On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:34:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| > | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11
| > | will make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed,
> | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just
> | institute a policy that no new packages can go into s
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom
> > "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old
> > style virtuals.
>
> Is that so? I guess this must be wr
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> | I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11 will
> | make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me.
>
> Why must it drag out for years? There's no difference in the speed of
> porting
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:16:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Where do they define "lots"? Many packages will legitimately pull in a
| large quantity of libs or apps that are not installed by someone
| emerging xorg-server, e.g.
Heck, add in a "non-ported-package" fake package ha
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:06:12PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 01:44, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Might I suggest this one just get shelved for a while?
>
> everything that gets shelved portage way stays that way for *quite* a while
If people don't give a damn about it,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks
| > that isn't the case...
|
| Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The
| atom "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific ve
Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom
> "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old
> style virtuals.
Is that so? I guess this must be wrong, then:
/usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:# Only have this for >=
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11
> | gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue
> | and think "Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pull
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > * The clean solution is the solution originally proposed to this
> | > list, and the reason we are using new style virtuals.
> |
> | No, this is wrong.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> note: for those who think they can argue for support of these features to
> be kept in Gentoo, you're barking up the wrong tree so dont waste your
> time -mike
So, um, when can we expect all hell to break loose? Just a quick check on
my laptop:
media-video/mjpegtools-1.8
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11
| gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue
| and think "Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pulled in here. I must have a
| packa
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Please contact me if you'd like to be one of these volunteers. Requirements:
>
> A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
> and would like to help
I've decided to give it a wait for a few days
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Possible, but we can't prove this one way or the other. Certainly very
> few modular X users have encountered apps that are still unported, as
> evidenced by very few remaining blockers on #112675. And there are a
> fairly large number of
... people using modular X already
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> * There is a clean upgrade solution available that will result in
> non-ported packages merely pulling in a load of extra unnecessary
> packages (that non-modular users have anyway).
>
> * The clean solution visibly illustrates that a package is unported.
> Users who are r
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:00:14 -0700 Joshua Baergen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | To be clear here: nothing will be broken. Xorg 7.0 will just not
> | provide virtual/x11 (and in fact blocks it), so there will be issues
> | with blocks showing up due to the upgrade path
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:00:14 -0700 Joshua Baergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| To be clear here: nothing will be broken. Xorg 7.0 will just not
| provide virtual/x11 (and in fact blocks it), so there will be issues
| with blocks showing up due to the upgrade path. Avoiding the upgrade
| (and b
Jason Wever wrote:
However if
packages are broken by this unmasking, it *will* be masked on SPARC
until such a time that this is fixed.
I'm not trying to be a party pooper here, but breaking the portage tree
should never be an acceptable answer.
Cheers,
To be clear here: nothing will
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:16, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 25/01/2006-00:14:13(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
>
> > What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> > present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of
> > sed (4.1.4
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:35:07 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if there are archs that would rather not move to modular X, that's
> their prerogative. The way I look at it is, sometimes change comes at
> a price. I really hope they aren't any archs I use though, because I
> ta
Wernfried Haas posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:52:29 +0100:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> We should aim for when it will be done in a way that minimizes the
>> breakage for all of our users. Yes, breakage will happen, but we
maillog: 25/01/2006-00:14:13(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed
> (4.1.4; ppc-macos has no problem as the 4.0.9 version uses gsed anyway).
Alec Warner posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:55:04 -0500:
> I guess the deal here is to not encourage this type of behavior;
> intentially breaking ~arch all the time and then making the arch teams
> "clean up" so to speak. I don't believe this to be the case h
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:17:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| And as there's no current way to fix the invokation of sed from
| within xargs or find, I'm not going to ask to change _all_ the calls
| of sed, but just the ones done through those two or other scripts and
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:33:32 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported
| > ebuild pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that
| > some people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages are
| > ported,
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 01:44, Brian Harring wrote:
> Might I suggest this one just get shelved for a while?
everything that gets shelved portage way stays that way for *quite* a while
i would be ok with implementing the back end (i.e. FEATURES=debug-build) but
putting off the front end (i.e.
