'll probably check the code in as
> > or something equally as obviously named. Can anyone here tell me if I
> > can even make new modules in /cvs/fedora?
> We should include this into Fedora Extras as rpm as well to get more
> people using it.
we need to make a decision about separation or integration with upstream
mach cvs, esp wrt mach3.
if we're not going to merge back to mach2 head (which notably could take
a lot of work b/c I've not focused on making that easy with these
patches) I'd rather rename this something innocuous so we don't annoy
thomas with bugs from this version.
I finally got a chance to install and play around with the extras-
buildsys-temp code. There were a couple hiccups, but it didn't take too
long before I could start building packages. I hope to be able to pitch
in and help out some with the upcoming build system work.
I have a couple questions. First, are other people running into the
"Bad owner/group" error when running mach with a uid != 500?
thread_id=4173173&forum_id=35925 describes the issue more. I got around
it by creating a dummy user with uid equal to 500, but I'm wondering if
I should try to get a real fix in upstream. That brings me to my next
question: are there any more thoughts on the separation of integration
of the hacked version of mach with the upstream version?