On Tuesday 28 March 2006 01:00, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I actually like this solution, but I would think it should be extended to
> fix generically known broken behaviours of configure scripts
like broken NLS handling in autoconf-2.1x (see all the et_EE bugs)
> to broken config.* stuff
Okay I suppose this was already in the TODO list of at least blubb and az but
they don't seem to have time, neither I do, but at least I'll try to put this
thing written down.
Currently we lack an "automated" way to fix packages that has broken or unsafe
handling of autotools or libtool.
The el
Dan Armak wrote: [Mon Mar 27 2006, 03:25:04PM EST]
> Option 1: KDE only displays KDE apps, Gnome only Gnome apps. How do we decide
> what is displayed in both ('neutral' apps)? Can the user edit the menu, and
> include some things we don't include by default, in a WM-neutral way? What
> should W
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 22:25 +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> Assume the install prefix problem is fixed somehow. What items are displayed
> in each WM's menu?
>
> Option 1: KDE only displays KDE apps, Gnome only Gnome apps. How do we decide
> what is displayed in both ('neutral' apps)
> Can the user e
On Monday 27 March 2006 10:29, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 27 March 2006 07:43, Ryan Phillips wrote:
> > In actuality, Subversion does 98% of the commit in an initial
> > transaction, and the blocking only occurs in the last 2% with the FSFS
> > filesystem. It really isn't an issue and shoul
On Monday 27 March 2006 16:55, foser wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 00:03 +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
>
>
> > = Bugs overview (probably missed some): =
> >
> > #89870: long story, summary: .desktop files are installed in different
> > places. KDE only reads the KDE ones, Gnome only the Gnome o
On Friday 24 March 2006 21:30, Duncan wrote:
> One thing to remember, however. In the US at least, linking to specific
> illegal material is considered illegal in itself.
US laws are gay
> There is a "common
> carrier" exemption, however, with the caveat of DMCA takedown notices.
> Thus, the se
I think you are right, remove it.
- Stefan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ingo Bormuth wrote:
Hi dev-list,
what is the rule concerning when to introduce new virtuals?
I created an ebuild for metaocaml which is a real drop in replacement for
the ocaml programming language allowing for metaprogramming and dynamic
linking. Metaocaml in fact is a patched version of oca
Got a request¹ providing them, but I don't see any sense in it at all. The
only package using it is app-office/lyx. Imho the dependency should be
removed, since it is a optional runtime dependency the user has to configure
anyways, so it'll never work out of the box. This sort of virtual is only
foser wrote:
I think the RH approach of using xinitrc.d as a place to unify startup
scripts is a workable solution. I'd like the X11 teams input on this
however, since the X11 /etc layout and history behind it is largely
unknown to me.
I agree that this is a good idea and I've thought about it
Hi dev-list,
what is the rule concerning when to introduce new virtuals?
I created an ebuild for metaocaml which is a real drop in replacement for
the ocaml programming language allowing for metaprogramming and dynamic
linking. Metaocaml in fact is a patched version of ocaml.
For licence reaso
>
> I think the RH approach of using xinitrc.d as a place to unify startup
> scripts is a workable solution. I'd like the X11 teams input on this
> however, since the X11 /etc layout and history behind it is largely
> unknown to me.
This would be a solution that could easilly be built upon with
t
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 00:03 +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> = Bugs overview (probably missed some): =
>
> #89870: long story, summary: .desktop files are installed in different
> places.
> KDE only reads the KDE ones, Gnome only the Gnome ones (and both use a small
> common set).
This does
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 09:51 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 27/03/06, Ryan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Have you followed the threads in the past regarding using other
> > > version control systems for portage? Some devs have done benchma
Simon Strandman skrev:
R Hill skrev:
Simon Strandman wrote:
It seems like toolchain.eclass does something wrong when configuring
gcc 4.1 snapshots. I decided to try gcc 4.1 on my server so I
created a gcc-4.1.1.20060324 ebuild and defined the SNAPSHOT
variable in it (current cvs has a lot of
On Monday 27 March 2006 00:03, Dan Armak wrote:
> I want to work on this, but cooperation between and changes to many WMs
> are required, so I'd like to hear from other people who are interested.
> These bugs all tend to get stuck, so I'm posting this to the list.
I'm still interested in this, alt
R Hill skrev:
Simon Strandman wrote:
It seems like toolchain.eclass does something wrong when configuring
gcc 4.1 snapshots. I decided to try gcc 4.1 on my server so I created
a gcc-4.1.1.20060324 ebuild and defined the SNAPSHOT variable in it
(current cvs has a lot of bugfixes since the relea
On 27/03/06, Ryan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Have you followed the threads in the past regarding using other
> > version control systems for portage? Some devs have done benchmarks
> > and found that there are blocking issues with subversion, p
On Monday 27 March 2006 07:43, Ryan Phillips wrote:
> Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Have you followed the threads in the past regarding using other
> > version control systems for portage? Some devs have done benchmarks
> > and found that there are blocking issues with subversion,
> >
20 matches
Mail list logo
