On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:39:46 -0700 Peter Gordon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Zac Medico wrote:
| > The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are
| > deemed extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the
| > user.
|
| If they were so "extremely important" then they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
>> [ebuild UD] sys-apps/coreutils-5.2.1-r7 [5.94-r1] USE="-acl -build
>> -nls -static" 0 kB
>>
>> Total size of downloads: 0 kB
>>
>> See the little "D"?
>>
>> It's not big,
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's exactly
| > the same concept, but inverted.
|
| And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps.
Huh? How?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran do
Hello, List !media-gfx/xzgv is masked pending removal due to a dead upstream. There
are plenty of other image viewers out there which are maintained.I usually use this viewer, what are another light weight viewers fro replace it ?-- Best regards,Sincerely yours,
Yuriy Rusinov
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:57:39PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote:
> Peter Gordon wrote:
> >Zac Medico wrote:
> >>The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
> >>extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
> >
> >If they were so "extremely important" the
Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? O
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is
> > superior to make.defaults.
>
> The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are
> deemed extremely important, from
Zac Medico wrote:
> The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
> extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing somet
why god why do we have this file ? it pollutes ld.so.conf and makes me so
angry
-mike
pgpOFUoFK4Ze9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is
> superior to make.defaults.
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabl
someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree
rooted in /emul
if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease
the pain of people doing multilib building
-mike
pgp0iUxwqWpVd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> I of course am thrilled, not only did we (re-)gain another UK based dev,
> but a UK based dev with a great taste in music, a sick and twisted mind
> and the ability to put up with me singing. Welcome back, Elfyn!
Awesome. Welcome aboard, Elfyn!
--
Peter Gordon (coderg
Zac Medico wrote:
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and package.use.force as originally
described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago. Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of
use.mask and package.use.mask. It forces USE flags to be enabled. The only way
W.Kenworthy wrote:
My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
Definitely not true. The X.Org 7.1 release shared the vast majority of
packages with 7.0, so there were very few upgrades -- just a f
On Monday 07 August 2006 21:44, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
> developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
we provide meta packages (X/kde/gnome/etc...) for the split packages so users
can just emerge 1 pack
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:48 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
...
> Let's take a better example: nmap
> This package actually contains two completely different things:
> the portscanner tool and some gtk-based frontend. In fact the "gtk"
> useflag switche
Enrico,
> Yes, but package maintainers have to be much more carefully about
> these dependencies, as it would be necessary if we actually would
> treat them as different packages.
Have you asked the gentoo package maintainers how they feel on this
subject, or are you supposing/guessing?
--
Seem
On 07/08/06, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is my pleasure to introduce to you... the artist formerly known as...
beu! Many will know Elfyn from his previous stint as a Gentoo developer.
This time around, we have a understanding.. the sort that involves
sleeping with fish and f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and
package.use.force as originally described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago.
Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of use.mask and package.use.mask.
It forc
On Monday 07 August 2006 13:36, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
>
> Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean.
i prefer to make the common behavior the default
On Mon, Aug 7, 2006 at 22:18:35 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
> > I would call you a horrible administrator since this:
> > "I run an update w/o knowing that it downgrades"
> > should NEVER happen.
> >
> > emerge -pv foo
> > [ebuild UD] cat/fo
On Monday 07 August 2006 16:18, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
> new (additional) logic. This has to be maintained. And it doesn't
> actually *solve* the problem which is this discussion was started.
Removing the stuff from the ebuild and
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
[ebuild UD] sys-apps/coreutils-5.2.1-r7 [5.94-r1] USE="-acl -build
-nls -static" 0 kB
Total size of downloads: 0 kB
See the little "D"?
It's not big, it's not fat, but it's warning you. :)
Not actually an eye-ca
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > See the little "D"?
> >
> > It's not big, it's not fat, but it's warning you. :)
>
> Not actually an eye-catching.
>
> To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
> output if there's any "D" flag, without the risk
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:01:45 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Obviously, not everyone wants to be vigilant - but
> > if you aren't - then you don't get to whine about it when it breaks.
