Re: [gentoo-dev] openssh sftplogging patch

Hi, On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:16:35 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178302 > >--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-13 22:16 --- > hey look i provided an answer there as well: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.deve

[gentoo-dev] Re: DWS for 2007-05-07 - 2007-05-13

Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Last rites: app-emacs/preview-latex > Probably this should be: > dev-tex/preview-latex Right. Whoever added that to dev-tex should be stoned to death. Corrected in p.mask, too. V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.

Re: [gentoo-dev] DWS for 2007-05-07 - 2007-05-13

Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [usefull DWS snipped] you rock! pgpFgJgMmryKA.pgp Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: Suitable USE flag name for stuff that requires non volatile memory

Mike Frysinger wrote: > if use livecd ; then > > > fi or even alias dhcpcd 'dhcpcd -l' (in bashrc? - could have a separate one for root) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2007-05-13 23h59 UTC

The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2007-05-13 23h59 UTC. Removals: net-misc/libupnp2007-05-07 15:31:52 gurligebis www-misc/nscache2007-05-07 18:41:07 armin76 www-misc/nsopenssl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suitable USE flag name for stuff that requires non volatile memory

On Sunday 13 May 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 12 May 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > > > I've thought long and hard about it and I think a compile time > > > option is best here. You can still disable the usage of DUID by > > > null arg to the -I o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suitable USE flag name for stuff that requires non volatile memory

On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:44:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 12 May 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > > I've thought long and hard about it and I think a compile time > > option is best here. You can still disable the usage of DUID by > > null arg to the -I option, but many

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suitable USE flag name for stuff that requires non volatile memory

On Saturday 12 May 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > I've thought long and hard about it and I think a compile time option > is best here. You can still disable the usage of DUID by null arg to > the -I option, but many users launch dhcpcd by hand on the live cds. hmm, you can do it at runtime ? then yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

On Saturday 12 May 2007, Matti Bickel wrote: > recently, there's been some worries about the changes and new > requirements the ion upstream, tuomov, put forth in a new LICENSE for > ion-3. It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which > requires us to get the same keywords for a newly

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

On Saturday 12 May 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Jan Kundrát wrote: > > Matti Bickel wrote: > >> It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which > >> requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the > >> previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patche

Re: [gentoo-dev] DWS for 2007-05-07 - 2007-05-13

> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Markus Ullmann wrote: > Last rites: app-emacs/preview-latex Probably this should be: dev-tex/preview-latex Ulrich -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

[gentoo-dev] DWS for 2007-05-07 - 2007-05-13

Hi, this is the -dev weekly summary, actually the first one ;) Announcements / Important stuff === Announcing GLI ("the installer") 0.5 (by agaffney) -- http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.installer/594 --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites sys-apps/855resolution

On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 09:37 -0600, Joshua Baergen wrote: > Rémi Cardona wrote: > > Markus Ullmann wrote: > >>> Because it looks like the 2.x intel driver might still need this type of > >>> hack to work properly for some types of machines (my laptop being a good > >>> example of this...) > >> Also

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites sys-apps/855resolution

Joshua Baergen wrote: > I don't think that Xinerama is really supported anymore. It's not > really needed, depending on what you're trying to do - Xrandr 1.2 should > handle most general/common use cases. Either way, it doesn't work as advertised : - xinerama segfaults xorg-server - I couldn't

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-emacs/preview-latex

Hi, # Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (13 May 2007) # removal on 14 Jun 2007 # functionality provided in >=app-emacs/auctex-11.80 app-emacs/preview-latex -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites sys-apps/855resolution

Rémi Cardona wrote: > Markus Ullmann wrote: >>> Because it looks like the 2.x intel driver might still need this type of >>> hack to work properly for some types of machines (my laptop being a good >>> example of this...) >> Also 2.x breaks on my notebook when using xinerama and dual monitor atm >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml

Thilo Bangert wrote: > the packages in the attached list have no metadata.xml. I have taken maintainer-ship of the following packages and modified metadata.xml accordingly: > app-doc/doc++ missing metadata.xml > x11-libs/xclass missing metadata.xm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

On Saturday 12 May 2007 20:40:29 Petteri Räty wrote: > Kevin F. Quinn kirjoitti: > > All these exceptions are doing the same thing - relaxing the GPL as it > > applies to the compiler (or template library in this case), so that it > > does not apply to works created using it. I like the > > "GPL-2

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

Rob C a écrit : Just my 0.02 chf +0.02eur from me too. This is going waaay beyond the FireFox/IceWeasle trademark issue. Even closed source apps are less painful license-wise. I'd advise all ion3 users from Gentoo (and maybe other distros) to get together and fork it (à la dhcpcd), doing e

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

On 13/05/07, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ulrich Mueller napsal(a): > Maybe the following are also interesting in this context: > > Debian: > > > Archlinux: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

Ulrich Mueller napsal(a): > Maybe the following are also interesting in this context: > > Debian: > > > Archlinux: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

On Sun, 13 May 2007 10:34:42 +0200 Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If he doesn't want to hinder distributions, get him to fix his > > licence. The way it is now makes it impossible for distributions to > > do their job. > > We all agree it's retarded. However, i can't change the way it

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

Wulf C. Krueger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the conversation with you, Matti, he argues that elog is > not "prominent" enough, users don't read USE flag descriptions, etc. > So those issues seem unresolved. Well, this arguments are nothing new, just read this ml.. However, i don't think think

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3 > > will never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a > > policy violation. > > Right, and packages that aren't aiming fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

Maybe the following are also interesting in this context: Debian: Archlinux: I wonder if a package should be kept w

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

On Sunday, May 13, 2007 09:57:05 AM Matti Bickel wrote: > If the general feeling is that ion is > unacceptable in the tree, i'll mask it pending removal. Having read the threads you referenced, I don't think there's much room for a compromise. In the conversation with you, Matti, he argues that

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

On Sun, 13 May 2007 09:57:05 +0200 Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely > > as a technicality. > > How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3 > will nev

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as > a technicality. How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3 will never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a policy violation. > I sug