Yes, I see this as a more sensible solution also. We already have golang
support in GCC as a USE flag. If ada support was dropped in upstream head and
only legacy or lts versions of GCC have it, this can be done on a per-slot
basis :).
~Andrew
Wysłano z telefonu Samsung Original messag
looks nice
On 16 Dec 2016 08:38, "Mike Pagano" wrote:
On 12/14/2016 07:23 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
> kdbus is discontinued and is being reworked upstream as a different
> effort with a different name.
> That said, remove unused kdbus support from the kernel eclass.
>
Committed.
--
Mike Pagano
G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/12/16 17:03, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 21:49:15 + "Robin H. Johnson"
> wrote:
>> 1. ebuilds: Add eclass to export all variables from
>> /etc/os-release with a prefix: OS_RELEASE_ID OS_RELEASE_NAME
>> OS_RELEASE_PRETTY_NAME
On 12/14/2016 07:23 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
> kdbus is discontinued and is being reworked upstream as a different
> effort with a different name.
> That said, remove unused kdbus support from the kernel eclass.
>
Committed.
--
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Lead
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> 3. The distro branding package (v1) (providers of virtual/os-branding):
>- MUST have NO build dependencies that require execution (this could
> be the very first package in a bootstrap).
>- MUST install /etc/os-release
>
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 21:49:15 +
"Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> I do really agree that how we offer branding should be covered in a
> GLEP, and be very easy for downstream offshoots of Gentoo to follow.
> This would prevent future concerns like the Ubuntu branding / modified
> VM spats.
>
> [snip
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/12/16 15:49, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I do really agree that how we offer branding should be covered in
> a GLEP, and be very easy for downstream offshoots of Gentoo to
> follow. This would prevent future concerns like the Ubuntu branding
> /
I do really agree that how we offer branding should be covered in a
GLEP, and be very easy for downstream offshoots of Gentoo to follow.
This would prevent future concerns like the Ubuntu branding / modified
VM spats.
[snip awilfox's superb proposal; I agree with all of the reasons and
outcomes, b
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> dev-lang/gnat-gcc
Something I've wondered about since I used gnat-gcc for assignments as
an undergrad -- why is gnat-gcc a separate package from gcc? Isn't the
Ada frontend just part of gcc? Why not just a gcc[ada] USE flag?
On December 15, 2016 12:19:05 AM PST, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>Would it be fine with you if we kept gnat-gcc and ghdl? (but lastrited
>dev-ada/*)
I personally have no use for the others.
--
Christopher Head
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 23:11:33 -0800
Christopher Head wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:47:41 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > So the only real consumer is GHDL -- yet another case when someone
> > thought it'd be fun to use a fringe language to implement something
> > useful... However, it seems
11 matches
Mail list logo
