On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:46:12 -0700
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about storing a copy of the EAPI in the Manifest file - when
> "ebuild ... digest" is done? That way, it will always match the one
> authoritative "post-source" EAPI setting, since changing the ebuild
> will require
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:43:35 +0100
Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:14:24 +0100
> > Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I disagree here. It would be annoying and possibly even hindering
> >> in future not being able to use hi
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:00:51 -0500
Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you could simply have $pkg_manager execute an eclass as 1
> EAPI, another eclass as another and the ebuild as a third EAPI and
> simplify it for the eclass maintenance.
Which doesn't work at all. Simple example would
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:59:28 -0500
Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since it doesn't appear the question was answered by the last thread.
> I'm starting a new thread.
The only sane solution I can think of is that eclasses shouldn't be
allowed to change EAPI, but use conditionals to behave
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:36:36 +0100
Björn Benz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://dissertation.bjoern-benz.de/output/project_community/
>
> Thank you for your participation,
a) you should probably send this to gentoo-project
b) the page doesn't load for me, seems to be a redirection loop
between
For various reasons I can no longer maintain the following packages (in
fact I haven't really maintained them for a while already), so they
need a new maintainer:
* app-editors/zoink - simple gtk based editor, little to no maintenance
required
* dev-util/gambas - Visual Basic look-alike for Linux,
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:15:12 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to get a wider audience involved in this...this just seems wrong
> to do. There is a QA bug open about it as well:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198248
>
> What are other people's feelings on using packag
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:43:18 +0100
Bernard Cafarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:42:35 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
>
> > On 19:49 Wed 31 Oct , Bernard Cafarelli (voyageur) wrote:
> > > 1.1
> > > net-misc/nxserver-freenx/nxserver-freenx-0.7.1.ebu
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:13:58 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > But like name_splitted.cpp is buggy as it assumes that a dash
> > followed by a digit starts the version part. See
> > echo ${PORTDIR}/*-*/* | tr ' ' '\n&
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:44:46 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Markus Rothe wrote:
>
> > Attached are the scripts I use to commit packages stable/unstable.
> > Somewhere must be a bug!
> >
> > 'name_split.cpp' splits a package name like sys-devel/gcc-4.1.2 into
> > category, package
Is it just me, or has this thread gone beyond it's usefulness?
IOW, I think you two should take this (and future bash vs. sh
discussions) to a private channel.
Marius
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:44:37 +0200
"Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007-10-16 00:21 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał(a):
> > On 21:28 Mon 15 Oct , Christian Faulhammer (opfer) wrote:
> > > src_compile() {
> > > econf || die "econf failed"
> >
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:13:49 +0200
Christian Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I'm going to p.mask =dev-lang/php-4* and all packages explicitly
> depending on this version of php (i.e. the whole dev-php4/ category
> (36 packages) and one webapp, www-apps/knowledgetree, bug 194894 [1]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:03 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that
> > package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been
> > stable since February.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:45:04 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> >>> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>> I i
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:12:25 +0200
Tobias Klausmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I imagine there are a lot more cases where the simple on/off
> > > system we have now is suboptimal
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:01:56 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 05 October 2007 04:26:50 Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Problem is that nobody feels responsible for eselect anymore, so
> > nobody takes care of bug #179064 (and I'm not going to p
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 23:34:14 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> excerpted below, on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:12:29 -0700:
>
> > Due to popular demand, I'm preparing a sys-apps/portage-2.1.3.12
> > release that will have support fo
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:50:01 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are several packages in portage (and even in base-system) that
> fail in src_test when userpriv/usersandbox is enabled or disabled.
> That is, some testsuites fail when run as root and some fail if not
> run as root.
>
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:53:00 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> A group of our developers and i have felt the need of working around a
> new goal inside Gentoo: Graphical User Interfaces (GUI).
>
> Though Gento
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:11:40 -0500
Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Lars Weiler wrote:
> >> * Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [07/09/02 17:44 -0600]:
> >>> plan on doing version-specific masks in the future unless someone
> >>> can come up with a good argument for it.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:12:52 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
> > On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> >> Hi there!
