Can you please also list #138792 as implemented? It has a patch attached.
-Stefan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 01:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new util-linux package has merged the setarch binary. for the upgrade
> path, i figure we do:
> - drop sys-apps/setarch from profiles
> - add sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.12 based on arch?()
> - add !sys-apps/setarch to util-li
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> > the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> > really offer any benefit over packa
On Monday 09 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> really offer any benefit over package.use?
where ? i have yet to see an objection to IUSE defaults and pl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> really offer any benefit over package.use?
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the new util-linux package has merged the setarch binary. for the upgrade
path, i figure we do:
- drop sys-apps/setarch from profiles
- add sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.12 based on arch?()
- add !sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.13+
any input ?
-mike
None here.
On Monday, 9. July 2007 23:43, Ryan Reich wrote:
> On 7/7/07, Ryan Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> > I've tarred and bzipped the whole ebuild directory and attached it;
> > it's only four kilobytes so I hope no one minds (this letter is
> > probably longer). I don't know where the corre
Zac Medico kirjoitti:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
> Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
> tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
> slot deps [2] an
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:15:36 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in
> EAPI-1. Some of the features are already implemented but can't be
> used in the portage tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are
> currently imp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
slo
On 7/7/07, Ryan Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I've tarred and bzipped the whole ebuild directory and attached it;
it's only four kilobytes so I hope no one minds (this letter is
probably longer). I don't know where the correct forum to submit this
sort of thing for comment is, so if this
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:07:20PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit :
>
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will blo
> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would seem
>
Hi!
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 12:56 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > I /believe/ when you close a bug a notification is sent anyway
> > irregardless of whether or not you add a comment, but i might be wrong
> > here.
> >
> > I myself think dev's should b
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 01:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new util-linux package has merged the setarch binary. for the upgrade
> path, i figure we do:
> - drop sys-apps/setarch from profiles
> - add sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.12 based on arch?()
> - add !sys-apps/setarch to util-li
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 18:32 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 00:34:39 + (UTC)
> Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When I open or CC on a bug that then gets fixed, I often feel like
> > adding a thanks to the bug. However, while it may be polite in other
> > circumstan
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 12:56 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> I /believe/ when you close a bug a notification is sent anyway
> irregardless of whether or not you add a comment, but i might be wrong
> here.
>
> I myself think dev's should be thanked for their good work and would
> like to continue doing
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 20:14 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> bootstrap - !!internal use only!! DO NOT SET THIS FLAG YOURSELF!, used during
> original system bootstrapping [make stage2]
> build - !!internal use only!! DO NOT SET THIS FLAG YOURSELF!, used for
> creating build images and the fi
Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> >
> > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> > tivoization.
>
> Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not
On 09-07-2007 11:47:45 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > you proposing we rearchitect it all or just for testing purposes before
> > going
> > live ? i can see both ...
>
> I am proposing rethinking all of it. My current thoughts run
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> you proposing we rearchitect it all or just for testing purposes before going
> live ? i can see both ...
I am proposing rethinking all of it. My current thoughts run something
like this:
arch/amd64
arch/ppc (not ppc/ppc64 or ppc/ppc32
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > nominating:
> > others are nominated already ;)
>
> d'oh, forgot fellow
>
> dertobi123
Thanks, I accept the nomination.
Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
>> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
>> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild with
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.
It's not a matter of opi
Jakub Moc wrote:
> This ebuild has a security bug open for almost one year (Bug 142817),
> plus lots of other bugs as well.
>
> If you are interested, please see http://tinyurl.com/32webs
I'll take a look at it.
wkr,
Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachricht
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
>> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. [] Gentoo policy
>> would seem to be, then,
Duncan wrote:
> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy woul
27 matches
Mail list logo