> > well actually I guess you do...
>
> So, you don't have any intention to help people w
On Monday 07 August 2006 22:09, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> *sigh*, if you want to use a source based Debian (as the combination of
> all your posts seems to indicate) then do so, stop trying to convert
> Gentoo into that. Or create your own private fork.
> I start to get *really* annoyed by your overa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
> output if there's any "D" flag, without the risk of overlooking
> it someday ?
Yes.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE16tG6q4
* Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Obviously, not everyone wants to be vigilant - but
> if you aren't - then you don't get to whine about it when it breaks.
> well actually I guess you do...
So, you don't have any intention to help people who don't have
such an eagle-eye o
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions
of one library. They are completely different libraries, where
one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look
similar, but are in no ways equal.
Have you actual
Okay, you simply don't want to talk or even think about this issue.
I won't waste more of my lifetime with it, and I won't let you
do more acts of demotiviation. If you wouldn't have descrited my
intensions this way and these personal attacks didn't happen,
I would have set up my own overlay
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> According to this philosophy, we should change the name of the package
>> every time net-misc/neon comes out with a new version, since it breaks
>> API on every version.
>
> If APIs break with every version (on non-alpha stuff), it's principle
> design failure. I tend to
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
If we changed the name of a package every time there was an API break,
we would literally have thousands of packages in the tree that essentially
do the same thing, just with different API's.
Yes, but it would be much more cleaner. Everyone would see what
actually happen
It is my pleasure to introduce to you... the artist formerly known as...
beu! Many will know Elfyn from his previous stint as a Gentoo developer.
This time around, we have a understanding.. the sort that involves
sleeping with fish and finding horseheads in your bed. Capish? He won't
magically (wel
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
output if there's any "D" flag, without the risk of overlooking
it someday ?
Um, sorry, but users *should* be looking at the output of --pretend to
get an idea of what portage wants
* Patrick McLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >
> > The APIs are incompatible.
> >
>
> They are still the both evolutions of the same development tree, they
> are the same package, just different versions.
Let's take an example the automobile world:
The Mitsubishi Galant is an sucessor
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Not actually an eye-catching.
Ummm, D, as opposed to U... Yeah, that catches my eye. I am weird like
that though.
>
> To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
> output if there's any "D" flag, without the risk of overlooking
> it someday ?
Yes, hone
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions
> of one library. They are completely different libraries, where
> one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look
> similar, but are in no ways equal.
you don't know gtk. stop trolling.
>
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Yes, I'll file a bug on the whole gtk issue and all packages
using this ugly hacks.
You can save your time. Really. And vastly more important, save our
bug-wrangler's time. You've already filed a bug. It was closed as INVALID, and
except for you nobody in this thread agr
* Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use
> a simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only
> "less number of lines of code in the core of the application".
> But wasn't you the one who told me that q
* Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> [ebuild UD] sys-apps/coreutils-5.2.1-r7 [5.94-r1] USE="-acl -build
> -nls -static" 0 kB
>
> Total size of downloads: 0 kB
>
> See the little "D"?
>
> It's not big, it's not fat, but it's warning you. :)
Not actually an eye-catching.
To be fai
* Jean-Francois Gagnon Laporte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >> You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
> >>
> >> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.h
Hi there,
On Monday 07 August 2006 13:42, Wolfram Schlich wrote:
> Any comments or thoughts about this?
> Can we become better?
> Are we maybe better than the author pretends?
> Does the security team currently face serious problems that need to be
> solved, be it inside or outside the security te
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
> > Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless
> > splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
>
> I don't think "we are not xyz" i
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 05:31:27PM +0900, Chris White wrote:
> The PDA herd is pretty slim right now and the only active members are
> really liquidx and myself. That said I'm looking around for people
> that can help with confirmations/patches/etc. for app-pda packages.
