Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> It depends hugely on the structure of the code-base. In MySQL for
> example, if you wanted to build only the server, you'd still need a big
> hunk of the shared code (it's one set of code, that is compiled in two
> different ways, once for the client, and once for the ser
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:56:51AM +0100, Thomas R?sner wrote:
> I can understand that rationale for the client part, but which packages
> would depend on the server part of e.g. MySQL if they could?
> And building the server part to get the small client lib is a larger
> PITA than building the c
Thomas Rösner wrote:
>> Once we have USE-based dependencies across the board, then yes. Until
>> that time, we should really be building both client and server for *all*
>> packages.
>
> I can understand that rationale for the client part, but which packages
> would depend on the server part of e
Mike Kelly wrote:
> That comes from the app-vim/gentoo-syntax package, in the
> plugin/newebuild.vim file. I'll have that fixed in the next release of
> gentoo-syntax.
>
Speaking of vim masterdriverz pointed out this python indenter:
http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=974
dunno if tha
> I've been planning to write a new dependency resolver for portage in
> order to solve some of the issues tracked by bug 155723. Now that
> portage-2.1.2.2 has been stabilized (for the 2007.0 release media),
> I can focus more on trunk. I hope to make a lot of progress on it
> during the next w
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:34:59 -0600
Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > > ECLASS="gkrellm-plugin"
> > > INHERITED="$INHERITED $ECLASS"
> >
> > No need to set INHERITED yourself any more either. Ciaran already
> > pointed out ECLASS.
>
> Indeed, tha
Chris Gianelloni schrieb:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:10 +, Steve Long wrote:
I don't know how it would work technically, how difficult it would be, or
indeed if anyone is prepared to do the work, besides maybe some of the
users.
No.
Once we have USE-based dependencies across the boa
Am Freitag, 9. März 2007 19:08 schrieb Petteri Räty:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the
> > temporary install
> > -mike
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/checkouts/devmanual $ grep IMAGE -r .
> ./trunk/ebuild-writing/functions/pkg_preinst/.svn/text-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Ramsay wrote:
> Where can I learn more about the progress of this USE-based
> dependencies feature? I couldn't find an appropriate GLEP -- only
> bug 2272 [1] seemed relevant, and it doesn't mention what (if anything)
> is actually being done to g
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and IMAGE
> is
> just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
>
> so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the temporary
> install
> -mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/checkouts/devmanua
On Friday 09 March 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:03 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and
> > IMAGE is just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
> >
> > so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE,
On Fri, 2007-09-03 at 15:57 +, Jeff Rollin wrote:
>
>
> On 09/03/07, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
> Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Always be parliamentary;
> > never be personal; have a p
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:03 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and IMAGE
> is
> just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
>
> so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the temporary
> install
> -mike
Good t
portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and IMAGE is
just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the temporary
install
-mike
pgpOofLWN3RsP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
> Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Always be parliamentary;
>> never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop".
>> 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
>> Westminster'.
>
> If you've seen w
On Friday 09 March 2007, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> 2) The dev-lang/d-gcc ebuild
there's no need for a sep ebuild
> I'd appreciate it if one of the toolchain ninjas could clarify their
> stance on D :)
as Nguyen said, please review the referenced bug ... it has all the info you
need
-mike
pgpC
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
> Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Always be parliamentary;
> > never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop".
> > 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
> > Westminster'.
>
> If you've see
070309 Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500 Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Always be parliamentary;
>> never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop".
>> 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or Westminster'.
> If you've seen what g
On 09/03/07, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Always be parliamentary;
> never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop".
> 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
> Westminste
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500 Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> My own rules for netiquette are very simple: "Always be parliamentary;
> never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop".
> 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
> Westminster'.
If you thi
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Always be parliamentary;
> never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop".
> 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
> Westminster'.
