On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 20:40 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 19:29, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > How will you deal with the packages that build against glibc iconv but
> > not against the separated?
> I'll patch them, if the
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 18:02 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Okay now that virtual/x11 introduced the new generation's virtuals, the
> decision of waiting to have virtuals for iconv and libintl can be considered
> concluded, and we might start adding them, right? :D
>
> Proposed virtual
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 02:29 +0100, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
> possible performance boost they could give.
>
> The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
> running
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:56 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> >
> > So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here.. would it
> > be worth the time spent on this?
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html
>
> looks interesting personally id like to see how it acts on kde a
Hello,
I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
possible performance boost they could give.
The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
running system than prelink is, on the other hand, it does require a
more intrusive surgery into the core sy
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 12:50 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug
> info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of
> stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug
> executables in
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:55 -0800, Michael Marineau wrote:
> However changing this will also lead to many supprises and tick off many
> users who don't know why a bunch of flags just vanished. How about we
> leave the feature in portage but remove auto from USE_ORDER in the
> 2006.0 profile and pu
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:11 -0500, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>
> So, please join me in a hearty Welcome Back for Michael Cummings.
Yey! Great news :)
//Spider ,
Who's too fed up with bureaucrazy to willingly submit himself to
devrel. :-)
--
begin .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in p
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 20:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:35:20 +0200 Krzysiek Pawlik
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Marco Morales wrote:
> | > I think "none" could be the better workaround imho.
> |
> | I vote for "none" too :) It clearly states, that HOMEPAGE is missin
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 22:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> | Why? Because they just install the hard RDEPEND, so if you have a system
> | installed from binaries, you get working linking
> - - Binary packages don't require the header packages.
Theese are the main cause of pain in situations like this.
Why? Because they just install the hard RDEPEND, so if you have a system
installed from binaries, you get working linking, but nothing will
compile for the system.
Theese level
okay, this came up in a discussion today, and I figured it was time to
mention something about it here:
If your package, libFoo, installs .h files that directly require header
files from libBar, then you have a Runtime dependency on libBar, not
only a compile time dependency
Why? Because lib
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:12 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Monday 24 October 2005 15:03, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > (usually we only stab people, and that's mostly due to bad puns like
> > those of lu_zero ;)
> Strange that I'm still arou
Welcome aboard, We don't bite.. Much.
(usually we only stab people, and that's mostly due to bad puns like
those of lu_zero ;)
//Spider
--
begin .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
signature.asc
Description: This is a digi
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > >>
> > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
> > >> AutoUSE is the same way, p
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 00:11 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The first release candidate was announced roughly 12 hours ago. And
> fitting the Gentoo you know as up to the minute, so far beyond the
> bleeding edge that it's wearing a Band-Aid befo
16 matches
Mail list logo
