Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 07:40, Simon Stelling wrote:
>> To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
>> particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
>> afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
>> commun
Brian Harring wrote:
>
> Commented in #-security about it, but any reason that arches don't yank
> their keywords from insecure ebuilds after they've stabled a
> replacement?
>
Brian,
I asked about this VERY same thing a long while back and at best I
received "Because person X said no." So yo
you could wh0re yourself out to 500 fat chicks for $10 a piece ... or 5
*really* fat chicks for $1000 a piece
-mike
or one fat man for the whole $5000
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:44:09 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Couple more reports generated (in the parent dir, dropped keywords,
> imlate, packages that have just ~arch, ebuild metadata verification,
> and "ebuild has been unstable for arch X for greater then N days).
Seems like
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> mark should update his QA script to flag this as a "maintainer is doing
> something stupid"
/me makes a TODO item to remember to try and get something work for this
soon
Basically, any sort of flag filtering is doing something stupid. It
should just be
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 21:18, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 May 2006 06:41, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> >> The package sys-apps/paludis is in the wrong category. It is a package
> >> manager on par with rpm, dpkg, etc. Those live in app-arch.
> >
> > app-arch is for
Matthias,
Matthias Schwarzott wrote: [Sun May 21 2006, 05:40:53AM EDT]
> * The eclass copies the downloaded sources to ${S} rather than to
> ${WORKDIR}/${HG_MODULE_NAME}.
> * the unpack-function keeps the current working directory
> in /usr/portage/distfiles/hg-src/${HG_MODULE}.
Could you try
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 06:41, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>> The package sys-apps/paludis is in the wrong category. It is a package
>> manager on par with rpm, dpkg, etc. Those live in app-arch.
>
> app-arch is for things that manage archives
>
> paludis is much more than an ar
On Friday 19 May 2006 05:38, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> I propose to have the portage build environment set the language to English
> or LC_ALL=C by default. That would significantly reduce the bugs with
> unreadable error messages+ solve all the et_EE bugs at once.
this is complete garbage
you're
On Thursday 18 May 2006 07:40, Simon Stelling wrote:
> To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
> particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
> afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
> community could help me out.
>
> T
On Thursday 18 May 2006 06:41, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The package sys-apps/paludis is in the wrong category. It is a package
> manager on par with rpm, dpkg, etc. Those live in app-arch.
app-arch is for things that manage archives
paludis is much more than an archive manager
-mike
pgptazkp8aUA
On Thursday 18 May 2006 07:44, Panard wrote:
> OPTION=${OPTION:-"WITH_${USEFLAG}"}
quoting here is pointless
> mkdir -p ${BUILDDIR}
> cd ${BUILDDIR}
> echo cmake ${S} -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=${INSTALL_PREFIX} \
> $(cmake_use_option debug CMAK
On Saturday 20 May 2006 09:52, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Please, don't filter --as-needed i your ebuild. If your package does not
> build with --as-needed, leave the bug open, and I'll eventually take care
> of it (when I have time, time constrain is my only problem).
mark should update h
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 06:24:31PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:05 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:46:09PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > I completely understand this. However, in most cases the reason the
> > > older packages are still
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:05 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:46:09PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I completely understand this. However, in most cases the reason the
> > older packages are still in the tree is because *somebody* doesn't have
> > it stable yet.
>
> St
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:50 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Feel free to fire off a request to ferringb.
> He is trying to be helpful here and I'm all for taking
> advantage of that.
Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to come across sounding like I wasn't
grateful for the information he's providing. I was
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:46:09PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I completely understand this. However, in most cases the reason the
> older packages are still in the tree is because *somebody* doesn't have
> it stable yet.
Strictly stable, or unstable?
What about profiles, which to account
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:51 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > And now per arch breakdowns.
> > http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
>
> No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form.
heh.
> F
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 14:06 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > And now per arch breakdowns.
> > > http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
> >
> >
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > And now per arch breakdowns.
> > http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
>
> No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form. For
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> And now per arch breakdowns.
> http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form. For
example, x86 shows *all* of the packages, even ones where it has a
non-vulne
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:22:30PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> And now per arch breakdowns.
> http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
Couple more reports generated (in the parent dir, dropped keywords,
imlate, packages that have just ~arch, ebuild metadata verification,
And now per arch breakdowns.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 23:02 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> ferringb took the time to write a parser and setup a cronjob
> (every 4 hours at the half hour) to parse over our GLSA's and see what
> pkgs re
On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:46:21 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Except that if things were really problematic, the council could have
| some developers go in to actually do the thing required. Even if it
| were against the wishes of the maintainers. I do not believe that the
| failur
Harald van Dijk wrote:
> can't block themselves when only one may be
> installed at a time,
This is the one that really annoys me. New-style virtuals are supposed
to make things so easy, but you end up having a ton of crap added to
each provider to block all the others.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 07:12:53AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
> > usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
> > provides real benefits, then no objections from me, b
Harald van Dijk wrote:
> How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
> usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
> provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this
> easier to maintain than a "virtual/eject sys-block/uniej
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:38 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>> So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
>> virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
>> only.
>
> Please refrain from adding any new(bad) styl
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:38 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
> virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
> only.
Please refrain from adding any new(bad) style virtuals till
http://bu
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:35:49PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
> > usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
> > provides real
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
> usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
> provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this
> easier to maintain than a
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:55PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
> virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
> only.
>
> I would like to move it to a new-style virtual to make it
So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
only.
I would like to move it to a new-style virtual to make it simpler to handlef
or other platforms, having the deps this way:
|| ( kernel_linux?
The Gentoo Council/Gentoo Infra only needs to release one API for all
package managers, with all the procedures, how to do stuff standards,
quality assurance stuff, blabla...
Create that documentation for what Gentoo and their devels really need
and the package manager developers do what they wan
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 10:00, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council
> > member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at
> > it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or
> > promoted the primary pk
On Monday 22 May 2006 23:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:47:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | You will be tired of hearing this but backwards compat is a big issue.
> | It is an issue that I think the portage team took into consideration
> | far too much in
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:54, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Am I missing something obvious?
> >
> > -g2boojum-
>
> Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
> will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
> becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it
On Monday 22 May 2006 18:30, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 22/05/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this
> > would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers.
>
> Surely such decisions should be based on t
> However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council
> member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at
> it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or
> promoted the primary pkg mgt system being hosted offsite and maintained
> by non d
39 matches
Mail list logo
