On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:40:00 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Live a little. Send a funny email to a list once.
>
> I think you are on the wrong list then.
Has anyone seen my stick? I left it right here...
--
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgetslearn a language baby, it's that kind o
Andreas K. Huettel posted on Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:29:45 +0100 as excerpted:
> For your information, in the default/linux tree
> * all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the
> same way as 10.0 was
> * all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
> * all 10.0 profiles hav
> * all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the same way
as
> 10.0 was
> * all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
> * all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated
Suggestion: perhaps a news item should be created for the migration to the
new profiles? As a Gentoo user
For your information, in the default/linux tree
* all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the same way as
10.0 was
* all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
* all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated
IMHO the waiting time of 1 year decided by Council starts now bef
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:15:03 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> I hope this will be trivial to most of you but after seeing bug #455900
> and the vast majority of developers not even thinking twice before
> sedding their dep strings, I believe this needs some attention.
As a note for those who get irr
El sáb, 09-02-2013 a las 18:39 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 09/02/13 18:36, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > Eg. He wrote we should use 'media-libs/libpng:0=', but pre-subslots, the
> > :0 was often (incorrectly?) omitted.
>
> I've at least been adding :0 to many packages, openssl, tiff, libpn
On 09/02/13 18:36, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Eg. He wrote we should use 'media-libs/libpng:0=', but pre-subslots, the
:0 was often (incorrectly?) omitted.
I've at least been adding :0 to many packages, openssl, tiff, libpng ...
... pretty much ever since the libpng 1.4 "upgrade problem" in the p
On 10/02/2013 03:06, Zac Medico wrote:
On 02/09/2013 06:05 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Is there a difference in behaviour between 'media-libs/libpng:=' and
'media-libs/libpng' with no slot information at all?
I don't know if you phrased your question as intended. Anyway, yes, the
difference is
On 02/09/2013 06:05 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Is there a difference in behaviour between 'media-libs/libpng:=' and
> 'media-libs/libpng' with no slot information at all?
I don't know if you phrased your question as intended. Anyway, yes, the
difference is that one with the slot-operator will t
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I hope somebody not Libav nor FFmpeg committer could come up with a
> pros-cons list.
++, but frankly the committers are probably in the best place to do
any evaluation even if they likely have some bias. If you wanted to
delve into the merit
On 9/02/2013 23:52, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:35 +1100
Michael Palimaka wrote:
I even noticed some maintainers adding subslots dependencies on
libraries that do not yet define subslots. This too seems reasonable,
given that there would be no impact until the library defin
On 08/02/13 22:46, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:41:04 +0100
> Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 07 of February 2013 06:52:44 Peter Stuge wrote:
>>
>>> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
we as gentoo will provide both while preffered default will be
what major distros use.
>>>
On 10/02/2013 00:47, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 09/02/13 14:15, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Dear fellow developers,
I didn't find anything to reply directly here, so sorry for stealing
this message.
I just wanted to point out that people have lately been adding deps like:
media-libs/libpng:=
dev-li
On 09/02/13 14:15, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Dear fellow developers,
I didn't find anything to reply directly here, so sorry for stealing
this message.
I just wanted to point out that people have lately been adding deps like:
media-libs/libpng:=
dev-libs/openssl:=
That is wrong as it completel
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:35 +1100
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> I even noticed some maintainers adding subslots dependencies on
> libraries that do not yet define subslots. This too seems reasonable,
> given that there would be no impact until the library defines a
> (sensible) subslot in the fut
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:35 +1100
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/02/2013 23:15, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Dear fellow developers,
> >
> > I hope this will be trivial to most of you but after seeing bug
> > #455900 and the vast majority of developers not even thinking twice
> > before se
Hi,
On 9/02/2013 23:15, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Dear fellow developers,
I hope this will be trivial to most of you but after seeing bug #455900
and the vast majority of developers not even thinking twice before
sedding their dep strings, I believe this needs some attention.
What is wrong with m
Dear fellow developers,
I hope this will be trivial to most of you but after seeing bug #455900
and the vast majority of developers not even thinking twice before
sedding their dep strings, I believe this needs some attention.
What do subslots do: You set a subslot to a package and every time sai
On 02/09/2013 12:26 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Stefan Ehret wrote:
>>
>> * *
>> * PLEACE SAFE THE SOURCE *
>> * *
>> **
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
> I don't think that solves the license problem properly. Say, if user
> doesn't want non-free software, he's going to have the whole package
> masked. He'd have to work-around license + savedconfig.
> Now that I look at it, it seems that the ebuild d
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 11:09:15 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 09/02/13 11:06, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> >
> >> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> >>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
> >>> newest firmware _is_ there,
Samuli Suominen wrote:
>On 09/02/13 11:11, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>>
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if
>the
> newest firmware _is_ there, just ge
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> I disagree. Why should we force users to install lots of crap (some
>> of it being non-free) that they will never need because they don't
>> have the hardware?
> Maybe you don't understand how linux-firmware package works. It only
> installs wh
On 09/02/13 11:11, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
That should be probably the b
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>
>> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
>>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
>>> newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
>>>
>> That should be probably the best approach, to act
On 09/02/13 11:06, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
That should be probably the best approach, to actual
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
>> newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
>>
> That should be probably the best approach, to actually kill of the
> lone ones a
27 matches
Mail list logo