> Plans are to hopefully p
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>>
>>> It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
>>> problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
>>> if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
>>>
>>
media-gfx/xzgv is masked pending removal due to a dead upstream. There
are plenty of other image viewers out there which are maintained.
-smithj
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
BTW: how do you enforce an minimum gtk1 version ?
You know, a lot of these questions of yours could be answered clearly if
you look at the ebuild documentation and developer manuals.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ is a good start. :)
Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org maili
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
What sort of problems? An example backing up your claims would be very nice.
+ Additional complexity (slotting) is necessary, so additional
changes of bugs.
Oh please, this is so lame. That feature has been in existance for long enough
to be proven useful and not fault
* Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> >
> > It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
> > problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
> > if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
> >
>
> No?
In this cas
* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >Oh hell, this can't be serious !
>
> It is.
>
> >It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
> >problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
> >if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it o
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Why can't emerge just print out an fat warning if its going to
downgrade ? Would save people from much, much trouble.
# emerge -pv =coreutils-5.2.1-r7
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild UD] sys-apps/core
* Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
> install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
> the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable version for
> daily work and the beta ver
* Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > # WARNING: installed package foo-1.1 has been masked and would # be
> > downgraded:
> > #
> > [...]
>
> That's precisely what emerge --pretend --verbose covers. Or, if you want
> the display with a question to continue or not, use --ask instead of
> -
* Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> I would call you a horrible administrator since this:
> "I run an update w/o knowing that it downgrades"
> should NEVER happen.
>
> emerge -pv foo
> [ebuild UD] cat/foo-currentversion [downgraded-version]
Great. I have to explicitly compare the ver
* Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
> Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
> > nor other distros.
>
> ^--- This should be a warning flag ---^
>
> If other distros are
Wolfram Schlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:42:21 +0200:
> I just stumbled over an article from SearchSecurity.com which was linked
> to in a heise newsticker posting that tries to analyze how fast
> distributions react to security vulnera
On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean. If Portage at
some point should distinct between dependencies defined in ebuilds and
eclasses, we'd need a d
Duncan wrote:
> That's precisely what emerge --pretend --verbose covers. Or, if you want
> the display with a question to continue or not, use --ask instead of
> --verbose.
>
I'm pretty sure you mean to use --ask instead of --pretend, not --verbose.
--
Joshua Nichols
Gentoo/Java - Project Lea
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 07 Aug 2006
15:01:57 +0200:
> My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
You missed something.
> Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due some bug(s),
> but 1.0 isn't, I wa
As far as I'm aware the problem isn't the security team, but the reasons are:
1. slow/understaffed arch teams - and I suppose this is the biggest problem,
as we need all security-wise supported¹ architectures stable, before a GLSA
can be send out.
2. the amount of unmaintained stuff in the tree
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 07 Aug 2006
16:18:21 +0200:
> Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should use graphical applications.
> She's not interested what sits behind, she just wants to have a buch of
> applications. And she also doesn'
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 09:52 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Edward Catmur wrote:
> > Is it possible to get Portage (or ebuild) to build a package for
> > installation into /opt? If not, how much work would that be?
> >
> > What would be great would be to have emerge --optinstall package, that
> >
Wolfram Schlich wrote:
Any comments or thoughts about this?
Does the security team currently face serious problems that need to be
solved, be it inside or outside the security team?
As far as I know large chunks of time get lost when waiting for maintainers and
arch teams to do their work. I d
Wolfram Schlich wrote:
> Any comments or thoughts about this?
Read the comments here: http://lwn.net/Articles/193107/
In the future, please don't double-post to subscriber-only lists, very
few people can reply to both.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
I just stumbled over an article from SearchSecurity.com which was linked to
in a heise newsticker posting that tries to analyze how fast distributions
react to security vulnerabilities:
http://tinyurl.com/lplfb
Quick chart:
Rank DistroPoints/100
-
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
>
> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a
> simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less
> number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you
> the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
> nor other distros.
^--- This should be a warning flag ---^
If other distros aren't doing it and upstream isn't doing it, then it
may no be t
> > > Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
> >
> > Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring
everyone's
> > systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
> > "complexity" of useflags.
