On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 03:23:42 +
Saleem Abdulrasool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Description:
>GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
>Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary complexity to the Gentoo GNOME
>developers' workload. Some of the contributing factors
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:47, Steve Long wrote:
>> I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for
>> C++. Is this such a problem for C?
>
> i think you misread his e-mail
>
> regardless, stable ABIs guarantee forward compatibility, not backwa
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 03:23:19AM +, Saleem Abdulrasool wrote:
> Please do NOT reply to this message with a reason why package X should not be
> masked. If you feel strongly about a package, please port it to GTK+-2 and
> submit patches on a new bug.
>
> x11-wm/sawfish
This should say
Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9 listopada 2006 06:20 napisał:
> Okay, doing some QA work with my new scripts, found a few ebuilds with local
> USE
> flags that do not have an entry in use.local.desc. Bad, bad!
>
> For some of the missing use flags (net, avahi, libnotify), I recommend moving
>
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 12:02:04PM EST]
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking
> > gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue.
>
> That simply is not
On 08/11/06, Tobias Klausmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
Mr windmill man! ^_^
PPS: Windmills, anyone?
Yes, I'll take two, please. --beu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:37 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote:
> > I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address
> > as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message
> > source OK")
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 22:48 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
> Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > Saleem & Gnome Team,
> >
> > I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
> > publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
> > -user and in the forums (and one of you sh
With my new little database, I ran a query to get the count of local use flags
that are being used, to see which ones can be candidates for moving to a global
USE flag instead. Here's the query results:
http://wonkabar.org/~steve/gentoo/use_local_count.txt
I've gone through some of them and h
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:11:32 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Any objections to moving any of those over, please let me know.
udev and logrotate have been discussed on this list previously. Don't
change them without reading the earlier discussions.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
Hi all, here's the complete log from the Council Meeting + a short
summary.
Summary:
All council members was present (Andrew Gaffney (agaffney) proxied for
Chris Gianello (wolf31o2)).
Agenda was:
1. Reply-to-list
2. SPF
3. QA update / plans
4. Bugzilla status
1. Council decided that there were n
Steve Dibb wrote:
> I've gone through some of them and here are the ones I suggest get
> moved to global, since the use flag description / functionality is
> the same or similar enough to mean "support for $x":
What about 'libnotify'?
As far as I can see all 11 entries in use.local.desc amount to
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:32:43PM +0100, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> Hi all, here's the complete log from the Council Meeting + a short
> summary.
>
Of course I had to screw up the subject.. It's of course the nov. 9
meeting.
Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 11/9/06, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all, here's the complete log from the Council Meeting + a short
summary.
Summary:
All council members was present (Andrew Gaffney (agaffney) proxied for
Chris Gianello (wolf31o2)).
Agenda was:
1. Reply-to-list
2. SPF
3. QA update / plan
This package will be removed in a month, because:
- the ebuild has some serious sandbox problems
- the package is broken and has open bugs (93316 and 154320)
- upstream has open bugs and
- there was no update after 2002
- there are actively maintained alternatives (pgpool, pgpool2)
signature.
This package is unmaintaiend in Gentoo, unported to modular X, available only
on x86, and masked for the security bug #115760 since last January.
Unless anyone has a reason to leave it there, I'd punt it next month (if I
remember of it of course).
Alternatives: mplayer, xine, vlc, whatever-you-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi:
My name is Hector I am a CS student in third year. I have a interest
in programming languages specially in functional programming, I have
been using scheme for some time so I will like to help with the
mantainance of the ebuilds. Any pointers to
Hi all,
# Sorry for being inactive for a while, I lost my development box due to
# HDD crash several months ago ;(
At Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:10:37 +0100,
Marius Mauch wrote:
> Could you provide the script that generated those lists (or was it done
> manually)? I'm not so sure that it is accurate, a
Hello. When i'm found two packets need this issue. It's app-admin/sudo and sys-process/fcron. This packages use virtual/editor but by default set nano as default editor. I'm don't know how get provider category virtual/editor. But equery view it as first package.
Any ideas ?
On Friday 10 November 2006 02:24, Anatoly Shipitsin wrote:
> When i'm found two packets need this issue.
why do you care who is providing the virtual ? the entire point of virtual's
is that the provider does not matter
-mike
pgpDqYouyyrpJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2006-11-10 at 12:24 +0500, Anatoly Shipitsin wrote:
> It's app-admin/sudo and sys-process/fcron.
> This packages use virtual/editor but by default set nano as default
> editor.
> I'm don't know how get provider category virtual/editor. But equery
> view it as first package.
> Any ideas ?
Pl
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:10:37 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 03:23:42 +
> Saleem Abdulrasool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Description:
> >GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
> >Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary comp
22 matches
Mail list logo