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 17:56, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > - we add an emerge flag (say '--debug-build') which adds "nostrip" to
> > FEATURES and auto sets CFLAGS to DEBUG_CFLAGS and LDFLAGS to
> > DEBUG_LDFLAGS - portage will add sane debug defaults to make.globals
> > (D
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> > answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> > the only sane way to
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:13, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if you're implying we change all calls from 'sed' to 'gsed' in ebuilds
> > then the answer is no from my pov
>
> Can you at least read all my mails till the end before
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> the only sane way to do things, since certain other platforms ship
> retarded versions of sed.
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you're implying we change all calls from 'sed' to 'gsed' in ebuilds then
> the answer is no from my pov
Can you at least read all my mails till the end before replying next time? I
was referring mainly to the ones that calls sed from f
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
>> B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
>> and would like to help
> I'm up for being a volunteer here.
All devs who've volu
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:14:13 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments about this? (Please don't tell me to do a GLEP about this)
We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It'
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Better create the list from /var/db/pkg/* , world file only own the file
> explicitly merged, leaving out any dependencies (fex libraries).
Yes you're right - that is what I did last time I played with this.
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing li
maillog: 24/01/2006-12:25:01(-0500): Mark Loeser types
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
> > >
> > >
Alec Warner wrote:
> Well IMHO, you can do what you want and if any arch team doesn't like it
> they can always pmask it themselves in their arch profile. I will say I
> disagree with putting it into ~arch in the current state, although I
> agree with the rationale, and it IS your package(s), just
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 18:14, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed
> (4.1.4; ppc-macos has no problem as the 4.0.9 version uses gsed anyway).
if
A. Khattri wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Wernfried Haas wrote:
>
>> - adding buildpkg to your FEATURES builds binary packages, which makes
>> it faster to revert to older versions if the new one cause
>> problems.
>
> You could also use quickpkg, i.e. write a script that interates through
> w
I think the time is mature to ask for another step of Gentoo/ALT
improvement ;)
Currently ebuilds uses a sed syntax that's mostly GNU sed 4 compatible, but
incompatible with BSD sed for instance. This is usually fine as we aliases
sed to gsed in our bashrc so that the problem in sed calls is rem
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Darryl Wagoner wrote:
> I just did an emerge --update world which upgraded vpopmail. This update
> was bad news. It switched vpopmail over to mysql based auths and storage of
> email which I didn't have mysql or vpopmail setup for. This gave me a lot
> of grief. Just and F
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> - adding buildpkg to your FEATURES builds binary packages, which makes
> it faster to revert to older versions if the new one cause
> problems.
You could also use quickpkg, i.e. write a script that interates through
world and runs quickpkg on each
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> - we add an emerge flag (say '--debug-build') which adds "nostrip" to
> FEATURES
> and auto sets CFLAGS to DEBUG_CFLAGS and LDFLAGS to DEBUG_LDFLAGS
> - portage will add sane debug defaults to make.globals (DEBUG_CFLAGS="-O -g"
> and DEBUG_LDFLAGS="")
I'm having a tough
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>>So here's my plan: Before modular X enters ~arch, I will ensure that all
>>porting bugs blocking #112675 are closed. As new bugs are filed, I will
>>ensure that they are closed within 2 days, giving
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> So here's my plan: Before modular X enters ~arch, I will ensure that all
> porting bugs blocking #112675 are closed. As new bugs are filed, I will
> ensure that they are closed within 2 days, giving their maintainers that
> long to respond and close it themselves. After 2 d
Marius Mauch wrote:
> How about delaying it as long as n packages are ported per day? Kinda
> stupid idea, but it ensures that things won't get hold up due to
> unmaintained packages/inactive devs and might even speed the process up
> (that's an illusion probably).
if n>4, that was yesterday.
