Please review the following news item.
-
Title: bash-completion-2.1-r90
Author: Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: -MM-DD
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: app-shells/bash-completion-2.1-r90
Starting with
El lun, 13-10-2014 a las 11:35 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Please review the following news item.
[...]
The current eselect-bashcomp setup will *not* be migrated. It may be
necessary to rebuild packages installing completions after the upgrade,
and remove old configuration symlinks
On 13/10/14 05:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Please review the following news item.
-
Title: bash-completion-2.1-r90
Author: Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: -MM-DD
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:37:19AM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
On 13/10/14 05:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Please review the following news item.
-
Title: bash-completion-2.1-r90
Author: Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: -MM-DD
Revision: 1
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Many of our users do care what's going on, that's why they run gentoo,
and for those that don't, a bit of extra information won't hurt 'em.
Sure, though it may help to format things from a more actionable
standpoint. By all
Michał Górny wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
//Peter
pgpAbh_XiMjXl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I've got two obsolete packages masked currently: app-text/unix2dos and
app-doc/djbdns-man. Both of them block other stable packages,
app-text/dos2unix and net-dns/djbdns respectively.
Fortunately, both of them have had version/revision bumps since the
blocker so we can remove the blocker from the
(d)
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On 13 October 2014 17:58, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
I've got two obsolete packages masked currently: app-text/unix2dos and
app-doc/djbdns-man. Both of them block other stable packages,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
//Peter
Disregard previous fat-finger reply...
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
See my previous email:
3. Unlike in the past, there is no longer a
On 10/13/14 12:58, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I've got two obsolete packages masked currently: app-text/unix2dos and
app-doc/djbdns-man. Both of them block other stable packages,
app-text/dos2unix and net-dns/djbdns respectively.
Fortunately, both of them have had version/revision bumps since the
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:02:55 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/13/14 12:58, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I've got two obsolete packages masked currently: app-text/unix2dos
and app-doc/djbdns-man. Both of them block other stable packages,
app-text/dos2unix and
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:02:55 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/13/14 12:58, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I've got two obsolete packages masked currently: app-text/unix2dos
and app-doc/djbdns-man.
Hi,
In order to solve bug #503802 [1], I would like to add a
virtual/podofo-build package to pull in app-text/podofo and
dev-libs/boost. Then packages like app-text/calibre can put
virtual/podofo-build in DEPEND and app-text/podofo in RDEPEND. The
advantage of this approach is that it makes it
For compatibility and migration support, we've kept the old OpenLDAP
2.3.x ebuilds in the tree for nearly 5 years.
OpenLDAP-2.4.x first went to stable 2009/11/04.
package.mask has blocked net-nds/openldap-2.4.35 since 2014/03/20.
I think the time has come to fully remove 2.3.x series, and the
# Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org (13 Oct 2014)
# Does not build with current CLucene (bug 420195); dead upstream.
# No consumers in the tree. Masked for removal in 30 days.
dev-perl/Lucene
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
Rich Freeman wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
there is no longer a performance penalty
There is a severe behavioral penalty!
We think that most users will prefer to just leave everything enabled now.
I really do not want
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
I really do not want that to be chosen for me.
Opt-out is not cool. :(
Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc.
It always seemed pointless to me that there are a million bash
completion filters
On 10/14/14 05:22, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
For compatibility and migration support, we've kept the old OpenLDAP
2.3.x ebuilds in the tree for nearly 5 years.
And you better keep them for a while, because some of us are stuck with
2.3, and mixed operation (e.g. master 2.4, slaves 2.3) is not
Peter Stuge wrote:
There is a severe behavioral penalty!
Rich Freeman wrote:
I really do not want that to be chosen for me.
Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc.
Well, but see above - this is a huge change in behavior - I really
don't think that should be done
On Tue Oct 14 03:32:32 2014 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
there is no longer a performance penalty
There is a severe behavioral penalty!
We think that most
That is correct, although I was not aware of it at the time.
Shortly after submitting the patch, Brian Dolbec gave me some
useful feedback but I have not yet taken the time to implement it.
From skimming e-mail headers, though, it looks like the autounmask
feature is undergoing changes, so I'll
Hi,
22.09.14 20:38, Zac Medico написав(ла):
On 09/22/2014 05:44 AM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
Hi,
could we have possibility to disable some repoman checks in repo
configs? See e.g. https://github.com/gentoo-science/sci/issues/268
--
Jauhien
How about if we add a new field to
On 10/13/2014 02:37 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
Hi,
22.09.14 20:38, Zac Medico написав(ла):
On 09/22/2014 05:44 AM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
Hi,
could we have possibility to disable some repoman checks in repo
configs? See e.g. https://github.com/gentoo-science/sci/issues/268
--
24 matches
Mail list logo
