050421 Juha Varkki wrote:
> 050421 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons
>> and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke them
> Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> Why on earth are you taking it out? I use bc quite often actu
Gentoo is an OS that lets you install anything you want which is great,
but I ran across a problem with this today because of the lack of a
description on an xmms pluggin. Here is a link to a forum that has a
good description of the problem.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php
At 2005-04-22T08:38:22+0900, Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maillog: 21/04/2005-23:43:57(+0200): Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? types
> > Same for ieee1394, usually enables support for
> > media-plugins/libdc1394, sys-libs/libavc1394 and/or
> > sys-libs/libraw1394.
>
> Considering that a
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 19:26 -0400, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
> shouldn't be there, we can trim 250kb off of all our stages and
> liveCD's. Embedded gains 250kb off of their stuff as well. I just
Amen, brother.
This is something that most people forget. To some of us, every single
byte of spa
On Friday 22 April 2005 01:38, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Considering that a person rarely needs *both* libdc1394 and libavc1394,
> it would be even cooler to have *two* useflags.
Not always the same useflag enables both... sometimes they just enable support
for one or two of them (and not always bo
maillog: 21/04/2005-23:43:57(+0200): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> On Thursday 21 April 2005 23:29, Greg KH wrote:
> > Why is it a useflag at all? Does this mean I can create a new "usb"
> > flag? :):)
> There's already:
>
> usb - Adds USB support to applications that have optional USB suppo
If someone is willing to do the work and not fsck things royally I don't
see a big deal about it. If nothing in system depends on it then it
shouldn't be there, we can trim 250kb off of all our stages and
liveCD's. Embedded gains 250kb off of their stuff as well. I just
don't want to see gia
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Luis F. Araujo wrote:
>
>
>>Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package
>>than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds.
>>
>>
>
>So you think actually knowing what packages truly dep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package
> than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds.
So you think actually knowing what packages truly depend on is a bad idea?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
On Thursday 21 April 2005 23:29, Greg KH wrote:
> Why is it a useflag at all? Does this mean I can create a new "usb"
> flag? :):)
There's already:
usb - Adds USB support to applications that have optional USB support (e.g.
cups)
it usually enables support for libusb or other things like that.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
>>
>>
>>>bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
>>>Why on earth are you taking it out?
>>>I use bc quite often actually ..
>>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> There are currently 6 (7 after I'll commit new ffmpeg) ieee1394 use.local
> flags.
> I think this is worth moving it as a global useflag.
>
> Someone disagrees?
Why is it a useflag at all? Does this mean I can create a
There are currently 6 (7 after I'll commit new ffmpeg) ieee1394 use.local
flags.
I think this is worth moving it as a global useflag.
Someone disagrees?
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
pgpvbOTAhB5Om.pgp
De
On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
> > bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> > Why on earth are you taking it out?
> > I use bc quite often actually ..
>
> It's gonna be taken out of system,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
> bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> Why on earth are you taking it out?
> I use bc quite often actually ..
It's gonna be taken out of system, not removed from portage.
You can still emerge it if you want it, you'll j
bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
Why on earth are you taking it out?
I use bc quite often actually ..
-- Juha Varkki / dbg
On 4/21/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | we've had 'bc'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I've found a bug (and reverted) in the matrox driver.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCZ+
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because
| we've never actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in
| their scripts
Anyone still using ed-style patches rather than context or unified
d
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:06:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because we've never
> actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in their scripts
>
> psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical `emerge
> sy
we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because we've never
actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in their scripts
psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical `emerge
system` requires these ... that means i'd like to prune them and make packag
Daniel Goller wrote: [Sat Apr 16 2005, 06:26:23PM CDT]
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> im currently changing the boost build process so users who require boost
> only as a dependency of another app only get release versions,
> developers would get debug versions as well (another ~40-90MB var
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 23:11, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Any indication on the stability of the snapshots. I'm eager to try
> > out all the new sugar, but do want to keep a somewhat stable system.
>
> No guarantees one way or the other, but I'm using it as my regular X.
>
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 17:25, Christian Parpart wrote:
>
> I might be wrong, but... I do not think that this will be easily
> possible, because all modules would have to deel with this, too.
>
>
> Besides all this, suppose the case that we've an apache httpd 2.1-line
> would in the trees, someo
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:43:21PM +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> Seems, I've been speaking to the wrong people then. Anyways, this has
> prompted loads of bugs being fixed, which might mean apache will go stable
> instead.
Could you please see about a definitive list of bugs that are solely
du
On Thursday 21 Apr 2005 12:37, Paul Varner wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 05:48 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 05:48 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> 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
Donnie Berkholz posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:25:18 -0700:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Will xorg 6.9 (monolithic) and 7.0 (modularized) exist at the same
>> time?
>
> I haven't decided yet. Well-justified arguments one way or the other
> would be useful.
>
> Whateve
27 matches
Mail list logo
