On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:30:15 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Gorecki wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
I wouldn't mind having a feature like this. I would provide a way
for
automatic unmasking tools to keep their changes separate
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:01:15 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I don't think there's really anything else that can be done for
2.0.53 so am thinking that we should probably push _rc7 + docs out
and let the arch teams mark it stable when they're ready (or stick
with
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:33:34 +0100
Marc Hildebrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
[..]
So much for background information, now to the actual question:
Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests
and Manifests with the result of a short and mid-term
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it
down, but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill. Again,
I'd /love/ to say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't.
=8^)
* give [AH]Ts a
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:03 +0200
Alin Nastac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along
with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion
to deal with this?
Don't do this without explicitly
So, along with the gpg signing stuff came along again the question to
have multiple hash formats in digests and manifests.
Current status is that portage only generates MD5 checksums and can
verify both MD5 and SHA1 checksums. Creation of SHA1 is also possible
but has so far been disabled as
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage:
- The first simply enables creation of SHA1 checksums (and others if
implemented like with the second mod), if you want to try it yourself
see
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:12:22 -0600
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add the keys only if there is a func that can be used- list of
required chksums is a config thing (and repoman thing during
commiting), so I'm not seeing any reason to have None as a value in
your hashfunc mapping...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:06:38 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:23:19 +0100
Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:55 -0800, Michael Marineau wrote:
For users who do like the functionality just properly
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800
Corey Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(apologies for the messed up time in my last message)
On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know
how to do proper testing. We've had
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
Ben Skeggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to
your local
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:19:17 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 18 November 2005 18:09, Homer Parker wrote:
Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a
subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum
help, so needs to be generic.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:18:26 -0400
Luis F. Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries,
and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are
still listed in p.m but that don't exist in the tree anymore.
(A bunch of them
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:13:13 +0100
jb benoit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ diff -Naur portage.py.sav portage.py
--- portage.py.sav 2005-11-17 15:32:20.0 +0100
+++ portage.py 2005-11-17 15:15:24.0 +0100
@@ -3866,6 +3866,42 @@
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:01:38 -0600
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 07:36:05PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Okay, I wrote a small patch that handles everything supported by
/etc/portage except bashrc (package.mask, package.unmask,
package.keywords, package.use,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:47:40 +0100
jb benoit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
- Doesn't work with binpkgs (though that's probably also a problem in
getmaskingstatus() itself)
- there is more than keyword and p.mask for masking (profiles)
- the function name is misleading
Anthony Gorecki wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
I wouldn't mind having a feature like this. I would provide a way for
automatic unmasking tools to keep their changes separate and easily
reversible.
This seems to be borderlining on being unnecessary, in my
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:50:47 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 03:30 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
wrote
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
maillog: 16/11/2005-15:43:25(-0800): Zou, Yixiong types
I read it somewhere that the category name mycat has to be an entry
listed in /usr/portage/profiles/categories. I added mycat into the
categories, still the same result. Plus, this doesn't make sense
because the
Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 11/16/05, Zou, Yixiong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to create a gentoo package for some internal software. I
followed
several Howtos online and created the ebuild file for my package. But
somehow
ebuild always return me the same error over and over again:
Hi,
Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into
make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen)
different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing
in CFLAGS and CHOST (only exception is make.conf.mac which isn't used
anymore in
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote:
From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and
a quick scan shows
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:52:28 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Hi,
Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into
make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words:
fourteen) different
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:42:56 -0600
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote:
Replace 2.1.0 with 2.2.0 and I'll agree.
Skipping 2.1 accomplishes what?
Avoid any possible
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:25:33 +0100
Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:37:15 + Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| For example, there's no real reason why GLSA's couldn't been
delivered | via this at some point (although I'd
by Homer Parker)
Discussion
- Portage Tree signing status (requested by Marius Mauch)
- QA session
Ehm, I didn't request anything. Grant did ;)
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:19:15 +0100
Grobian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10-11-2005 21:33:48 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
We need to establish *one* authoritative source of news. We can't
do that if we simultaneously launch several sources of news all at
once. We have to launch *one*
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:58:14 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feedback from people who have something useful to say would be very
much welcomed, assuming of course that they've read the GLEP.
