On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:44:33PM -0100, Carlos Silva wrote
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
I'm not a C programmer, let alone a developer, so this may be a stupid
question, but here
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Ole Markus With olemar...@gentoo.org (05 Mar 2013)
# Conflicts with app-misc/pfm (bug 460222). Upstream gone.
# Masked for removal in 30 days.
dev-php/PEAR-PEAR_PackageFileManager_Cli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/03/13 08:01, Walter Dnes wrote:
If user-space drivers are really that slow, we may as well stick
with VESA as a fallback.
You misunderstood something.
«Please realize that this article describes the _in kernel_
interfaces, not the
On 5 March 2013 03:41, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:35:24 +
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
A number of packages in the tree are maintained by a Gentoo developer
and a user. As a result of which, we are unable to monitor these
packages in
2013/3/4 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu:
virtual/c++-tr1-functional
virtual/c++-tr1-memory
virtual/c++-tr1-type-traits
Given that these will have a (bad) GCC dependnecy and a boost dependency
on them, should we just drop them?
Sounds like best solution, so i would go for it.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:09:47 +
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
If there is at least one Gentoo developer in metadata.xml we assume
the package is properly maintained by him so
we never touch it.
Sounds fine. I for one am converted (and the packages I maintain in
that fashion).
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:47:09PM +0800, Greg KH wrote
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:44:33PM -0100, Carlos Silva wrote
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
I'm not a C programmer, let
Hi,
Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several
categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining
easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
So, two questions:
1) Do you agree with adding new category?
2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft,
2013/3/6 Maxim Koltsov maksbo...@gentoo.org:
1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Yep :)
2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, leechcraft-base or anything else?
Personally I'd prefer app-leechcraft (or maybe app-lc to save some
typing). I doubt there will be anything but that single
