Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ecompress heads up

2007-01-27 Thread Ned Ludd
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 19:56 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 26 January 2007 17:19, Mike Frysinger wrote: i purposefully choose to not go this route because i dont want to start adding handling for arbitrary compression types ... when such a list exists, we always

[gentoo-dev] It is Bugday time once again!

2007-01-27 Thread Alexander Færøy
Hi All! In one week it will be time for our monthly Bugday event! This is a reminder for you to buy your girlfriend some flowers, pay your parents to clean your room and make sure you have power for the computer and the net cable is plugged in! Join #Gentoo-Bugs on the Freenode IRC network and

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: www-client/mozilla[-bin]

2007-01-27 Thread Raúl Porcel
# Raúl Porcel [EMAIL PROTECTED] (27 Jan 2007) # Masked for removal 26 Feb 2007, bug 135257, security issues # Replaced by www-client/seamonkey[-bin] www-client/mozilla www-client/mozilla-bin -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: www-client/mozilla[-bin]

2007-01-27 Thread Petteri Räty
Raúl Porcel wrote: # Raúl Porcel [EMAIL PROTECTED] (27 Jan 2007) # Masked for removal 26 Feb 2007, bug 135257, security issues # Replaced by www-client/seamonkey[-bin] www-client/mozilla www-client/mozilla-bin How about not breaking the tree? !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy

[gentoo-dev] Re: GIT vs? SVN (was: Re: Re: [RFC] Some sync control)

2007-01-27 Thread Steve Long
Ned Ludd wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 23:37 +0100, Markus Ullmann wrote: So to avoid thread hijacking, starting a new one. What exactly is this thread you are starting about? Just letting us know you did some random testing? I think this is a reference to news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] where I

[gentoo-dev] DB vs SCM (was Re: [RFC] Some sync control)

2007-01-27 Thread Steve Long
Hi, Since this is a different question which got buried in the other discussion, I appreciate it should be a new thread: I'm a bit confused about all the portage tree stuff. There's just under 25,000 ebuilds, which are maintained by about 100 devs (not sure of exact number, taken from a forum

Re: [gentoo-dev] DB vs SCM (was Re: [RFC] Some sync control)

2007-01-27 Thread Petteri Räty
Steve Long wrote: Hi, Please note, I'm not talking about applications like portage or pkgcore, just the ebuild text files, which I understand have one maintainer? Many ebuilds are in maintained by a bunch of people via herds. I appreciate that source control is needed to maintain files

Re: [gentoo-dev] DB vs SCM (was Re: [RFC] Some sync control)

2007-01-27 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:11:07 + Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Since this is a different question which got buried in the other discussion, I appreciate it should be a new thread: I'm a bit confused about all the portage tree stuff. There's just under 25,000 ebuilds, which

Re: [gentoo-dev] DB vs SCM (was Re: [RFC] Some sync control)

2007-01-27 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Steve Long wrote: I'm thinking in any case that a db app can save old revisions or use a svn backend. I'm looking at this from a workflow perspective, in terms especially of the security issue around giving commit access to the whole tree. If the individual maintainer only has permission for

[gentoo-dev] matrox.eclass

2007-01-27 Thread Danny van Dyk
Hi, besides a deprecated call to check_KV, matrox.eclass sets SLOT=${KV} which breaks the metadata cache. Any objections to change it to SLOT=0 anyone? Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL-2 vs GPL-2+

2007-01-27 Thread Ryan Hill
Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten wrote: What I propose is to copy licenses/GPL-2 to license/GPL-2+ and adding the following notes at the start of the two files: GPL-2: Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to

Re: [gentoo-dev] matrox.eclass

2007-01-27 Thread Jakub Moc
Danny van Dyk napsal(a): which breaks the metadata cache. Any objections to change it to SLOT=0 As noted on the relevant bug [1], the eclass is a complete no-op and nothing can be installed using this eclass (has been so for quite some time). Fixing it doesn't make sense, making it dummy

Re: [gentoo-dev] matrox.eclass

2007-01-27 Thread Alec Warner
Jakub Moc wrote: Danny van Dyk napsal(a): which breaks the metadata cache. Any objections to change it to SLOT=0 As noted on the relevant bug [1], the eclass is a complete no-op and nothing can be installed using this eclass (has been so for quite some time). Fixing it doesn't make