Mart Raudsepp wrote:
So my point is that the whole of the council should consider the
objections of an individual council member, so that potentially bad
things don't end up accepted based on some kind of an uninformed
majority vote or concensus.
Probably the best way to accomplish something l
Dne čtvrtek 23 Duben 2009 21:46:44 James Cloos napsal(a):
> Wierd.
>
> I must've fat-fingered while reading the list yesterday.
>
> I didn't even see the message buffer
>
> -JimC
I was just thinking about
"THE SECRET MAIL IS SECRET"
:D
Tomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally sig
Wierd.
I must've fat-fingered while reading the list yesterday.
I didn't even see the message buffer
-JimC
Tom Stellard wrote:
> I am trying to build the Gentoo cluster live CD using the overlay from
> here: git://git.overlays.gentoo.org/proj/clustering-livecd.git I have run
> into some problems with some of the ebuilds in this overlay. Here is a
> patch to fix the beowulf-head ebuild.
>
> -Tom Stella
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 12:15 Thu 23 Apr , Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, den 22.04.2009, 23:21 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
>>> Here is an updated agenda. I've removed a few items that I consider
>>> lower priority and unlikely for u
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 23:21 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>
> Goals: Any unanswered queries? Figure out what to do with features
> receiving a "no."
I think the whole council should understand why something received a
"no" from someone, as they might be important technical (or subjective)
arg
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:25:14 +0300
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Yes, and in the real world, if you change / whilst something is
> > compiling, things break.
>
> Except with dependency tracking they might not.
Disabling dependency tracking will merely change "broken, in a way that
may or may not en
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 13:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:56:56 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > If a parallel install is overwriting things on / whilst a package is
> > > compiling, things are already horribly broken regardless of this
> > > switch. PMS explicitly forbi
(Somewhat late, but here we go )
> * PKG-PRETEND
critical
> * SLOT-OPERATOR-DEPS
yes
> * USE-DEP-DEFAULTS
critical
> * DEFINED-PHASES
critical
> * PROPERTIES
critical
> * SRC-INSTALL
critical
> * CONTROLLABLE-COMPRESS
critical
> * DODOC
yes
> * DOINS
yes
> * ANY-USE
whatever
> * BAN
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:53:24 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Which other important topic should we drop for it? I'm thinking we
> probably won't even get to the last one, that's almost a wish list. I
> think there's a pretty reasonable chance we also wouldn't get to
> whatever other items came a
On 12:15 Thu 23 Apr , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.04.2009, 23:21 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > Here is an updated agenda. I've removed a few items that I consider
> > lower priority and unlikely for us to have time for during this
> > week's meeting. Also, I added the iss
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:21:26 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Here is an updated agenda. I've removed a few items that I consider
> lower priority and unlikely for us to have time for during this
> week's meeting.
Please bring forward dleverton's "Portage repeatedly changing
behaviour" thing. With
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:48:08 +0300
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > The best installed version that matches the spec is always picked
> > for :=. We originally considered making this more complicated, or
> > possibly making ways of saying "all installed slots", but neither
> > appears to have a legitimate
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:56:56 +0300
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > If a parallel install is overwriting things on / whilst a package is
> > compiling, things are already horribly broken regardless of this
> > switch. PMS explicitly forbids that from happening.
>
> That's that. And then there's the real
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:29:11 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:57:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:56:08 +0300
> > Petteri Räty wrote:
> > > Ok. So people should then be using has_version in pkg_info if they
> > > want to detect if it's installed
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:35:37PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
>> Here's an eclass proposal to wrap EXPORT_FUNCTIONS with auto detection
>> of functions. This way all eclasses don't have to duplicate the EAPI
>> detection code. If people find this useful, I will document it p
Am Mittwoch, den 22.04.2009, 23:21 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On 15:27 Fri 17 Apr , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 15:17 Fri 17 Apr , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
> > > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail f
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 16:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:11:15 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > * SLOT-OPERATOR-DEPS
> >
> > An outstanding problem to me as a package maintainer is the lack of
> > means to know which slot the PM actually picked for the package, as
> >
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:57:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:56:08 +0300
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Ok. So people should then be using has_version in pkg_info if they
> > want to detect if it's installed or not?
>
> If they absolutely totally need to detect that, then
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:35:37PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> Here's an eclass proposal to wrap EXPORT_FUNCTIONS with auto detection
> of functions. This way all eclasses don't have to duplicate the EAPI
> detection code. If people find this useful, I will document it properly
> with eclass-manp
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 16:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:11:15 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > * ECONF-OPTIONS
> >
> > query
> > --disable-dependency-tracking has other implications than it being
> > allowed to be passed to ./configure or not - such as dependency
> >
21 matches
Mail list logo
