This is what we call flaming, please don't waste time with this. It's
annoying as hell, ends up making threads longer than they need, and does
nothing to benifit the argument. Thanks.
This is what we call inserting a stick up one's ass, please don't waste
time with this. It's annoying as he
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:28:07 -0500 Albert Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Flaming? I wasn't flaming. There's nothing I said that was the least
| bit insulting or controversial. All that I was doing, for the benefit
| of the list, is to introduce a little humor with the intent of perhaps
| g
Hi,
This is an automatically created email message.
http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 12071 ebuilds.
The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the ebuilds.
The tests are:
* if a version has been masked for 30 days or more.
* if an arch was in KE
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:24 +0900, Chris White wrote:
[..]
> Marduk,
>
> >I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both
> sides:
> >
> >We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne. This distro
> will
> >include only older wares such as GTK1, Kernel 2.4, libc5, XFree86,
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:28:16 + (UTC)
Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few more that I didn't see in the list
>
> media-libs/imlib : gtk1 only
> media-libs/smpeg : gtk1 only
> media-sound/lame : gtk1 only
> media-video/mplayer: gtk1 it would appear?
>
I think it's on purpose th
Robin,
> Your decision to remove the gtk2 use flag takes away control from people
> who were using it correctly (by what the description said). I'm not
> against having gtk2 on my systems, but I prefer gtk1 interfaces,
> primarily as they are a lot more lighter on memory and disk.
I think the pro
A few more that I didn't see in the list
media-libs/imlib : gtk1 only
media-libs/smpeg : gtk1 only
media-sound/lame : gtk1 only
media-video/mplayer: gtk1 it would appear?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
050918 Alec Warner wrote:
> Personally I like Ciaran's wording of the levels.
> ~arch - Canidate for Stable on Arch
> arch - Stable on Arch
As a mere user, that's how I read '~arch',
ie 'not known to be defective, but use at your own risk for now',
while 'arch' means 'the relevant dev(s) are
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 17:10 -0500, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both sides:
>
> We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne.
That has been done, it has become sentient and applied for developer
status.
You can reach it at [EMAIL PROTECT
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 13:43 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
[...]
> Your decision to remove the gtk2 use flag takes away control from people
> who were using it correctly (by what the description said). I'm not
> against having gtk2 on my systems, but I prefer gtk1 interfaces,
> primarily as they ar
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > >> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the
> > >> dev-cpp category:
> > >
> > > Is this bit really necessary?
> >
> > The rea
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 03:48:43PM +, John N. Laliberte wrote:
> * use flags were designed to enable/disable optional features, not to
> allow/deny installation of specific packages ( such as gtk-1)
> * gtk2 was never supposed to mean "i want to use gtk-2 only" - as the
> description says in us
Hello everyone,
The GNOME herd has discussed and come to an agreement about the gtk
useflag situation.
Please keep comments technical and on topic.
The solution:
There will be just one use flag, gtk. The gtk2 use flag is now
deprecated.
Reasons:
* gtk2 was a temporary solution, was a bad ide
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:01:13 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:32:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Uhm. That's current policy and has been current policy for several
| > years. No GLEP needed.
|
| If that's currenty policy, why does the handbook say
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:32:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>>Uhm. That's current policy and has been current policy for several
>>years. No GLEP needed.
>
>
> If that's currenty policy, why does the handbook say somet
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:32:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Uhm. That's current policy and has been current policy for several
> years. No GLEP needed.
If that's currenty policy, why does the handbook say something quite
different then? Does it need to be fixed?
If so, i truly don't unders
Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Coming from the user side (forums) i fully agree. Common sense among
> the users always used to be:
> arch: stable
> ~arch: testing
> p.mask: broken
And this is what it should be IMHO.
The solutions so far seem to introduce only a new testing layer, alre
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:46:37 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Doesn't exactly sound like packages in ~arch should be ready to enter
| arch after 30 days (and or the other QA requirements). If someone
| wants to change that, that would be a major change to Gentoo,
| especially as it
18 matches
Mail list logo
