Dan McGee wrote:
Hey guys, especially the new ones,
I noticed this commit tonight on devtools:
Specify upload server in variable
Allan McRae [Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:11:59 + (00:11 +1000)]
This means people with different usernames on their local machine
only need to change a single line.
http:/
Andreas Radke wrote:
new bugfix upstream release. please signoff.
No problems here. Signoff i686.
Allan
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Eric Bélanger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Andreas Radke wrote:
>> Am Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:06:15 -0400
>> schrieb Eric Bélanger :
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Andreas Radke
>>> wrote:
>>> > Am Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:19:57 -0500
>>> > schrieb E
Hey guys, especially the new ones,
I noticed this commit tonight on devtools:
Specify upload server in variable
Allan McRae [Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:11:59 + (00:11 +1000)]
This means people with different usernames on their local machine
only need to change a single line.
http://projects.archlinux
Remove the community-specific code that calls tupkg. Make the server
variable a bit more dependent on what repo we are uploading to in order to
get community working, and finally create the correct symlinks for
communitypkg in the Makefile.
Note that this change will require the Arch devtools pack
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>
> I was thinking similarly - suddenly suing all these companies that use
> FAT32 is going to backfire and some government somewhere is going to
> get pissed about what it means for end users.
>
And they backed down from Tom Tom too.
There is
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Eric Bélanger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Hugo Doria wrote:
>> Fixing FS#13567 - libedit man page symlinks are broken
>>
>> -- Hugo
>>
>
> I've built it for x86_64. FTR, I've added a ncurses depends. As
> ncurses is a base package, the i686 package
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Eric Bélanger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> Hugo Doria wrote:
>>>
>>> Commited!
>>>
>>> Thank you for remember me that i forgot to commit the files.
>>>
>>
>> You will also need to commit them to the repo/testing-* directories so
= Integrity Check x86_64 of core,extra =
Performing integrity checks...
==> parsing pkgbuilds
==> checking mismatches
==> checking archs
==> checking dependencies
==> checking makedepends
==> checking for circular d
==
= Integrity Check i686 of core,extra =
==
Performing integrity checks...
==> parsing pkgbuilds
==> checking mismatches
==> checking archs
==> checking dependencies
==> checking makedepends
==> checking for circular depende
Am Mittwoch, 1. April 2009 21:03:51 schrieb Andreas Radke:
> another bugfix upstream release. please signoff.
signed-off for both arches
--
Pierre Schmitz
Clemens-August-Straße 76
53115 Bonn
Telefon 0228 9716608
Mobil 0160 95269831
Jabber pie...@jabber.archlinux.de
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:30 PM, pyther wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I was wondering if we could make arch-announce a read only list. Sort of
>>> like the dev mailing list. Anyone who tries to respond to an announcement
>>> cou
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Eduardo Romero wrote:
> On Friday 03 April 2009 08:09:41 am Andreas Radke wrote:
>>
>> We should just be prepared that M$ might soon start to sue any
>> company/distro that has no contract with them.
>>
>> If there's nothing to be afraid all is fine.
>>
>> -Andy
> I
On Friday 03 April 2009 08:09:41 am Andreas Radke wrote:
>
> We should just be prepared that M$ might soon start to sue any
> company/distro that has no contract with them.
>
> If there's nothing to be afraid all is fine.
>
> -Andy
I think there is nothing to be afraid, Microsoft will dig their own
Am Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:25:36 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler :
> Andreas Radke schrieb:
> > http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/jzemlin/2009/03/31/on-the-tomtom-settlement-microsoft-rolls-back-its-%E2%80%9Copen%E2%80%9D-promises/
> >
>
> I just read that article and it failed to make a point a
Pierre Schmitz schrieb:
When nobody bumped the repo version at the end of the weekend I should
have time to do so.
Don't worry; just bump it. If in doubt you can put it into testing first.
You can simply check the package to see if the soname changed: Just
readelf -a $file.so | grep SONAME f
Am Freitag, 3. April 2009 12:06:17 schrieb Ronald van Haren:
> I think we're safe just updating lcms without rebuilding anything.
> Everything seems to remain in working order and lddd also does not
> find anything lcms related after a local version bump.
>
> When nobody bumped the repo version at
Allan McRae wrote:
Hugo Doria wrote:
Anyone else?
-- Hugo
No bugs have been reported so it is probably fine to move. Be careful
if there any overlap with another rebuild currently going on. There is
a lot in [testing] at the moment...
BTW, take that as my signoff for both arches
Alla
Hugo Doria wrote:
Anyone else?
-- Hugo
No bugs have been reported so it is probably fine to move. Be careful
if there any overlap with another rebuild currently going on. There is a
lot in [testing] at the moment...
Allan
Anyone else?
-- Hugo
On 4/3/09, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Hi Ronald (and others),
>
> this mail is quite interesting. Especially that we still ship lcms without
> the
> security patch. Imho we should update to lcms 1.18. I hope it does not
> introduce a so name bump...but I think it will. :-(
>
> Pierre
>
replied from a
Andreas Radke schrieb:
http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/jzemlin/2009/03/31/on-the-tomtom-settlement-microsoft-rolls-back-its-%E2%80%9Copen%E2%80%9D-promises/
I just read that article and it failed to make a point at all! What is
it actually saying?
I haven't done further investigatio
22 matches
Mail list logo
