[gentoo-dev] New apache stuff in testing -> please package.mask it

[Cc'd -core in case some devs read that more] Hi folks, I've filed a bug[1] requesting that ebuilds with updated apache stuff (anything using the new apache-module or depend.apache eclass/the new install layout) be package.mask'd due to the regressions and breakages in testing. I may have mis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: > Why do you have to > push all these improvements on the current stable line of apache (2.0.x) ? Why > can't these changes just be used in the upcoming alpha/beta releases and > totally > be implemented by the time they move to

Re: [gentoo-dev] (media-video) ffmpeg and a52dec

Vibhav Garg wrote: [Wed Apr 20 2005, 05:34:11PM EDT] > I am getting the following error while emerging > ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20050226-r3 on amd64 Vibhav, I brought up the question originally because Chris White is no longer a developer. I think that problems merging ffmpeg should be filed as bugs

Re: [gentoo-dev] (media-video) ffmpeg and a52dec

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am getting the following error while emerging ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20050226-r3 on amd64 xvidff.c:682: error: `XVID_VOP_INTER4V' undeclared (first use in this function) xvidff.c:683: error: `XVID_VOP_HQACPRED' undeclared (first use in this function)xvidff.c

[gentoo-dev] perlmagick phase out

If the subject got your attention, then you might be interested :) After a long time of fighting to keep versions and arch's in sync between imagemagick (parent) and perlmagick (sub-atom), not too mention a few bugs because of this separation, sekretarz and I have re-merged our efforts into a s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some new xorg ebuilds

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: > Is the modularization going to be handled much as the KDE splits were > handled? That is, as with KDE having both the multilithic (multi- due to > still having multiple category packages) and split ebuilds available for > 3.4, will xor

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

Elfyn McBratney wrote: [snip] > - have the newer apache ebuilds migrate from old-style to new-style config > (very hard to do, but possible) > > By the way, why not choose this occasion to switch using utf8 ? Not an expert in character collation and similar, I'm experimenting this: /etc/apach

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fox Package Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have in my bug list a rewrite of the fox packages written by Yaakov (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88924) . I want to spread the word and get some testing/comments for these before they go int

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

Christian Parpart wrote: > On Wednesday 20 April 2005 2:14 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > >>Christian Parpart wrote: >> >>>And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support >>>this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache >>>httpd 2.1 into the tree, so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:59 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:36, Christian Parpart wrote: > > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to > > support this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed > > apache httpd 2.1 into the tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 2:14 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > Christian Parpart wrote: > > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support > > this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache > > httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] is the appropriate forum to ask about the uclibc stages?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 james osburn wrote: > > is the appropriate forum to ask about the uclibc stages? > thanks > jim > > I'd imagine the embedded mailing list would be. http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml - -- Bork Bork Bork! Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ B

[gentoo-dev] is the appropriate forum to ask about the uclibc stages?

is the appropriate forum to ask about the uclibc stages? thanks jim -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Bug 89729] configure always print a warning message about possibly mistaking build system type

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 23:04, Paul Varner wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:52 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:27 am, Harald van DÄk wrote: > > > Perhaps > > > make.conf.example (that's provided by portage, right?) should include > > > CBUILD, assuming it doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Bug 89729] configure always print a warning message about possibly mistaking build system type

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:52 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:27 am, Harald van DÄk wrote: > > Perhaps > > make.conf.example (that's provided by portage, right?) should include > > CBUILD, assuming it doesn't cause problems? > > i'm afraid the possibility of users botchi

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Bug 89729] configure always print a warning message about possibly mistaking build system type

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:27 am, Harald van DÄk wrote: > Perhaps > make.conf.example (that's provided by portage, right?) should include > CBUILD, assuming it doesn't cause problems? i'm afraid the possibility of users botching this makes it not worth the effort better to keep the definition

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Bug 89729] configure always print a warning message about possibly mistaking build system type

Jason Stubbs wrote: > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89729 > > Who's bug is this? I was going to bounce it back to bug-wranglers, but I'm > guessing it would just bounce around after that. What's the cause? CHOST? If > someone wants to take ownership, go for it. Yep, that's CHOST. More

Re: [gentoo-dev] Video4Linux and linux headers

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > I think the only arch-specific ones I know on global are the > mmx/mmxex/mmx2/3dnow/3dnowex/sse flags. Maybe also "altivec"? -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

Christian Parpart wrote: > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support > this > in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache httpd 2.1 > into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the old shitty behavior > again. > > Seriousely, why did

[gentoo-dev] [Bug 89729] configure always print a warning message about possibly mistaking build system type

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89729 Who's bug is this? I was going to bounce it back to bug-wranglers, but I'm guessing it would just bounce around after that. What's the cause? CHOST? If someone wants to take ownership, go for it. Regards, Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Video4Linux and linux headers

On Tuesday 19 April 2005 22:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > erm i was trying to trick you into doing arch/os specific ones, not just os > specific :):) I think the only arch-specific ones I know on global are the mmx/mmxex/mmx2/3dnow/3dnowex/sse flags. I really don't know what other can be removed as

[gentoo-dev] Re: Some new xorg ebuilds

Henrik Brix Andersen posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:11:02 +0200: > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 11:15 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: >> Is there a list of "major" changes for X.Org 6.9.0 (or whatever >> release 6.8.99.* is leading to) somewhere? How far do you es

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: metadata cleaning

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 01:32, Torsten Veller wrote: > net-dns/djbdns If nobody wants this, I can take it, I'm using it on my systems. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64) http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ pgpxxEGKXlQeY.pgp Description: PGP si

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: metadata cleaning

Hello > app-doc/djbdns-man > net-dns/djbdns > net-nds/directoryadministrator I'll look into taking over these if nobody else steps up. Greets, Michael -- Gentoo Linux Developer using m0n0wall | http://hansmi.ch/ Hackers of the world, unite! pgpF0WY1CFuyU.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some new xorg ebuilds

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > >Some people have experienced font slowdowns. This is because of a > >/usr/share/fonts/fonts circular symlink that's a migration artifact. I > >just committed a fix for it, but feel free to simply de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:36, Christian Parpart wrote: > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to > support this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed > apache httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the > old shitty behavior agai

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: metadata cleaning

On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:32:58AM +0200, Torsten Veller wrote: > app-admin/cpu > net-misc/bridge-utils > net-misc/netdate I'll take these three, as I use them occasionally. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 ICQ#

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: metadata cleaning

On Wednesday 20 April 2005 03:32, Torsten Veller wrote: > The following packages are looking for a new home. > Right now they have no-herd and no maintainer: > > app-admin/apg i can take over this one. my favorite one. :-) -- voxus :wq pgpwEMsAlJmvx.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

On Tuesday 19 April 2005 10:51 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Tuesday 19 April 2005 21:45, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > > APR and APU are stand-alone and independent of apache, so there is no > > need to p.mask those libs. > > They do not coexist with the old apache2 properly as apache2 includes it's >