Do
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:32:00 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported
> >>> ebuild pull in all of modular X (
You can count me too :) AlfredoChristian Heim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:> > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND> > B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept
On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 13:32 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
> >>> pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes,
Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
>>> pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
>>> people will pick up unnecessary deps until al
Mike Doty wrote:
> I think before you go forward with something like this you should give a
> suitable period of warning, it's going to create a lot of bug work for
> all of us.
Have you seen my daily emails for the past week and a half? =)
I have the feeling that it will create the most work for
On Sunday 15 January 2006 19:54, George Shapovalov wrote:
> Ok, I got the answer from upstream and, as I expected, 2005 refers to the
> language specification and is not a release version. Upstream in fact is
> undecided at this point on what naming/versioning scheme it is going to
> use, so we nee
On Saturday 21 January 2006 00:25, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:10:02AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that depends, does your code actually have things like
> > #ifdef DEBUG
> >
> > #endif
>
> And likewise your code should NOT have some logic like the following in
>
Chris White wrote:
> On Monday 23 January 2006 10:06, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>> Here there is a guide on howto switch to the slotted versions of MySQL.
>> It's a first draft and to be totally usable some repoman commit are needed.
>
> You're probably better of putting this in bugzilla and assignin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
>
> Yes, some packages are going to break. But I intend to keep this to a
> minimum on packages people care about, as measured by the existence of
> an open porting
24.1.2006, 19:36:49, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> 2 (already implemented) things you may find useful (unless you know
> them already of course):
> - adding buildpkg to your FEATURES builds binary packages, which makes
> it faster to revert to older versions if the new one cause
> problems.
> - di
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> We should aim for when it will be done in a way that minimizes the
> breakage for all of our users. Yes, breakage will happen, but we can wait
> until its down to a more reasonable value.
And we probably should announce somewhere that
Lares Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I did some rough calculations and we are porting about 29 pkgs/day.
> At this rate it will take roughly 30 days to have all packages ported to
> ModX.
>
> spyderous wants it tomorrow,
> HalycOn wants it when all is ported.
I didn't say all of it ported. I
2 (already implemented) things you may find useful (unless you know
them already of course):
- adding buildpkg to your FEATURES builds binary packages, which makes
it faster to revert to older versions if the new one cause
problems.
- dispatch-conf does a great job for the configuration files,
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:25 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > The problem with that is that it removes all motivation to ever port the
> > packages. They'll just stay that way forever, where forever means "until
> > I threaten to remove that from the virtual," in which case we'll be in
> > the same sce
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 17:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 16:23, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> > All of the KDE stuff is the upcoming 3.5.1 release which we are working
> > on in p.mask until the official release. There *are* ebuilds for all this
> > stuff in the
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:12:45 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I said earlier, we'd like to get rid of the nasty auto-use
> feature, including the support for the USE_ORDER variable. Right now
> we intend this for 2.0.54 (might not be the final version number)
> unless th
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:12:38 +0900
Kalin KOZHUHAROV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> During the last many months, more than once an idea occured in my
> mind, so I decided to share it.
>
>
> 2006-01-25T01:34 kalin $ dd if=/dev/brain of=gentoo-dev bs=1
> count=3292
>
> Do you think it w
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
> >
> > What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuil
Hi all.
During the last many months, more than once an idea occured in my mind, so I
decided to share it.
2006-01-25T01:34 kalin $ dd if=/dev/brain of=gentoo-dev bs=1 count=3292
Do you think it will be good to have something like a snapshot of the
installed packages?
Something that will help wh
Rene Zbinden wrote:
> I am writing an ebuild for a program written in perl. This program has
> the dependency of gnuplot but with the png flag enabled. What is the
> gentoo way to enable this USE Flag for gnuplot when I emerge my program.
