On 3/6/11 1:50 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
>
> This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED?
I don't understand that concern. There is UNCONFIRMED and NEW, now you'd
get UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED. It seems to me it's just NEW with a
different name, an
On 03/07/2011 01:00 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On 03/06/11 23:55, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> our Bugzilla (bugs.gentoo.org) will be unavailable for the next hours.
>> We're going to migrate our old Bugzilla to Bugzilla-4.
>> We expect our update to finish within the next hours.
>
> (Private reply,
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-03-06 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-misc/asterisk-chan_unistim 2011-02-28 22:20:38 chainsaw
net-misc/asterisk-sounds2011-02-28 22:20:38 chainsaw
net-misc/aster
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 05:34:29PM +0100, Constanze Hausner wrote:
> On 17:44 Sat 05 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > * tar and xattrs is a massive problem, so how do binaries work?
> tar can be patched to support xattrs. If we want to use caps, we will
> have to apply those patches too. (iirc
Dear community,
our Bugzilla (bugs.gentoo.org) will be unavailable for the next hours.
We're going to migrate our old Bugzilla to Bugzilla-4.
We expect our update to finish within the next hours.
Some notes:
SSL is enabled by default now, so it's forced. Unfortunately the
option to force SSL *onl
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ive just added bash-4.2_p5, and will ~arch that this week at some point
bash-4.2_p7 is now in the tree as ~arch. BE AFRAID.
-mike
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 05:31:43PM +0100, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Our bugstest setup is now public and can be found at [1] or [2].
> If [1] doesn't work use [2] because the DNS changes I made may take some
> hours to reach everybody.
Nice work :) Thanks for taking care of this.
> Some notes:
>
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 17:44, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Do you mean the little search box in the toolbar or Simple/Advanced search?
Both the search box in the toolbar and the search thing on the front
page (with the Quick Search button).
Cheers,
Dirkjan
On 03:01 Sun 06 Mar , Brian Harring wrote:
[snip]
Thanks for your feedback, your remarks were correct :). I updated the
eclass appropriately.
> I'd take a different approach here; this code basically assumes that
> the PM knows of it- note the chmod -s. The use flag protection you
> tried a
On 03/06/2011 05:37 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 17:31, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> Our bugstest setup is now public and can be found at [1] or [2].
>> If [1] doesn't work use [2] because the DNS changes I made may take some
>> hours to reach everybody.
>
> This looks aweso
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 17:31, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Our bugstest setup is now public and can be found at [1] or [2].
> If [1] doesn't work use [2] because the DNS changes I made may take some
> hours to reach everybody.
This looks awesome, thanks so much for working on this!!
One thing I no
On 17:44 Sat 05 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 18:41:46 +0100
> Constanze Hausner wrote:
> > > You're requiring special package manager behaviour if that flag is
> > > set?
> >
> > I'm requiring, that the package manager preserves the xattrs, when
> > stripping the binary a
Our bugstest setup is now public and can be found at [1] or [2].
If [1] doesn't work use [2] because the DNS changes I made may take some
hours to reach everybody.
Some notes:
1. SSL is enabled by default now, so it's forced. Unfortunately the
option to force SSL *only* for logged in user is no lo
On 3/6/11 1:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for bugs.gentoo.org.
> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?
I like the new workflow more, mostly because of simplicity. This is also
closer to what code.google.com uses, a
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Do we really need two different use flags for code-based sound
>> support vs file-based sound inclusion?
> Maybe it's similar enough. So, unify both "audio" and "sounds" with
> the global "sound" fla
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>
>> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
>> system:
>
>> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
>
> Weird. How can a newly added bug be "CONFIRMED", unless someone has
> take
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
Weird. How can a newly added bug be "CONFIRMED", unless someone has
taken some action to confirm it?
> This change will be immediate. The
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM, justin wrote:
> On 05/03/11 19:52, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> I've started maintaining an irregularly updated list for gtk+ (and a
>> few other libraries):
>>
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/gnome/3.0/slotting/
>>
>
> all sci is fixed.
>
> Why do you have a rdeps
On 05/03/11 19:52, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Donnie Berkholz
>> wrote:
>>> On 11:13 Sun 27 Feb , Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
a quick mail to announce that the gnome team, in order to prepare for
Hi,
Nirbheek Chauhan :
> Indeed, it is quite large, coming at ~1100 ebuilds. Hence, I've
> attached it instead of pasting it in-line. Unsurprisingly, some are
> gnome packages, and even a few maintained by me :p
Claws Mail and plugins are fixed.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp proje
Hi,
Christian Ruppert :
> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for
> bugs.gentoo.org. So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to
> keep the old?
New one, reopened is a bit pointless information on first glance.
History tells enough.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gento
On 03/06/2011 01:45 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 02:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>>
>>
>> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
>> system:
>>
>
>> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED"
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:22:09PM +0100, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
>
> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
This seems mildly insane; sure you didn'
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
[snip]
>
> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for bugs.gentoo.org.
> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?
>
I'm not at
On 03/06/2011 02:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
>
> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
> removed)
We wou
Hey guys,
in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
system:
"NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
"ASSIGNED" will become "IN_PROGRESS"
"REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
removed)
"CLO
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 02:24:22PM +0100, Constanze Hausner wrote:
> fcaps() {
> debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "$@"
> debug-print "${FUNCNAME}: Trying to set capabilities for ${4}"
> local uid_gid=$1
> local perms=$2
> export fallbackFileMode=$perms
> local ca
27 matches
Mail list logo
