On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> There were security changes in MySQL that caused the patches to not work
> quite right anymore. Percona has updated patches, I just haven't got to
> them yet, work is more pressing, trying for a product launch right
> now...
do these patc
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
Hi,
I was writing a trivial version bump for net-voip/gnugk-2.2.8 (bug
#258518) but upstream added a file named p2pnat_license.txt (see
h
A. On K, 2009-02-25 at 04:56 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:42:38PM +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Le mardi 24 février 2009 à 09:47 -0800, Brian Harring a écrit :
> > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:26:48PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > This is your fri
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:34:07 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to answer this:
Be specific. Explain how this works when, say, 0.34.4 is current, you
have a 0.34.5_live and 0.34.5 comes out.
being live working as substitute for 0.34.5_preN (_live) comp
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:34:07 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Anyone but Luca please. Luca's been busy selectively ignoring
> > problems with his proposal, refusing to answer objections to it and
> > claiming it solves problems that it doesn't.
>
> My last two summaries got
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:19:20AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 23:12 Tue 24 Feb , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Here's the preliminary agenda. I'm running a bit behind on -dev, so
> > it's a little out of date re GLEPs 54/55. People including lu_zero,
> > cardoe, dev-zero, and tanderson s
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Anyone but Luca please. Luca's been busy selectively ignoring problems
with his proposal, refusing to answer objections to it and claiming it
solves problems that it doesn't.
My last two summaries got no replies from you so I guessed you were fine
with them.
lu
--
Lu
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:46:04 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Ah, I thought I might be missing something. Then how about:
>
> "EAPI must be set in an ebuild as the first non-comment line, such
> that bash does not perform any expansions during the assignment, and
> thereafter must not be set to a
On 11:19 Thu 26 Feb , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 23:12 Tue 24 Feb , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > GLEP 54: handling code from SCMs better
> > ---
> >
> > Some discussion on list. Luca, can you sum up the state of things?
>
> Still waiting on a summary
So
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:19:20 -0800
> > GLEP 54: handling code from SCMs better
> > ---
> >
> > Some discussion on list. Luca, can you sum up the state of things?
>
> Still waiting on a summary ... perhaps if Luca's too busy, our
> wonderful new secretary could
On 23:12 Tue 24 Feb , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Here's the preliminary agenda. I'm running a bit behind on -dev, so
> it's a little out of date re GLEPs 54/55. People including lu_zero,
> cardoe, dev-zero, and tanderson should fill us in on things below that
> they've taken responsibility for
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:17:36 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Is the following a stricter subset of your wording? --
>>
>> "EAPI must be set in an ebuild as the first non-comment line, and
>> thereafter must not be set to a different va
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Some discussion on list. Luca, can you sum up the state of things?
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_81c676b7338c7c0dd10ce13b0e4684a2.xml
and
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_22ecf185ab30a470fa7c26c06633d495.xml
Pretty much give you a summary, nothing
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:17:36 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Is the following a stricter subset of your wording? --
>
> "EAPI must be set in an ebuild as the first non-comment line, and
> thereafter must not be set to a different value"
No. With your wording, the following are legal:
EAPI=$
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:07:32 +
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> There's a less extreme variant on this that's slightly cleaner, and
>> with appropriate weaseling is also less messy. Simply add the
>> following very carefully worded additio
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:07:32 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> There's a less extreme variant on this that's slightly cleaner, and
> with appropriate weaseling is also less messy. Simply add the
> following very carefully worded additional requirement for future
> EAPIs, and retroactively impose it u
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:23 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild
There's a less extreme variant on this that's slightly cleaner, and
with appropriate weaseling is also less messy. Simply add the following
very carefully worded additional requirement for future E
On Thursday 26 February 2009 06:33:17 Timothy Redaelli wrote:
> On Thursday 26 February 2009 10:32:52 you wrote:
> > i'm totally not following. we were talking about POSIX shell syntax, but
> > now you're talking about utilities as well ?
>
> I'm talking about checkbashism.pl checks and btw type i
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:43:44 -0100
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:46 -0800
>>> Brian Harring wrote:
>> < snip a few arguments>
>>
>> Ciaran and Brian,
>>
>> please respect Pettery's request and move your discu
On Thursday 26 February 2009 04:27:44 Timothy Redaelli wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 23:45:41 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i recall it being incorrect in some cases (it checked for what dash
> > supports, not what POSIX supports), but that was a while ago, so maybe my
> > experience is dated
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 23:45:41 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i recall it being incorrect in some cases (it checked for what dash
> supports, not what POSIX supports), but that was a while ago, so maybe my
> experience is dated at this point. otherwise, integrating it sounds sane
> to me, and if
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:06:11AM -0500, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> this is semi-targeted @ robbat2
> So I've been working on getting this ebuild working...
> here's what I know
...
> but with these patches mysql fails to build.
There were security changes in MySQL that caused the patches to not work
this is semi-targeted @ robbat2
So I've been working on getting this ebuild working...
here's what I know
* 1001_all_show_patches-percona-5.0.75-b12.patch ...
[ ok ]
all patches before this work and mysql builds
---
these are the only later patches that will cleanly apply
*
23 matches
Mail list logo
