Steve Long wrote:
.. The one
disadvantage to my design is it needs infra. It needs it's own
repository and rsync.
What does that entail? Would a co-located server suffice?
(If it gets popular, I'd imagine those mirroring current rsyncs etc would
want to mirror the releases as well.)
On
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I have a script which already does several things:
>
> #1. grabs "best_visible" for stable on each arch
> #2. repeat for each SLOT
> #3. purge unnecessary files from FILESDIR
> #4. strip to only "stable" profiles from profiles.desc
> #5. purge unnecessary USE from use.lo
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a
"release tree" to go along with each release.
The release tree is not the basis for this.
a) Releases (and the releng work that goes into it) are exc
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:56:47 -0600
"James Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case
> where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or
> needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to
> switch comple
On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a
"release tree" to go along with each release.
The release tree is not the basis for this.
a) Releases (and the releng work that goes into it) are exclusively
desktop-orient
James Potts wrote:
This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case
where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or
needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to
switch completely over to the live tree? If I understand what you
want to do
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 14:56 -0600, James Potts wrote:
> This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case
> where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or
> needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to
> switch completely over to the live t
they could pull the more current ebuilds and put them in an overlay.
also correct me if I'm wrong isn't it possible only to sync certain
parts of the tree using excludes. maybe some additional functionality
saying only sync package X for updates.
On 11/28/06, James Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> One method could be to snapshot all package versions at the time that
> Release Engineering make a release, building a package.mask file out of
> it masking out all packages of high
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> One method could be to snapshot all package versions at the time that
> Release Engineering make a release, building a package.mask file out of
> it masking out all packages of higher revisions (i.e. having '>CPVR'
> entry for every package
Hi :)
Petteri Räty wrote:
> It is my pleasure to announce that Alexander "pappy" Gabert is returning
> from retirement to battle the hardened bugs. Retired sometime in 2004,
> he is now again interested in being blessed with a @gentoo.org email
> address.
>
> Nowadays he lives in Trier, Germany a
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:02 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think the original poster hit the nail on the head. The real
> barrier preventing a slower-moving tree is cultural.
Somewhat.
As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a
"release tree" to go along with each release
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 18:40, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to
> want to rebuild because a flag was hard masked. e.g. arts when I had
> -arts in my make.conf already? seems like it's a little too strict.
This is not because of a use.m
Caleb Cushing wrote:
I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to
want to rebuild because a flag was hard masked. e.g. arts when I had
-arts in my make.conf already? seems like it's a little too strict.
You are free to file a bug at bugs.gentoo.org. If a flag goes from
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
If X or gtk were relevant to the client, then yes. Better be ready for
USE flag for every GUI toolkit then (yuck).
You only need a USE flag for the toolkit when there's a choice between
multiple toolkits. The X flag is for a choice between any X interface or
none.
Th
I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to
want to rebuild because a flag was hard masked. e.g. arts when I had
-arts in my make.conf already? seems like it's a little too strict.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 11:33 +, Steve Long wrote:
> > In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a
> > (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge distro
> > for stability. Is this feasible?
> >
> > Apologies if this is already being discussed elsewhere.
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 18:52 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any license
> > > bullcrap" ? i made sure the current check_license() fun
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 13:07 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:53, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
>
> i've come to the party a bit late ... i cant seem to divine the answer to my
> question from reading thi
Vitaly Oborsky wrote:
Good afternoon. Gentoo it is the best. You know it:) the Question. In
potrage there is such remarkable package as asterisk. Its newest
version at present 1.2. X. Several months ago there was a stable new
branch asterisk, with number of version 1.4. X, me interests, whether
Thanks to all for your warm welcome :)
--
-Charlie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Good afternoon. Gentoo it is the best. You know it:) the Question. In
potrage there is such remarkable package as asterisk. Its newest
version at present 1.2. X. Several months ago there was a stable new
branch asterisk, with number of version 1.4. X, me interests, whether
inclusion of this versio
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:38:10PM -0800, Ryan Tandy wrote:
> >I can't find the bug right now, but this did pop up where the client was
> >a GUI app, and they wanted to get away from needing all the dependencies
> >it pulled in that way.
> Would controlling building of the client via a flag such as
23 matches
Mail list logo
