* Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org:
Please review the list, it's 800+ packages so I thought about asking for
feedback before filing stabilization bugs (I plan to do that in stages
of course).
What do you expect to happen with bugs assigned to maintainer-needed?
I don't know if any of
# Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org (23 Nov 2011)
# Upstream stopped their development and support for a long
# time, they are not compatible with recent monodevelop versions.
# See bug #389473. Removal in 30 days.
dev-util/monodevelop-boo
dev-util/monodevelop-debugger-mdb
signature.asc
Description:
Le 28 sept. 2011 à 03:28, Alec Warner a écrit :
Ok so Google Docs sucks and I can't give you the 'summary link'
because it wants people to sign in and that is crap! But I can discuss
the results:
[…]
I'm happy that there is some progress on each of these items. I don't
want to provide
On Friday 18 of December 2009 20:07:47 Mike Frysinger wrote:
if (patch -p${count} ${EPATCH_OPTS} --dry-run -f
${PATCH_TARGET})
${STDERR_TARGET} 21 ; then
Just FYI.
There seems to be a little 'problem' with this, as patch is validated in --
dry-run mode before applying,
On Wednesday 23 November 2011 18:19:40 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Friday 18 of December 2009 20:07:47 Mike Frysinger wrote:
if (patch -p${count} ${EPATCH_OPTS} --dry-run -f
${PATCH_TARGET})
${STDERR_TARGET} 21 ; then
There seems to be a little 'problem' with this, as
currently we blacklist certain phases (which is largely based on EAPI=0 and
blocking src_*) for enew{user,group}. moving forward, ferringb suggested we
invert this into a whitelist of allowed phases.
afaict, the blacklisting + dev documentation has done a good job of
restricting calls to
