On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:03:13PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen (04 Nov 2010)
> # Over 20 open bugs, http://tinyurl.com/2wurbtz
> # Bugs assigned to a proxy maintainer without CVS access
> # Every package outdated, bug 340007
> # Removal in 30 days
The bug 340007 you're citin
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 03:13:36PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Christian Birchinger wrote:
> >But no matter how wrong i think it is, i usualy respect the
> >upstreams wishes.
>
> If upstream is wrong I think we should help them...
Upstream thinks it's a bad idea not to give the user any possibil
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
make sense to change the extension because a env-variable set or a
comment are more natural met
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:14:11 +0200
> Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Except that currently, the ebuild file isn'
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Except that currently, the ebuild file isn't opened for read. So it's
> not in memory at all.
Why would you need the EAPI before the time when you actually want to
interpret the contents?
OG.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org ma
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:01:00PM +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> >Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
>
> Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
>
> 1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
> avoid that for various reasons, all 100%
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 04:31:59AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 16 Apr 2008
> 18:24:05 +0100:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:17:51 +0200
> > Frank Gruellich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was not able to create a
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:18:35PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500:
>
> > I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who
> > knows the "correct" way to admin unix doesn
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:46:56PM -0400, Thomas Tuttle wrote:
> Questions? Comments?
You're going to have a hell of a fun time to answer the question of
how a post is judged "good" or "spam".
OG.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:24:32PM -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
> the time.
"Any dev can moderate" is an illusion. Most non-dev messages are
perfectly reasonable ones and I'm pretty sure the smart devs know how
to handle fi
I've had decided to do an ebuild for praat[1] as my first
contribution. I checked in bugzilla just in case there was one added
recently, and I found out there was one since two years and half[2],
regularly kept up to date even.
So my question is, what could I do to help having it end up in the
of
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 03:30:37AM +0300, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> but i think linus is too biased against other scms...
He is biased against technical choices done in other SCMs, which is
not exactly the main thing. Specifically, from what I can see, he
hates:
- centralization (cvs, svn...)
12 matches
Mail list logo
