Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to
Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Now, that I've got your attention. IMHO above should NOT fail - most of
the software in portage is already using ${HOST}-gcc instead and gcc
symlink is just a convenience.
But it does. In packages I will never suspect being nasty (qt, lynx) and
ones I would, but they
On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 00:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
we are already playing with doing this in the wrapper itself so that
compilation is transparent
i'd wager to say the majority of packages in portage run `gcc` and `g++`
rather than ${CTARGET}-gcc
So far, only 10% if packages failed
On Saturday 22 October 2005 16:02, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Things running autotools should be safe.
*If* autotools are new enough. Things like nfs-utils are not safe.
I fixed a couple of them when I was trying eselect compiler because of a bug
in it that caused me not to have gcc anymore.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Take a moment to welcome the newest developer, Luca Longinotti. Luca
comes aboard to help out with webapps, apache, and php.
In his own words, I'm Luca Longinotti, 16 yeards old, from Switzerland.
I'm still a student and actually study
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm
glad something is being done to fix this issue.
you could also work around it by exporting CC and CXX before emerging to say
'i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc' and
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm
glad something is being done to fix this issue.
you could also work around it by exporting CC and CXX before emerging to say
On Saturday 22 October 2005 03:11 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm
glad something is being done to fix this issue.
you could also work
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:14:40 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cheapness is exactly why I was questioning. Consider:
# svn cp tags/2.0.53 branches/2.0.53-branch
# cd branches/2.0.53-branch
# patch something-that-needs-fixing-now.patch
# svn ci
# cd ../..
# svn cp
First patch for elog integration in 2.0.x adding the basic elog
framework without the actual modules, config samples or other docs. The
code is mostly unchanged from the 2.1 branch and only lightly tested
on 2.0. Known issues with this patch:
- needs better integration of isolated-functions.sh,
This patch depends on elog_base (although it doesn't break anything
without it) and adds the actual logging modules. I've just atatched the
files completely, as a) svn diff doesn't play nice with generating
new-file diffs and b) they are just new files to be dropped in
pym/elog_modules (together
12 matches
Mail list logo