> >>
> >> What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to
> >> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer bother
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:49:58 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why should someone have to go through all of that just to make these
> minor fixes? Is it really necessary for someone to be required to try
> to track down and contact the maintainer to tell them that they put
> "eb
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:47:27 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I meant that this should be doable without the maintainer's
> consent. Meaning, I ask you to stabilize 1.0-r1 and a few weeks
> later, you can decide to stabilize -r2 without me having to file a
> bug. Basicall
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:08:36 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - If I remember correctly, elog shouldn't be used for empty lines like
> in qmail_supervise_config_notice. Use echo instead for them.
You remember incorrectly (though I don't think I ever said anything
about it).
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:20:06 -0400
"Eric Polino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem there is a good support for a change to enable all
> protocols by default. What will change this issue from a good thread
> to an action on the package to implement these ideas?
File a bug on bugs.gentoo.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jul 16 2007, 04:00:44PM CDT]
> > Anyway point I'm trying to make here is that I think we might be
> > better off using a 3rd party as our foundation. IE people who have
> > the experience/motivati
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:25:02 +0300
Alin Năstac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was asked to discuss here a portage enhancement proposed by me [1].
>
> Basically I need a pkg_create() that will be executed only in the
> context of the upcoming "ebuild ${PF}.ebuild create" command.
>
> The package
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:42:44 -0400
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Are you people serious? Let's ban nondevs from bugzilla then? Close
> > #gentoo, disband PR, etc? Not sure if we can keep any sponsors
>
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact
> > same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults
>
oposal included delaying all
posts and a special moderation group, only later the idea of separate
policies for dev and non-dev mails was brought up. And to repeat: It
was meant as an alternative to splitting the list into an informational
and a discussion list (which is different than the -project id
ned over to the Gentoo Foundation by the developer, and this
> should be made policy and should be explained properly in a few places
> in our documentation.
>
> Should I file a documentation bug about this?
Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(w
e period
> expires and no one booted it, so the email rolls through)
For what it's worth, _IF_ this proposal goes through I'd strongly prefer
that mode of operation, so that moderation can't become a limiting
factor.
Marius
PS: Am I the only one who missed both reminders for the m
> My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
> public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck
> around with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
I have to agree, the idea sounds simply like you want to rename -core
to -dev and -dev t
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:14:57 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you please also list #138792 as implemented? It has a patch
> attached.
An unreleased (an incomplete regarding EAPI) patch does not count as
being implemented.
Marius
--
Marius Mauch <[
licitly allow such a package (or run unstable in which case they
> will be used to dealing with glitches ;) and scripts can still avoid
> interactive packages. (And bear in mind, it's not just uis we're
> talking about, but stuff like QA automation.)
Again, interactivity isn&#x
le (think about overlays). Maybe by
installing a script in a specific location or so.
Marius
--
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:07:28 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reply on gentoo-portage-dev, _not_ on gentoo-dev, thanks.
>
> One missing feature in portage is the lack of package sets. Before we
> (re)start working on that however I'd like to get som
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:07:39 -0700
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forwarded by request of somebody thats smart/lucky enough to not
> be on this list but still monitoring it.
>
> Forwarded Message
> From: Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: New Linux-
Please reply on gentoo-portage-dev, _not_ on gentoo-dev, thanks.
One missing feature in portage is the lack of package sets. Before we
(re)start working on that however I'd like to get some feedback about
what properties/features people would expect from portage package set
support.
Some key quest
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:11:16 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My opinion is to make it clear that the doc use flag always controls
> whether or not to install documentation and make it clear in the
> devmanual. For what gnome does, they can then add for example a
> gtk-doc use flag
are safe for public distribution is to do emerge -b or -B ..
> > And that pkgs built with quickpkg may contain sensitive information.
>
> If there is smart conf-file updating inside pkg_preinst(), I think
> even emerge -b could be unsafe.
preinst is run after building the tbz2 package.
Marius
--
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
he format of CONTENTS in the vdb:
> priv /etc/fstab
And what would be phase 2 of that? Just having a new filetype
in CONTENTS doesn't accomplish anything by itself ...
Marius
--
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Btw, both of your issues could probably be solved by bug 126059 without
adding new rules or new work for ebuild devs.
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a b
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:11 +0200
cilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think it is worth to discuss about `Do not modify ebuilds which
> are already in the tree... even if masked.`
>
> Sometimes ebuilds which are already in the portage tree are modified
> without changing the
> ve
asier in many places.
