Fabio Erculiani napsal(a):
I'll try to file a huge bug on all the broken RDEPENDs
I'll found. I'll try to find a free slot during the end of the next
week for the hunting.
No, please don't. One bug per category is acceptable, no way I'm going
to CC 150 maintainers on such monster bug and
Okay, so here's the thing: Firefox 3 will be released probably some time
during this year, as you probably know, they released a few days ago
beta4 and beta5 will be out probably at the start of the next month or
so. I started doing ebuilds for net-libs/xulrunner-1.9 and
Two weeks ago, dirtyepic suggested making some modifications to how ATs and
developers interact using Bugzilla [1].
+jakub scel: basically... instead of KEYWORDREQ/STABLEREQ
+jakub create keywording and stabilization components
+jakub and use flags accordingly there
+jakub bugzilla already has
Hi,
Since the pkgconfig files for xulrunner-1.9 are renamed to avoid
collisions with current xulrunner-1.8.
In general I dont think that is a good idea to do that as you said
we'll have to patch all the rev deps of xulrunner. More importantly
we'll have to carry on those patches forever
Saturday, 15 of March 2008 17:37:15 Torsten Rehn wrote:
Two weeks ago, dirtyepic suggested making some modifications to how ATs and
developers interact using Bugzilla [1].
+jakub scel: basically... instead of KEYWORDREQ/STABLEREQ
+jakub create keywording and stabilization components
+jakub
Torsten Rehn a écrit :
Two weeks ago, dirtyepic suggested making some modifications to how ATs and
developers interact using Bugzilla [1].
+jakub scel: basically... instead of KEYWORDREQ/STABLEREQ
+jakub create keywording and stabilization components
+jakub and use flags accordingly there
Raúl Porcel a écrit :
So, firefox-3, seamonkey-2, thunderbird-3 and other mozilla products
will be using xulrunner-1.9, which is the codebase the mozilla products
are based on. In fact, everytime you emerge any of those apps, you're
compiling xulrunner, which takes 90% of the time to build.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:20:31 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06:03 Sun 09 Mar , Rajiv Aaron Manglani (rajiv) wrote:
1.1 sys-power/nut/nut-2.2.1.ebuild
file :
On Saturday 15 March 2008, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Just curious, who would be the default assignee for those 2 new components?
I don't think anything should be changed here. Unpriviledged users
automatically assign to bug-wranglers, everyone else goes for the target
packages' maintainer.
Do you
Torsten Rehn a écrit :
On Saturday 15 March 2008, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Just curious, who would be the default assignee for those 2 new components?
I don't think anything should be changed here. Unpriviledged users
automatically assign to bug-wranglers, everyone else goes for the target
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Binary package mit-scheme has been masked and will be removed from the tree.
Our overlay
has source mit-scheme-c ebuilds which is the C compiler backend.
Marijn
- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
It finally happened. Last version was 5 years ago or so. From package.mask:
# Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] (15 Mar 2008)
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Requires Tcl 8.3 which
# isn't in the tree anymore. See bugs 172356 and 173467.
sci-electronics/lard
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
On 17:12 Sat 15 Mar , Raúl Porcel wrote:
That's what i would like to hear opinions about. Should we slot it, or
should we not slot it and wait until all the apps are fixed?
Favoring upstream's approach seems to better fit the Gentoo way. If
upstream doesn't intend it to be slotted,
On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote:
Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might
help it to get
On Saturday 15 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote:
Because package.mask in CVS for profiles
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:34:24 -0700
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package
16 matches
Mail list logo
