On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
> > > package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more
> > > testing"
We seem to be heading towards a situation where the x86 arch
team do all marking of stuff stable on x86. This I like.
Some observations - these may be phrased in the affirmative
but please take them as observations/suggestions :)
1) The x86 arch team will need to be large(ish) to keep pace.
He
On 1/9/2005 20:54:14, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
> > change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
> >
> > I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
> > users or developers?
>
On 31/8/2005 9:18:53, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Keep in mind that the *stable* trees of x86 and amd64 are actually
> pretty close to the same versions anyway, I just ran gmsoft's imlate
> script for amd64 vs. x86 keywords:
hmm; missed a biggie - sys-devel/gcc which is stabl
On 30/8/2005 10:46:54, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could *easily*
> be covered under the same keyword?
The big reason I think, is that few x86 people have a clue about amd64.
Contrast this with the mips team; I'd guess mo
On 27/8/2005 13:34:15, Brian Harring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rough filtering stack-
> profiles/package.mask
> /etc/make.profile/package.mask (incremental through subprofiles)
> users package.mask, and users package.unmask
>
> Ordered it in that fashion to show that it's effectively repositor
On 27/8/2005 10:42:25, Brian Harring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hola all.
>
> Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
> arch.list
> categories
> use.desc
> use.local.desc
> package.mask
> updates
>
> be moved out of the profiles directory in the tree
Not sure about packa
On 21/8/2005 23:05:05, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Now the proposal. This isn't something that can happen immediately, but
> it's something I'd like to see us working towards:
>
> [...]
>
> * De-cripple the standard xterm definition and remove restrictions from
> programs whic
On 5/8/2005 4:36:40, Alec Warner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Problems with all of these include the same problems as the cascaded
> profiles, some goofball doesn't upgrade for a year, syncs with new
> digests...how does he get his portage upgraded? An upgrade path should
> be provided and
On 2/8/2005 16:30:45, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> > I'm still awaiting any solid arguments against x11-proto, and they had
> > best be expedited (read below for why).
>
> Well, I kind of mentioned it on irc, but I'll th
On 14/7/2005 7:24:03, Craig Lawson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [...] To be more concrete, I'm thinking of something like a database [...]
I don't think a separate database is a good idea; too many sources for
information.
> [...] For example [...]
> current: any
> target: =gnome-base/gno
I'm with Ned & fozer on this, in general at least. This is the second time this
issue has come up over the last month or so; it's what kicks off the flat-tree
debate. My preference in practice is to leave the current tree allocation of
packages to categories well alone (to avoid unnecessary dis
On 26/5/2005 15:33:10, Roy Marples ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 15:04 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > I'm trying it on a laptop that connects to various different networks
> > depending on the weather. I figured this would be a useful test as
>
On 26/5/2005 0:20:02, Mike Frysinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> files - the net scripts have been completely rewritten thanks to UberLord
Ahh; what fun - that was the stuff I'd tweaked the most :/
The new network stuff is much better, but I do have one hiccough.
I'm trying it on a laptop that c
On 16/5/2005 11:09:28, Paul Waring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Given that my USE flags include -X, -gtk, -qt etc. (I don't want any
> graphical stuff as this is a server machine, and I've never had
> anything like this come up before), why on earth is portage wanting to
> install all these new pac
Brian Harring wrote:
> > The layout on disk and the semantics of categories do not need to be > >
> > related.
> Yes and no. You're assuming that people don't use the layout on
> disk for digging around without calling portage. Personally, I do.
Sometimes I do the same; but other times I find
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:09:20, Brian Harring wrote:
> One thing that just clicked in the skull on why flat-tree has issues; >
> currently it's possible to have a package with the same name, yet a
> differing category (app-vim/sudo vs app-admin/sudo).
Aa flat package namespace would necessitat
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> as a reminder, NEVER utilize USE=pic in your package unless you know
> exactly what it's for and you're sure you need it
I figured this use flag should be used to ensure libraries are built as PIC
(i.e. conform to the relevant ABI). This is a common problem on the media
201 - 218 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