Things that I think are generally ok as is:
- news item format
- news item distribution
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:50:42 +0100
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 04 of November 2005 02:50 Lance Albertson wrote:
After reading through the heated thread, I have yet to see your
valid point of pushing xml for such a simple task. All I have seen
is two 3rd grade kids arguing
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 20:58:57 -0600
Jason Pepas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I have been going over how class config works in portage, but I
am still unsure of where to fit in the changes I would need.
I suppose I'll lay out the structure of what I had in mind and ask
y'all for advice.
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Sunday 23 October 2005 00:08, Marius Mauch wrote:
- needs better integration of isolated-functions.sh, probably should be
a separate patch (Brian?)
Not sure what you mean by better as I'm happy with the current method. Other
than the hardcoded path, it should work fine
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:14:40 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cheapness is exactly why I was questioning. Consider:
# svn cp tags/2.0.53 branches/2.0.53-branch
# cd branches/2.0.53-branch
# patch something-that-needs-fixing-now.patch
# svn ci
# cd ../..
# svn cp
First patch for elog integration in 2.0.x adding the basic elog
framework without the actual modules, config samples or other docs. The
code is mostly unchanged from the 2.1 branch and only lightly tested
on 2.0. Known issues with this patch:
- needs better integration of isolated-functions.sh,
This patch depends on elog_base (although it doesn't break anything
without it) and adds the actual logging modules. I've just atatched the
files completely, as a) svn diff doesn't play nice with generating
new-file diffs and b) they are just new files to be dropped in
pym/elog_modules (together
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for
Petteri Räty wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
same way as package.mask already works. Please, enlighten me.
Because package.use is implemented in a very
Jason Stubbs wrote:
After thinking about it, incremental feature creep does seem like the best
way to go at this late stage in 2.0's life. The problem is how to guage what
is and what is not more trouble than worth. Perhaps adhering to the kernel's
rule of Separate each logical change into its
Jakub Moc wrote:
11.10.2005, 10:52:35, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
flames...
Nothing, of
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:00:56 +
Alec Joseph Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI elog is implemented in CVS ( 2.1 ). When it will be released is
anyone's guess.
2.1? probably never, but elog will almost certainly be backported to
the 2.0 branch.
Marius
--
Public Key at
Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:37:43AM +0300, Marius Mauch wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 06:52:24PM -0500, Mikey wrote:
http://codeserver.wherever.net/pman/package_ids.php?action=packageid=10105
[snip bits about wget screwing up]
Others have
Mikey wrote:
On Sunday 09 October 2005 19:32, Marius Mauch wrote:
Well, ebuilds (and therefore eclasses) can't override anything related
to the fetch process (other than setting RESTRICT and/or SRC_URI). Your
problem has to be fixed server side (assuming you want a proper
solution), as portage
Mikey wrote:
The utility that fetches packages via emerge mangles the resulting file
name, as well as wget (does emerge use wget?). When fetching the above url,
emerge or wget saves the file as package_ids.php?action=packageid=10105.
This of course throws a wrench into my use of custom ebuilds
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 26 September 2005 12:01 am, Andrew Muraco wrote:
1) would ?arch become the old ~arch, if it was implemented?
2) would people actually try to run a full ?arch system?
3) #2, would it be possible without breakage?
if we went with a testing mask it'd mean that
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:42:49 +0900
Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only think of a couple of solution:
- Remove these unnecessary checks completely: Follow the example of
all other distributions and do not depend on anything kernel-ish for
such packages. A recompilation of
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:51:16 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, we just add commercial to LICENSE in the ebuild, and (if
wanted or necessary) add check_license
$licese_required_to_be_accepted to pkg_setup on the ebuild. While
this will break completely interactive
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:57:37AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:17:39AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
Don't mind moving them, BUT
- metadata is a stupid location for them for several reasons
On 08/30/05 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 01:03 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:42:25AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Hola all.
Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
arch.list
categories
use.desc
On 08/30/05 Brian Harring wrote:
What's the point of using anyway?
Simplicity in the code right now, since stable will *never* support
anything but eapi0. It's an easy check.