>
There is no "active" way, you could only check if the fl
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 11:27, Rene Zbinden wrote:
> I am writing an ebuild for a program written in perl. This program has
> the dependency of gnuplot but with the png flag enabled. What is the
> gentoo way to enable this USE Flag for gnuplot when I emerge my program.
http://www.gentoo.org/pro
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:27:35 +0100
Rene Zbinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am writing an ebuild for a program written in perl. This program
> has the dependency of gnuplot but with the png flag enabled. What is
> the gentoo way to enable this USE Flag for gnuplot when I emerge my
> program.
i
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:45:40 -0500
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was attempting to be helpful and filter out valid packages from the
> list. I could have been an ass and been like "Yo I think
> package.mask is bloated go clean it" and not given a list at all, but
> that is not very
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 17:27 +0100, Rene Zbinden wrote:
> I am writing an ebuild for a program written in perl. This program has
> the dependency of gnuplot but with the png flag enabled. What is the
> gentoo way to enable this USE Flag for gnuplot when I emerge my program.
There is no way to aut
On 1/24/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please have a look and see if any of the packages are yours. Entries in
> package.mask should have a corresponding ebuild in the tree somewhere.
> I'd like to see the number of entries chopped by a fair margin.
I masked prelude stuff so that
I am writing an ebuild for a program written in perl. This program has
the dependency of gnuplot but with the png flag enabled. What is the
gentoo way to enable this USE Flag for gnuplot when I emerge my program.
cheers
rene
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 15:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 16:23, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> > All of the KDE stuff is the upcoming 3.5.1 release which we are working
> > on in p.mask until the official release. There *are* ebuilds for all this
> > stuff in the
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 23:06 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Earlier tonight, I discussed with halcy0n our differing opinions of the
> need for modular X to enter ~arch and break trees for some ~arch users.
> In my opinion, this is acceptable and beneficial, as ~arch users should
> already be those
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:17, Alec Warner wrote:
I figured it was time for a bit of cleaning... I ended up writing a
really crappy script for stable to do a check of whether package.mask
entries were really referencing anything or not. Luckily Brian was able
to
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:17:24 -0500
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I figured it was time for a bit of cleaning... I ended up writing a
really crappy script for stable to do a check of whether package.mask
entries were
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 16:23, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> All of the KDE stuff is the upcoming 3.5.1 release which we are working on
> in p.mask until the official release. There *are* ebuilds for all this
> stuff in the tree right now. So that has chopped the number of entries by a
> fair margi
Alec Warner wrote:
Please have a look and see if any of the packages are yours.
It would probably be easier if you added the maintainer of each package
to the list (it shouldn't be that difficult, but I'm not volunteering :-P).
/Martin
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:17:24 -0500
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I figured it was time for a bit of cleaning... I ended up writing a
> really crappy script for stable to do a check of whether package.mask
> entries were really referen
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:17, Alec Warner wrote:
> I figured it was time for a bit of cleaning... I ended up writing a
> really crappy script for stable to do a check of whether package.mask
> entries were really referencing anything or not. Luckily Brian was able
> to write a much better one
Greetings,I just did an emerge --update world which upgraded vpopmail. This update was bad news. It switched vpopmail over to mysql based auths and storage of email which I didn't have mysql or vpopmail setup for. This gave me a lot of grief. Just and FYI.
-- Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON"Evil triump
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I figured it was time for a bit of cleaning... I ended up writing a
really crappy script for stable to do a check of whether package.mask
entries were really referencing anything or not. Luckily Brian was able
to write a much better one for bcportage.
On 1/24/06, Carlos Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:38 +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> > > > B) you'r
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:38 +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> > > B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuil
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:34, RH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> > B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
> > and would like to help
>
> I'm up for being a volunteer he
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 05:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Pretty much the same issue for findutils-4.3. You'll have to get the
> argument order correct and remember to include the path.
I'm very glad of this :P
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gen
Yesterday's drop: 871 to 867, a whopping 4. We need to do better than
this! We're in the home stretch.
Progress graph:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png
Latest list:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_maintainers.txt.20060122
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:06:12PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> A) You have commit access to gentoo-x86, AND
> B) you're comfortable with the porting process OR are adept with ebuilds
> and would like to help
I'm up for being a volunteer here.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTE
87 matches
Mail list logo