Can't say anything about that before I understand what you tried to
say ;)
Marius
--
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
hat returns a list of CPVs, and by
prefixing a CPV with an operator you get an atom, but they are still
completely separate things.
Maybe that helps to clear some of the confusion.
--
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 02:57:28 +0900
Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types
> > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
> > don't know unless you actually check the tree.
>
> Isn
der any data after the LAST - as the
> > version information.
>
> Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following?
>
> sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild
> and
> sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild
Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
don
aybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's
of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list.
Marius
--
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:44:08 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:32:22AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows a number of (enhancement)
> > bugs that are fixable, but the as
On Thu, 31 May 2007 03:35:20 +0200
"Bryan Østergaard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's with a bit of sadness but also a bit of relief that I'm finally
> retiring from Gentoo.
I usually don't participate in all the welcome/goodbye threads, but
you're one of the few people I'm really sad to see le
I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows a number of (enhancement) bugs
that are fixable, but the assignee doesn't have the motivation to come
up with a solution, but would look at and eventually include a
user-submitted patch for it. Currently those would either be left open
forever or closed as WO
On Sun, 6 May 2007 17:27:39 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:20:31 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The only solution I currently see is an additional field in the
> > header, a change in behaviour and therefore the GLEP itself.
> > In particular, this f
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:42:58 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:20:31 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In particular, this field could be my previous understanding
> > of "Display-If-Upgrading-From-To" namely
> &g
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:20:31 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In particular, this field could be my previous understanding
> of "Display-If-Upgrading-From-To" namely
> "Display-Before-Upgrading-From-To" which would fit the requirements
> defined by the GLEP:
Which is the same as a combination of
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:44:23 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:40:23 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Apparently the `eselect news` module (which is the suggested
> > default news reader) requires paludis to b
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:29 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 06 of May 2007 15:40:23 Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Apparently the `eselect news` module (which is the suggested
> > default news reader) requires paludis to be installed and
> &g
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:40:23 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with the recent disussion about he
> paludis news item except that it was used as testcase.
>
> Apparently the `eselect news` module (which is the suggested
>
Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with the recent disussion about he
paludis news item except that it was used as testcase.
Apparently the `eselect news` module (which is the suggested
default news reader) requires paludis to be installed and configured, a
quick test resulted in errors when tryin
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:26:48 -0700
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> All-
>
> After some discussion on #-dev there are some improvements that we can
> make on glep 42.
>
> 1. Priority levels for news items: If we did this users could de
On Sun, 6 May 2007 04:37:10 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 05 May 2007, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
> > tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> > implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
>
> 4 < 4_p < 4_p0 <
On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:23:53 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (My) Experience has also shown that gentoo-x86/portage users like
> > the elog features in portage, so sto
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:37:17 -0400
"Stephen P. Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What experience? So far there have been no news items. The issue
> > about elog messages being one shot things is rather outdated (at
> > least for portage), and post-merge information is the domain of
> > elog (a
On Sat, 5 May 2007 13:45:47 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:07:41 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What experience? So far there have been no news items.
>
> Paludis has had working news items for ages
On Sat, 5 May 2007 13:46:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:30:40 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And given that the GLEP specifically states that news items are not
> > suposed to replace the usual po
On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:52:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 19:48:19 -0400
> Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That seems like a really bad road to go down.
> >
> > Would it not be better to extend elog to alert people at the end of
> > an install as
On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:17:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:38:43 -0500
> Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > otherwise, yeah, elog does the same thing already...
>
> Experience has shown that news items work in delivering this kind of
> inf
On Tue, 1 May 2007 15:08:56 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1,
> but there was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important
> and thus I want to discuss them a little more, but in more sensi
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And as it was pointed out before. Static builds are not needed most
> of the time. There is only 2 packages that actually need the static
> libraries. The rest fails due to upstream bugs in the
> configure/makefile (r
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:04:07 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 20:46 schrieb paul kölle:
> > Roman Zimmermann wrote:
> > > (without the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)?
> >
> > I wonder why you call this an ugly hack? It seems to me everyone who
> > wishes to avoi
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:43:29 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an
> explanation why this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to
> that discussion too?