You really want to tell me that you consider
if myeapi 0:
as simpler than
EAPI_COMPATIBLE=0
if myeapi
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
Somebody care to split a masking patch for stable rather then the
emerge modifications I did btw? I'm poking at ensuring an eapi=0
portage's generated eapi=1 cache entries are not used by an eapi=1
portage without a forced regeneration atm.
Well, the
On 08/26/05 Kristian Benoit wrote:
On the EAPI subject Brian just brought back, I had this idea that we
could use the same approch XML took with HTML.
The ebuild could define which EAPI to use, but instead beiing a
version, the EAPI would be an ebuild API definition. The equivalent to
the
On 08/27/05 Brian Harring 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, and into the
existing metadata directory personally, due
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
That said, it won't work anyways; the aliasing has to occur within the
python side else it'll screw up the depgraph (realized that just a few
seconds ago) :)
So... back to making a lot of noise, or some python side support for
aliasing use flags.
On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:17:39AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
Don't mind moving them, BUT
- metadata is a stupid location for them for several reasons
being?
metadata already holds global repository information, time of
repositories generation
On 08/27/05 Brian Harring wrote:
Hola.
Attached is a patch that
A) adds EAPI awareness to portage; mainly, if 0, complain and be
unwilling to merge the package
Actually I just wrote also a patch for it (for 2.1), however instead of
complaining I just masked them (without unmask
On 08/23/05 Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:41:35 +0100
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
portage-ng is dead. There is a rewrite going on, but it'll take a
while
to get anywhere near usable.
I searched a bit to find information about portage-ng but the only
On 08/22/05 Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
1- Can I RSYNC_EXCLUDE everything except profiles and have an usable
system?
Define usable. As only portage uses the tree it would be the only
thing that might break.
2- There was a portagesql effort, is it dead?
As far as I know, yes. But it wasn't what
On 08/23/05 Nick Rout wrote:
I am not sure how to deal with this problem.
Lost Labyrinth is a game I am trying to write an ebuild for. I am
stuck on downloading, which isn't very encouraging.
The URL to download the gane is:
http://laby.toybox.de/download15/
which redirects to the
On 08/21/05 Alec Warner wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Was talking with Brian about the build environment and how settings
were to be passed into the build environment.
Essentially three scenarios were presented.
1) The full environment is passed to the build
Carlos Silva wrote:
I know that portage team is closed for new features :) but this just
came to my mind just 5 minutes ago and seemed good enought to try.
Let's just think that portage handles 5 version of package foo and foo
has http://www.foo.org; and homepage, GPL-v2 license and foo just
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:26:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot
of the ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving
into the tree once signing
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:03:13 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:40 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
If you read it again you'll notice the {pre,post} part ;)
IIRC that's already in HEAD for /etc/portage/bashrc, so extending
it to $PORTDIR shouldn't
Hi,
For all those drooling over their keyboards after reading this topic,
please also read the rest of this mail.
So yes, finally a portage-2.1 pre-pre-pre-alpha version is out and in
the tree (p.masked). However, it's not the 2.1 that some of you might
expect as it doesn't have a new dep
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
Hi,
Currently the files that accompany our release files (ISO images,
stages) are named in the following scheme:
*.asc for GPG signatures
*.md5 for MD5 sums
while the files that accompany our portage snapshots are named:
*.gpgsig for GPG
Anthony Gorecki wrote:
In the future, it might be helpful to post those patches in-line, along with
the message. That way no-one needs to open a separate program to view the
changes.
There are mailreaders without an internal textviewer? I have a few
problems believing that. I'd strongly
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
package
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:05:09 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
regardless, i think this should be done on a global scale rather
than per-package ... why not add some bashrc-foo to your profile ?
