# Diego E. Pettenò flamee...@gentoo.org (30 Nov 2009)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# Fails to build, bug #239819 open October 2008. Solution
# in overlay, as usual for lisp-team packages.
#
# Removal on 2010-01-29
dev-scheme/kawa
Denis Dupeyron dixit (2009-11-25, 14:50):
The next council meeting will be on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC. If you want
us to discuss things please let us know in reply to this email. What
is already known is we'll talk about mtime preservation and prefix.
You can find threads about those at:
Antoni Grzymala dixit (2009-11-30, 12:30):
Denis Dupeyron dixit (2009-11-25, 14:50):
The next council meeting will be on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC. If you want
us to discuss things please let us know in reply to this email. What
is already known is we'll talk about mtime preservation and
# Alex Legler a...@gentoo.org (30 Nov 2009)
# Dead upstream, fetch issues with gemcutter.
# Masking for removal in 30 days.
dev-ruby/nitro
dev-ruby/glue
dev-ruby/gen
dev-ruby/og
--
Alex Legler | Gentoo Security / Ruby
a...@gentoo.org | a...@jabber.ccc.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Le 30/11/2009 05:26, Jonathan Callen a écrit :
gst-plugins.eclass
ACK on this one, Gilles and I have been meaning to remove it a long time
ago.
Thanks for cleaning it all up :)
Rémi
Hi,
Currently the approach is that you must mark the eclass as deprecated and wait
2 years in order to remove it.
I would propose to do it more fine grained.
Since portage 2.1.4.0 the environment is stored and preserved, thus eclasses
are no longer required for package uninstalls (which is the
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:28:19 +0200, Alex Legler a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I would like to propose the addition of a new USE_EXPAND variable.
I have just commited the changes.
--
Alex Legler | Gentoo Security / Ruby
a...@gentoo.org | a...@jabber.ccc.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Antoni Grzymala wrote:
How about getting back to GLEP-57 [1]? Robin Hugh Johnson made an effort
a year ago to summarize the then-current state of things regarding tree
and package signing, however the matter seems to have lain idle and
untouched for more than a year since.
One concern I have
On Monday 30 November 2009 22:18:21 Richard Freeman wrote:
Antoni Grzymala wrote:
How about getting back to GLEP-57 [1]? Robin Hugh Johnson made an effort
a year ago to summarize the then-current state of things regarding tree
and package signing, however the matter seems to have lain idle
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:30:51PM +0100, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
I reckon that missing GPG infrastructure is one of the greatest problems
of the Gentoo distribution esp. regarding serious corporate and academic
deployments.
I can devote some time to helping with the matter.
I would certainly
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 04:18:21PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
Antoni Grzymala wrote:
How about getting back to GLEP-57 [1]? Robin Hugh Johnson made an effort
a year ago to summarize the then-current state of things regarding tree
and package signing, however the matter seems to have lain
i plan on culling glibc versions older than 2.6.1. if you need an older
version in the tree, now is the time to speak up. i didnt see anything in the
profiles that would cause a problem.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 12:19:11AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i plan on culling glibc versions older than 2.6.1. if you need an older
version in the tree, now is the time to speak up. i didnt see anything in
the
profiles that would cause a problem.
How is 2.4 support with 2.6.1?
I've
On Tuesday 01 December 2009 00:36:40 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 12:19:11AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i plan on culling glibc versions older than 2.6.1. if you need an older
version in the tree, now is the time to speak up. i didnt see anything
in the profiles that
14 matches
Mail list logo
