On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:37:09 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 06 March 2006 01:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > That's exactly it. It requires a client to look at and be able to
| > handle all other news items just to read a single item.
|
| Who says that the client should
On Monday 06 March 2006 01:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> That's exactly it. It requires a client to look at and be able to
> handle all other news items just to read a single item.
Who says that the client should do this? In my opinion doing so is an
improvement of the user experience, but not r
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:19:47 + Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Attached is the final draft.
And now, attached is the final final draft. The only change in this
version is to the behaviour of Display-If-Profile / `portageq
profile_used` -- now, an exact profile equivalence is used.
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 01:09:58 + Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Hm, that one needs clarifying. Do we even want it to be based upon
| > inherit path rather than filesystem path?
|
| If this is intended to replace deprected files one day I think we want
| (implementation isn't the prob
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:05:35 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 05:20:06 + Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | "* Portage must extend portageq to implement a command which
> | returns whether or not the profile used for a given repository ID
> | matc
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 05:20:06 + Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| "* Portage must extend portageq to implement a command which
| returns whether or not the profile used for a given repository ID
| matches a certain base path (e.g. portageq profile_used
| default-linux/sparc/sparc64/2004.3
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:19:47 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached is the final draft. No substantial changes since last time,
> just wording cleanups and a few clarifications. You'll be able to see
> it here in an hour or three (check the dates!):
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/p
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Unless there are any huge flaws found, I'd like this to be voted on by
>> the council -- looks like it'll have to wait until April's meeting to
>> fit in with the two weeks rule.
>
> may push council meeting back t
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unless there are any huge flaws found, I'd like this to be voted on by
the council -- looks like it'll have to wait until April's meeting to
fit in with the two weeks rule.
may push council meeting back to
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Unless there are any huge flaws found, I'd like this to be voted on by
> the council -- looks like it'll have to wait until April's meeting to
> fit in with the two weeks rule.
may push council meeting back to 3rd tuesday if people wish
-m
Attached is the final draft. No substantial changes since last time,
just wording cleanups and a few clarifications. You'll be able to see
it here in an hour or three (check the dates!):
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0042.html
Or you can try to read the attached RST source, but no moani
11 matches
Mail list logo