>
> I just want to keep things simple. We're talking ab
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
>>> Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
>> Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring everyone's
>> systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
>> "complexit
Edward Catmur wrote:
Is it possible to get Portage (or ebuild) to build a package for
installation into /opt? If not, how much work would that be?
What would be great would be to have emerge --optinstall package, that
installs the package into /opt/$PV and doesn't create a vdb entry...
feasibl
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I
will
> > > install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will
> unmerge
> > > the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable
version
> for
> > > daily work and the beta version for
> > I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
> > install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will
unmerge
> > the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable version
for
> > daily work and the beta version for testing purposes at the same
time
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 09:31 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Noack, Sebastian wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
> > install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
> install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
> the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable versio
* Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
>
> Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring everyone's
> systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
> "complexity" of useflags.
I just want
That's just because Debian has to do the upstream's work.
So if you are so in love with how Debian does everything, why don't you
just use Debian instead of Gentoo and stop wasting our time with your
silly rants on how we should do everything just like them.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org m
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:29:53 +0200 "Noack, Sebastian"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
| install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will
| unmerge the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable
| version fo
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
>
> My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
>
> Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
> some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
> fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
>
> [...]
> # WARNING: i
* Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Additionally... once you start down that path, the changes to
> pkgs become less then minor. Some are simple, some ain't.
If it's required to get them clean, then it shall be done.
(I'm actually doing thins @ oss-qm)
> Personally, I hate that
On Monday 07 August 2006 15:16, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
> > > For example: mplayer
> > > It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package.
> > > We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer.
> > > The chances to
Hi folks,
I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable version for
daily work and the beta version for testing purposes at the same time on
my
* Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless
> splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
I don't think "we are not xyz" is a good argumentation in
technical discussions.
At this point, Debian is actually doing go
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
[...]
# WARNING: installed package
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
Yes it is and it's been in use f
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:01 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
> some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
> fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
>
> [...]
> # WARNING: installed package foo-1.1 has been ma
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
I'm going to take a deeper look at the synce stuff in a few days,
so I'll probably have to fix a lot of things there anyways.
You may add me to your maillist(s) and CC me to bugs at will.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email has a 'Users to watch:' input
field.
My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
[...]
# WARNING: installed package foo-1.1 has been masked
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
It is.
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
What sort of problems? An example backing up
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
> problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
> if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
>
No?
> gtk1 and gtk2 are completely different packages, they're not
> compatib
* Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
Hi,
> That said I'm looking around for people that can help with
> confirmations/patches/etc. for app-pda packages.
I'm going to take a deeper look at the synce stuff in a few days,
so I'll probably have to fix a lot of things there anyways.
You may ad
* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving
You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 2006.08.07 00:20, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hi all,
It is with geat pleasure that I can knight Steve (aka
beandog) a 'real dev'. Under Mike (KingTacos) hawkeyed glance I have
recruited my first recruitee (hmm, it's not really called recruitee
is it?) and am embarking upon a joy
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:01:12AM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >>> agaffney suggested this in the first place, and every time I think about
> >>> it, it seems like a better idea. If we set VIDEO_CARDS and INPUT_DEVICES
> >>> in the arch profiles, we get
Zac Medico wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> agaffney suggested this in the first place, and every time I think about
>>> it, it seems like a better idea. If we set VIDEO_CARDS and INPUT_DEVICES
>>> in the arch profiles, we get the arch-specific defaults we need without
>>> the really hugely ugly
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:43:00 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I've seen an ugly problem w/ gtk1 + gtk2. These two different
| packages are treated as one. Obviously very bad behaviour.
Uh, they're in different slots, so no, they're not treated as one.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
Hi folks,
I've seen an ugly problem w/ gtk1 + gtk2. These two different
packages are treated as one. Obviously very bad behaviour.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143063
IMHO this is a major problem, and we should fix it soon.
cu
--
--
97 matches
Mail list logo
