James Potts wrote:
-fvisibility-inlines-hidden not only breaks a number of kde apps afaik (it's
filtered now),
Again, probably -fvisibility=hidden. Many people have had success building KDE
with both flags enabled lately, so maybe that's something that could be
revisited when 4.1 goes ~arch
On 4/26/06, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to have the capability of being able to list some packages that
> should
> never be upgraded automatically (I realize I can do this to some degree
> already
> with portage), some others that are very unlikely to break from an automated
> upg
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:38, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Daniel Goller wrote:
I like the idea. (But i guess you figured that out already ;)
To make it easy, we could just s/herd/team/.
then you might as well just keep herd and discard team altogether
Yeah, pretty much
Hello fellow developers,
It's that time of the where I send
off an email reminding people on what not to do when bumping versions
of packages when it comes to keywords.
1) Please do not drop arch keywords without notifying the arch teams of
why (bugs are often the preferred notification metho
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:38, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Daniel Goller wrote:
> > I like the idea. (But i guess you figured that out already ;)
>
> To make it easy, we could just s/herd/team/.
then you might as well just keep herd and discard team altogether
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org maili
Daniel Goller wrote:
I like the idea. (But i guess you figured that out already ;)
To make it easy, we could just s/herd/team/.
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>> Is there a reason for this besides the definitions not falling into
>> place as they should? I'm not seeing a benefit from this to be honest.
>> People refer to teams as herds a lot of the time. It has become a
>> statement
> Is there a reason for this besides the definitions not falling into
> place as they should? I'm not seeing a benefit from this to be honest.
> People refer to teams as herds a lot of the time. It has become a
> statement over time that people understand. I'm not sure why we want to
> try and c
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Consider this both a rant and a GLEP pre-proposal. When we created the
> idea of herds back in the day, there was a clear distinction between a
> herd and a team (and a project). Over time, those definitions have
> become blurry. I would like emphasise
Hi All,
Consider this both a rant and a GLEP pre-proposal. When we created the
idea of herds back in the day, there was a clear distinction between a
herd and a team (and a project). Over time, those definitions have
become blurry. I would like emphasise:
A herd is a group of like *packages*
Chris Gianelloni posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:27:38 -0400:
> I'm sorry, but do your friends call you Duncan? I'll leave it at that.
Who, me?No, safe to say, /not/ me.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lo
Thanks for your informative reply, Peter. I think I'll try your method
for awhile. I'm sure it's less time consuming than my current method,
if perhaps still not ideal, and although I do realize this idea may be
an unattainable utopia, by Jean-Francois pointing me to glcu, I'm glad
to see that I'
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:30:35 -0400, Kevin wrote:
> Jean-Francois Gagnon Laporte wrote:
>> On 4/26/06, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What I really want is to make the process of maintaining Gentoo boxes
>>> over the long term easier (IOW: less time-consuming) than is now true,
>>> by adding
R Hill gmail.com> writes:
> I've yet to hear of _anything_ that's broken because of
> -fvisibility-inlines-hidden. (course someone will undoubtedly point
> one out now ;))
>
-fvisibility-inlines-hidden not only breaks a number of kde apps afaik (it's
filtered now), but it also seems to break SD
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 15:55 -0400, Kevin wrote:
> Which is it, Chris?
You've taken that out of context ...
> Make up your mind...
I think he has, but wasn't able to communicate his ideas to you in an adequte
way
> For all the credit that I give to the Gentoo developers, you are one
> from whom I
zing !
and with this post it's probably best to let this subthread die before we get
any more offtrack
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>Honestly, I don't see portage ever being able to really
> support anything like this so long as the tree continues to change.
> It simply doesn't seem to be compatible with how Gentoo development is
> done.
and Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> Yup. It's called /etc/p
Jean-Francois Gagnon Laporte wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What I really want is to make the process of maintaining Gentoo boxes
>> over the long term easier (IOW: less time-consuming) than is now true,
>> by adding some functionality that AFAICT does not now exist which
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 14:24 -0400, Kevin wrote:
> And unless I'm way off-base, the version-difference-threshold notion
> described above is not implemented in portage now. Someone please
> correct me if I'm wrong.
You're off-base.
See, you can, for example, mask all revisions within the same ver
On 4/26/06, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I really want is to make the process of maintaining Gentoo boxes
> over the long term easier (IOW: less time-consuming) than is now true,
> by adding some functionality that AFAICT does not now exist which would
> allow me to automate some thing
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 12:29 -0400, Kevin wrote:
>> One thing that I'm pretty sure is currently not possible with portage,
>> however, and that I'd definitely like to see as a part of this idea is a
>> way of setting thresholds on version numbers of packages in portage such
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 12:29 -0400, Kevin wrote:
> One thing that I'm pretty sure is currently not possible with portage,
> however, and that I'd definitely like to see as a part of this idea is a
> way of setting thresholds on version numbers of packages in portage such
> that the automated upgrade
Pasted from bugzilla. Please pardon the ugly newline formatting.
I'm a longtime (>10 yrs) Linux admin and I've been using Gentoo for
perhaps 2
years and I'm super impressed with Gentoo, having gotten very annoyed
with the
rpm-based nightmare upgrade situation presented by most of the other
distr
Matthew Gaule posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:55:13 +:
> Could a simple USE flag (Such as "branding") be implemented, which if set,
> will pull in and configure gentoo themes when a package is compiled? This
> could be unset by default, meaning most users
Jakub Moc posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Tue,
25 Apr 2006 20:03:00 +0200:
> I'd like to see some clarification of intended doc use flag usage, so that
> we wouldn't force users to download/install 40+ megs of docs for a ~3 meg
> package, with the only reason being that USE=doc is
25 matches
Mail list logo
