On 23-11-2006 00:12:45 +, Francesco Riosa wrote with possible deletions:
> Also if you are the maintainer of one of the mentioned [5] packages
> please avoid version bumps until tomorrow when I'll apply the changes to
> the tree (see [2] for an explanation)
[snip]
> [5]
> profiles/default-dar
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:08:12PM -0700, Steve Dibb wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> There are more than a few packages with missing metadata.xml in the
> portage tree. I've setup my funky little QA website to report on which
> ones fall in that category, and here is the list right here:
>
> http://spac
Hi guys,
There are more than a few packages with missing metadata.xml in the
portage tree. I've setup my funky little QA website to report on which
ones fall in that category, and here is the list right here:
http://spaceparanoids.org/gentoo/gpnl/qa.php?q=metadata
I've spent the morning fix
Ciao,
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 23:13 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> It's my pleasure to introduce to you Charlie "masterdriverz" Shepherd.
> He is joining us to help with the multiple kernel sources we have in the
> tree. Maybe we will have master-sources soon? Previously he has been
> helping in the s
Petteri Räty wrote:
> It's my pleasure to introduce to you Charlie "masterdriverz" Shepherd.
> He is joining us to help with the multiple kernel sources we have in the
> tree. Maybe we will have master-sources soon? Previously he has been
> helping in the sunrise overlay and he is also looking to j
Hi folks,
is anyone else working on an standalone spamc package ?
I've got several machines where I don't want to have the whole
spamassassin installed - they're just calling an remote machine
to do this work.
cu
--
-
Enrico W
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:53 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > RESTRICT="interactive" should be restricted to only the contents of
> > the ebuild. ACCEPT_LICENSE="RTCW-ETEULA" emerge enemy-territory is
> > *not* interactive,
>
> That's what I've missed then. I didn't realise that setting
> ACCEPT_
Tach Markus, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Markus Dittrich schrieb:
> Since this somehow sneaked its way into the GMN already
Gentoo Monthly Newsletter? Hey, Chris is back on schedule!
;)
V-Li
--
Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3
http:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:51:15 +0100 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| * Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
| > > Err, isn't current portage already having FEATURES="noman" and
| > > "nodoc" ? At least last time I used it, it was there ...
| >
| > Don't forget about "noinfo" ;)
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:03:08 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 17:59 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > Am I correct in thinking that the ACCEPT_LICENSE behaviour will just
> > affect how portage calculates whether something can be installed or
> > not (much l
* Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
Hi folks,
> > Err, isn't current portage already having FEATURES="noman" and "nodoc" ? At
> > least last time I used it, it was there ...
>
> Don't forget about "noinfo" ;)
Can those flags be used in dependencies ?
Let's say, some package needs
Dear All,
Since this somehow sneaked its way into the GMN already
I better announce it here as well ;)
I've masked sci-mathematics/gturing and will remove it in
a month from now. gturing fails to build on >=gnome-2.14
and the last update from upstream was in 2002.
Thanks,
Markus
--
Markus Dit
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed,
22 Nov 2006 08:12:28 -0500:
> Nope. The goal is for check_license to go away. Please read bug #152593
> to see the discussion that's been going on with this.
Upon reread, you are correct. I was not reading
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 10:57 +0100, Marijn Schouten wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21
> > Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
> >
> >> Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was
> >> required for certa
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 04:52 +, Duncan wrote:
> Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21
> Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
>
> > Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was
> > required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the p
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 01:10 +0100, Marien Zwart wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:37:39PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Well, we specifically didn't allow a "*" setting because of this.
>
> Ah, I missed that. Thanks.
>
> > Perhaps we should make it simple and specify that no interactive li
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:13:48PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> It's my pleasure to introduce to you Charlie "masterdriverz" Shepherd.
Perfect opportunity for a goat joke!
> So please give masterdriverz the usual warm welcome.
Welcome masterdriverz :-)
cheers,
Duncan wrote:
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21
Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was
required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept
the license by putting a wi
18 matches
Mail list logo
