Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE 3.4 still ~x86
On 5/8/05, Luke-Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 08 May 2005 16:30, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > The only issue I heard about was problems with gcc3.4's -fvisibility stuff. > > Strange that a Gentoo bug (vanilla GCC 3.4 doesn't have visibility; Gentoo > adds it via a broken patch) prevents KDE from being marked stable, seeing as > it's not a bug in KDE... Short version: It's the ebuild that's unstable, not KDE itself. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] encode useflag
On 5/12/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if you created a USE=lame, it would simply be a subset of USE=mp3 But USE=mp3 could mean mp3 decoding support in audio players, while lame is not a decoder. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] modular X - 7.0 RC1
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e. > 'noxserver'. I know some people are strongly against nofoo flags. What about an off-by-default 'xserver' flag? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] contents of /dev after initial installation
On 12/2/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sure, in Gentoo it's been fixed (i know cause i fixed it), but every > other distro i know of the boot system would bomb Since when is Gentoo supporting other distro's boot systems? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Optimizing performance
On 12/15/05, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Are there any application-specific tweaks (e.g. "use the prefork MPM > > > with apache2")? [...] > > is'n there "ab" [1] for apache testing ? > Yes, but that's apache specific and is quite hard to use correctly. Isn't that what you asked? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] i8k with torsmo
On 12/29/05, Lisa Seelye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 16:50 -0600, Lares Moreau wrote: > > [...] > Is there any particular reason you're posting in September 2006? That mail was sent 4 september 2005, according to the 'Received:' headers. Is there any particular reason you're posting this three months later? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X
On 1/26/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yesterday's drop: 513 to 498, a change of 15 -- adequate, but should be > better. Your previous status mail said 783. This would rather be a change of 285 :-) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE, metapackages, and monolithic packages
On 2/25/06, Mike Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do I use if I just want to re-emerge a single package with the same > useflags? Like if something broke or if I'm using an overlay? Like, if > I just wanted to reinstall noatun for instance. Is there a way to do > that without having to have everything else reemerged? If I use the > metapackage, the ebuild for any specific package is blocked by the > metapackage ebuilds. It's as easy as emerge --oneshot noatun. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - Gentoo Knowledge Base
On 5/17/06, Pablo Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 20:37 Tue 16 May , Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2006.05.16 18:33, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > >Hi all, > > > [snip] > > > >I have started a project site for this at > >http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/kbase. > [snip] > > > >-- > > Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org > > Gentoo Council Member > > > > The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> > > > Sven, > > Your link gives me a 404 error > This may sound silly but, are you sure you removed the last period there? The link works for me. It wasn't working the first two hours after the mail was sent, but after those two hours, it did. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles
On 5/17/06, Christian Hartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With respect to the "hey support omg!" comments i say stick a big fat > README about being an experimental profile or something like that and > that's it. Usually bug reports require "emerge --info" so it'll be easy > to flag invalid ones anyway. Well. Marking a bug invalid doesn't make the real problem go away... but the users. I'd say that's exactly the intention of INVALID. If I were to file, say, a bug in GCC at Gentoo's Bugzilla instead of GCC's, it would be marked INVALID. (Unless, of course, the bug is caused by Gentoo's patches.) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