If you've seen what goes on in the House of Commons on
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:10 +, Steve Long wrote:
> > I don't know how it would work technically, how difficult it would
> > be, or indeed if anyone is prepared to do the work, besides maybe
> > some of the users.
>
> No.
>
> Once we have USE-based dependencies across
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:10 +, Steve Long wrote:
> I don't know how it would work technically, how difficult it would be, or
> indeed if anyone is prepared to do the work, besides maybe some of the
> users.
No.
Once we have USE-based dependencies across the board, then yes. Until
that time,
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 15:32 +0530, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> redistribution which means we would need RESTRICT="nomirror".
RESTRICT="mirror" please... "nomirror" is deprecated and will go away at
some point in the future.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Arch
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - I am sure my review of the 73 ebuilds i had installed do contains
> some mistakes. It was just a first pass to get a raw idea on the
> heuristic itself and the amount of false-positives. Don't worry, i
> will not go open 73 bug reports. Actual
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:54:12 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Howells wrote:
> > On 09/03/07, Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I forgot to add that the dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild might also require
> >> the special DMD license to be included in the tree. I'm at
On 3/9/07, Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All,
I'm currently in the process of introducing a bunch of ebuilds
related to the D programming language into the tree. I'll begin with
the binary compiler provided by Digital Mars and then move onto the
GCC based compiler.
1) The dev-la
Alex Howells wrote:
> On 09/03/07, Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I forgot to add that the dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild might also require
>> the special DMD license to be included in the tree. I'm attaching a
>> copy of the license. I'm not much of a legal person, but it seems
>> like
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> but I hacked together a syntax highlighting file for katepart (as
>> used in kwrite and kate of course ;) based on the BASH one. You can
>> d/l the first version from: http://phpfi.com/214109
>
> Just for the records: Emacs has
Jim Ramsay wrote:
> I suppose the alternative would be to split the ebuild into 'gkrellm'
> and 'gkrellmd' ebuilds, which would indeed remove the need for the
> 'built_with_use' check. How is this normally done for other packages
> that have, for example, both a client and server part?
>
Well mys
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
>> I'm not a dev, just a lowly user, but maybe this policy needs to be
>> posted here since according to some of what I have read lately, this has
>> not been read before by several. Maybe when you first subscribe, it
>> should be included in the subscribe confirmation emai
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> Gentoo has an etiquette policy as well at
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=2
> for interested people.
>
> One thing worth noting is that we've just decided that the policy needs
> to be updated so hopefully we'll see a new/expanded
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> but I hacked together a syntax highlighting file for katepart (as
> used in kwrite and kate of course ;) based on the BASH one. You can
> d/l the first version from: http://phpfi.com/214109
Just for the records: Emacs has support by app-emacs/ebuild-mode, vim
ha
Hi all,
There was a brief discussion a coupla weeks about getting better syntax
highlighting and context help for ebuilds. Well, sorry can't help with the
second yet, but I hacked together a syntax highlighting file for katepart
(as used in kwrite and kate of course ;) based on the BASH one. You
On 09/03/07, Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I forgot to add that the dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild might also require
the special DMD license to be included in the tree. I'm attaching a
copy of the license. I'm not much of a legal person, but it seems
like this license is different from "a
I'm currently in the process of introducing a bunch of ebuilds
related to the D programming language into the tree. I'll begin
with the binary compiler provided by Digital Mars and then move
onto the GCC based compiler.
Thoughts, suggestions, comments and criticisms invited :)
I forg
Hi All,
I'm currently in the process of introducing a bunch of ebuilds
related to the D programming language into the tree. I'll begin with
the binary compiler provided by Digital Mars and then move onto the
GCC based compiler.
1) The dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild will be fairly straightforward
# Michael Sterrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (08 Mar 2007)
# masked for removal on April 9
# Doesn't work with dev-perl/sdl-perl-2 and no upstream release
# since 2004.
# http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155934
games-puzzle/sdlvexed
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@
38 matches
Mail list logo
