Hi all,
I got this idea and I'm not sure if it would be feasible, but if it is,
it could lead to many Cool Things:
Is there any reason not to have dynamic libraries for most of the
changes made by USE flags, that are used only if present, and then the
USE flags would just specify whether to compile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| The new categories are x11-apps, x11-proto and x11-drivers. Of these,
| the name for x11-proto (the protocol headers) is debatable. The upstream
| module they're all in is called "proto," and their pkg-config (*.pc)
| files ar
On Monday 01 August 2005 10:43 pm, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> chillispot at least is not wrong. If USE="pic" is set, it compiles _only
> with_ -fPIC, ommiting to compile files twice and effectivly telling
> libtool not to produce a normal static library.
not really
chillispot doesnt build/install any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
|>your USE=pic example is wrong, it does not change CFLAGS (and if your
|>package does, it is broken)
|
|
| and i just reviewed all packages which declare IUSE=pic and they were
pretty
| much all wrong:
[...]
| chillispot
chill
Hello.
After some weeks of testing, and solving several issues to get
the gwydion-dylan compiler working, ive finally committed it
to the tree (package masked of course).
Briefly explained, the d2c compiler needs to be bootstrapped,
and they use Mindy (a interpreter) to do it, and need to be run
On Monday 01 August 2005 10:07 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2005 09:22 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> > Many people do not like the fact that a USE flag changes CFLAGS.
> > Although there are other USE flags that do this too ( pic comes to mind
> > in a couple ebuilds, checkpassword fe
On Monday 01 August 2005 09:22 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> Many people do not like the fact that a USE flag changes CFLAGS.
> Although there are other USE flags that do this too ( pic comes to mind
> in a couple ebuilds, checkpassword fex ) they are a minority compared to
> debug.
your USE=pic exampl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh yeah, it's back, for the 6th time :)
I've provided links to all the other discussions I could find on
theaimsgroup in case you want to take a trip down memory lane.
Hopefully I'll summarize the previous discussion well enough that you
don't have t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:23:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > Hrm. Is this going to be sanely doable by your average dev? How
> | > long a dep string would we be having in typical cases? How about in
> |
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 07:40:03PM -0400, Kumba wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >Oops, yes, the 064 release fixed that. Sorry for not updateing the
> >bugzilla entry. That is now taken care of.
>
> Just out of curiosity, know what happened to cause that?
Unaligned data accesses. Was fixed by:
ht
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:23:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Hrm. Is this going to be sanely doable by your average dev? How
| > long a dep string would we be having in typical cases? How about in
| > bad cases?
| >
| The more formal the depstring, the quicker the packages b
Greg KH wrote:
Oops, yes, the 064 release fixed that. Sorry for not updateing the
bugzilla entry. That is now taken care of.
Just out of curiosity, know what happened to cause that?
--Kumba
--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
"Such is oft the course of deeds that
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 07:23:32PM -0400, Kumba wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >Ok, 064-r1 version of udev does this for tty and console devices. The
> >old devfs names are now gone. Because of this, and some other config
> >file tweaks, starting udev now only takes .5 seconds on my old, slow
> >lapto
Greg KH wrote:
Ok, 064-r1 version of udev does this for tty and console devices. The
old devfs names are now gone. Because of this, and some other config
file tweaks, starting udev now only takes .5 seconds on my old, slow
laptop, instead of 5 seconds. Hopefully others will also see such an
in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:54:04 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | | Well... What I was mainly thinking (and assuming we don't have the
> | | new virtuals system by whenever this beco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:54:04 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | But see, that's the thing; no packages should just generally say "Give
| | me the X libraries" other than temporari
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:12:52AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:18:12AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if
> > > you use the "default" kernel name of a
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:54:04 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | Well... What I was mainly thinking (and assuming we don't have the
| | new virtuals system by whenever this becomes relevant) is that a
| | metapackage could represent, say, "the core x11 libr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Well... What I was mainly thinking (and assuming we don't have the new
| virtuals system by whenever this becomes relevant) is that a metapackage
| could represent, say, "the core x11 libraries as provided by xorg". This
| is
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:23:06 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Your suggestion of adding a few new virtuals is a good idea, but I
| think the metabuilds for libraries, drivers, etc. can substitute for
| it. It's not clear to me that there are many common configurations
| that could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:54:27 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| | Until such time as that becomes possible for everyone to do, the
| | x11-libs metabuild will PROVIDE virtual/x11. But realize that not
| | eve
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:54:27 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Until such time as that becomes possible for everyone to do, the
| x11-libs metabuild will PROVIDE virtual/x11. But realize that not
| everybody will have or want all the X libraries installed, when they
| only need a f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(This is an expanded, updated version of a recent blog post, so some of
you may have already seen parts of it.)
Background: Upstream is splitting up the monolithic X.Org X11 release
into a huge number of modular releases, the combination of which wil
Catching up on your inbox, foser? ;-)
foser wrote:[Mon Aug 01 2005, 01:06:10PM EDT]
> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 14:46 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > foser wrote:[Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
> > > Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
> > > a an alphabeti
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 14:46 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> foser wrote: [Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
> > Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
> > a an alphabetical list but as words in a sentence, there is no abc
> > order in sentences.
>
> Foser, no offense int
On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I especially need to know which profiles are valid for projects
like embedded, hardened, and *bsd.
Here is the state of macos profiles:
Valid:
default-darwin/
- macos/10.3
- macos/10.4
- macos/progressive
Deprecated:
default-macos/*
On Monday 01 August 2005 16:46, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 20:21 +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid
> > > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 20:21 +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid
> > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone
> > stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list o
On Monday 01 August 2005 10:15 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > - x86/linux24 (deprecated)
> > - x86/linux26 (deprecated)
>
> What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking
> against them?
>
> I would think we would, but
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> - x86/linux24 (deprecated)
> - x86/linux26 (deprecated)
What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking
against them?
I would think we would, but what do the rest of you think?
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering
On Monday 01 August 2005 02:07, R Hill wrote:
> Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >>
> >> Are you having a tough time filtering out enhancements in your queries
> >> or something? I don't understand how feature requests could possibly
> >> interfere with anything besides other
31 matches
Mail list logo
