Bryan Østergaard wrote:
As there's been very little, if any, interest from anybody besides
Stefan and Recruiters / Developer Relations I'm going to deny the
contributor access idea. Recruiters and Developer Relations feels that
this is a bad idea, especially seeing how hard it has been to
On 9/14/06, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caleb,
question... gem is the official package manager for Ruby. Why do we
put Ruby stuff, other than the bare minimums to get Ruby running, in the
portage tree? Why not just let gem handle it?
I favor this the same way I favor pear
So before PerlMagick becomes independant of ImageMagick's configure,
upstream must change a few things.
Has it changed that much recently? Because it *was* seperate for aeons
and aeons before this. Installing perlmagick via use flag is a recent
edition in the scheme of things.
I'm sorry,
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:51:09 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:22:11PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Comments both on the nature and the specifics of the specification
| would be welcomed. In particular, I'd like to know if people think
| we're
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
I think that protection against harmfull new config files should
be selective to be useful. It should only affect directories
from which files are blindly sourced by some services you are
already running. There, and only there¹, new config files are
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 17:44 +0200, Sven Köhler wrote:
I'm sorry, but how sure are you about this?
Have you ever looked into Makefile.PL in the past? Or have you even
taken a look at the Makefile.PL.in is it existed? It shows that many of
the -l-options are generated by configure.
On Thursday 03 August 2006 15:42, Daniel Black wrote:
I've added new versions of these libs to gentoo. They are currently in
package.mask because I've missed a few bumps versions in between and there
is an ABI change. Some old deprecated functions have been removed.
So far these have been