Don't think like
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
point
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:21:35 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to introduce the following security policy for web-based
apps. If there are no objections, every new web-based app will have
to conform to the policy before it can be added to the tree. Every
existing
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 00:00:38 +0300
Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 01 July 2005 23:19, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
It also makes any attempts to parse ebuilds without using bash (our
current strategy) a lot harder (actually causing bash
reimplementation)
You mean you're actually
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:46:31 -0600
Jason Wever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
In the past, a few folks that aren't part of the SPARC herd had
communicated that they had the ability to actually test packages on
SPARC hardware and been giving the blessing of the SPARC team to
keyword
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:09:41 +0200
Haas Wernfried [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
With reference to the recent thread about this GLEP's draft [1]
we're resurrecting the discussion and would like keep you updated
on the latest changes:
1) The term developer has been dropped and replaced by
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:18:30 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I prefer avoid having to mess with profiles in this way, as
our profile already needs a lot more loving than the base ones as atm
we don't inherit from them (profiles in overlays can't inherit
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:42:51 +0200
Thomas Matthijs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Marius Mauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Thomas Matthijs wrote:
# regenworld
run that command occassionally as sometimes things that get
emerged for whatever reason are not part of the world file
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:41:59 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:26:40 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They can inherit from $PORTDIR profiles, assuming that you know
t he values of $PORTDIR and $PORTDIR_OVERLAY, just figure
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:47:35 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) main problem is libiconv, but this is required just by a few
packages (gettext, glib2, bogofilter) the other uses it with gettext;
as they doesn't require a specific version, we can also add dev-libs/
Andrej Kacian wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:03:44 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that not a win/win situation? Where exactly is the bureaucracy?
Maybe I used wrong term - I was thinking about time and effort spent on
setting up and maintaining the ircbot. I've been in
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I think you know what I mean. By definition portage is allready there for
the ebuild to be evaluated. It is therefore unnecessary to specify it as
a dependency.
Sure I understood that. However, your post said exactly the opposite:
... building does not depend on portage
Thomas Matthijs wrote:
# regenworld
run that command occassionally as sometimes things that get emerged
for whatever reason are not part of the world file AND not a direct
dependancy of something and so the emerge -avuDN world would not check
-- running this command will check and add these
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:05:21 +0900
Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
might I suggest not kicking #gentoo-dev visitors who ask for
voice to speak to the devs without a 'rtfm go get a gentoo job'
smokescreen ?
My intentions in this email were regarding the above worries about
things.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:32:06 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think gcc-config should depend on portage at all. Or does it
actually use portage services. In any case it should be an RDEPEND,
as building does not depend on portage being there.
Hmm, how do you build an
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:19:17 +0800
Dulmandakh Sukhbaatar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all.
Where I can find unofficial gentoo development guide? It isn't
present where it was week ago. I need it as soon as possible.
see this link:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-344544-highlight-.html
Andrej Kacian wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:37:53 -0700
Drake Wyrm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always thought that they were to keep 'emerge unmerge' from removing
an empty directory, but I could be wrong...
That, and to keep portage from removing empty directories during the
post-merge
Alin Nastac wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
CVS doesn't support symlinks.
But subversion does ;)
Doesn't help here.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
snip
As for the new metadata variable, I think it should be a complement to
RESTRICT (not limited to prefix). As the name for this var I suggest
SUPPORTS, so for an ebuild that can
Brian Harring wrote:
Clarify please :)
Offhand, I don't see why a bin repo for a home target isn't viable,
along with a vdb repo in the same location. It's a bit trickier, but
I suspect it might be a bit more flexible in the long run.
I don't think that's possible without a lot of hacking for
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, say we use ICANINSTALLTO (name!). Then if we have prefix as the
destination, there's no problem, because we know that all our deps are
installed in ${PREFIX} as well. However, if we're installing to home,
we need to know where our deps are -- for home installs I'm
On Mon, 2 May 2005 21:48:10 -0500
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clarify why portage, which _does_ function as a secondary pkg manager
(collision-protect wouldn't exist otherwise) wouldn't suffice if
someone gave enough of a damn to do the work?
Off-topic, but collision-protect
Hi,
just noticed that there are a number of circular moves in the global
update files (PORTDIR/profiles/update/*). This is a bad thing as they
cause some issues with etc-update and package.* files, see
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-325721.html for an example.
Currently the following
Hi everybody,
As some of you may already know Nicholas Jones (carpaski), the portage
lead till now, stepped down of that job recently for various reasons.
This mail is intended to let people know how things will be handled in
the future in portage-land.
First, there will be no single replacement
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:09:02 -0700
Kaarthik Sivakumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that would give me the source tarballs for *all* the packages. I
guess I just want sources for stuff like glibc, utils like find, grep,
etc which tend to form the base OS. I could do that on a per-package
401 - 491 of 491 matches
Mail list logo