What decision? That USE=static shouldn't be used for (not) inst
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:00:18 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ grep javahelp -r /usr/portage/profiles/updates/
> /usr/portage/profiles/updates/3Q-2004:move dev-java/javahelp
> dev-java/javahelp-bin
>
> Well nowadays Sun has put javahelp under GPL so now we have
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:30:06 -0700
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while
> > back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we
> > worked at that to change that behavior since it
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:20:05 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> > Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> > released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> >
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0200
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rationale behind this is the following:
>
> * certain combinations of suffixes don't make sense.
That's highly subjective.
> * only recent Portage versions support it.
I wouldn't call portage-2.1 "recent" as it
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:54:21 +0200
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support
> multiple suffixes, right ?
People still using portage 2.0.x have much more serious problems.
Marius
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:45:48 +0200
dju` <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eerror "Your ${package} package has been built without"
> eerror "${func} support, please enable the '${use_flag}' USE flag and"
> eerror "re-emerge ${package}."
> elog "You can enable this USE fla
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:53:32 -0700
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Commit ebuild
> Checksum ebuild
> Commit Package Manifest
> Checksum Package Manifest
> Commit Category Manifest
> Checksum Category Manifest
> Commit Tree-wide Manifest
> Checksum Tree-Wide Manifest and put it somewhere a
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:40:42 +0200
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then for b) I like to suggest to ask the portage team to simply skip the
> $Header: $ part(s) when calculating the digests, and shove that change
> in at the same time manifest1 is obsoleted and migrated into the tree
>
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:18:27 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:06:42 +0200
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Err, your suggestion was:
> >
> > * Remove automatic directory making for do*
>
> Because I was giving a one line summary, rather than a d
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:50:50 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ grep 'DEPEND=""' -r . | wc -l
> 97
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ find -name "*.ebuild" | wc -l
> 102
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ find -name "*.ebuild
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:41:01 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:11:47 -0700
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in my
> > opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:21:05 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 00:59 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > I like the part about projects being self-organizing, but splitting up the
> > tree is a no go from my POV.
>
> Are they not alr
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:32:49 +0200
Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Please criticize this with everything constructive you > can think of.
This idea of putting almost everything into its own repo/overlay will IMO end
up in the same mess that several other distros have with to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:25 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land
> although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to
> describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their
> estimate
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do others think of NULL or VOID vs. NOTABUG vs. INVALID?
I'd object against NULL or VOID, they don't make much sense to me.
NOTABUG seems to be the best fit as it's very specific and doesn't
leave much room for in
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to be
> encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that the
> marking INVALID is perceived, when there's no need to be so harsh.
And NOCH
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
> INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
> Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure.
>
> Arguably no bug is invalid i
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:01:45 +0100
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by
> > portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though.
>
> The additional post
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hierarchy would be the following
>
> snapshot -> dev -> build -> alpha -> beta
And that's where the problems start. As you said yourself _snapshot is
something universal so it doesn't really fit anywher
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:05:10 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> > one that came to mi
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:54:12 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Howells wrote:
> > On 09/03/07, Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I forgot to add that the dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild might also require
> >> the special DMD license to be included in the tree. I'm at
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:03:54 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) move PMS discussion off this list
That is the whole joke here: It was more or less you who started this
discussion.
The original mail was Mike mentioning something about a
deadline on the PMS project as agenda item
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And irrespective
> of whether bug-wranglers have much to say, I'd still want them
> involved, as they deal with the ebuild bugs. As such they could well
> have ideas or viewpoints which would help. Even if they don't, it's
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:40:43 -0800
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are people using old versions of portage? when flameeyes worked on
> this, he did all but *4*(not 4%) so I'm wondering how it creeped back up.
Most likely he didn't detect all packages (haven't seen his script).
Marius
-
While Diego did an awesome job with converting many packages to Manifest2 there
are still about 400 packages that aren't converted yet. If you maintain any
package in the attached list please update it to use Manifest2.
To update a package make sure that you're using portage-2.1.2-r9 or later, r
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:35:51 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - I have no clue what's going on with gentoo-stats;
See http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/genone?cat=201
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And
On 01 Feb 2007 05:30:01
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
> 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:25:55 +0100
Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 19:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:29:06 +0100
> > Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> &
101 - 200 of 432 matches
Mail list logo
