On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Amit Dor-Shifer wrote:
please refrain from top posting.
> I've checked 1.1.4 & 1.2.2. Both don't seem to satisfy such a dependency:
like i said, "when necessary". your /etc/fstab doesnt seem to require it.
-mike
I've checked 1.1.4 & 1.2.2. Both don't seem to satisfy such a dependency:
amit0 ~ # qlist -Iv nfs-utils
net-fs/nfs-utils-1.1.4-r1
amit0 ~ # /etc/init.d/nfsmount ineed
net rpcbind rpc.statd
amit0 ~ # emerge -qKa nfs-utils
[binary U ] net-fs/nfs-utils-1.2.2-r1 [1.1.4-r1]
Would you like to mer
Hi,
www-plugins/adobe-flash has a new license[1] which refers to itself as
"License Agreement" and in section 1.2 "BINDING AGREEMENT" states that
the user must accept the agreement in order to use the software.
I propose that this license be added to the EULA group. The previous
AdobeFlash-1
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Amit Dor-Shifer wrote:
> I read in idmapd's manpage that "It provides functionality to the NFSv4
> kernel client and server". I'm therefore wondering whether it'd be desired
> to facilitate an rc dependency of nfsmount (client-side) in rpc.idmapd.
> /etc/init.d/nfs
El lun, 14-06-2010 a las 11:30 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:08:58 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > The problem is that, at least regarding gnome related bugs, there are
> > a lot of keywords dropped for your arch that could be prevented
> > use.masking an USE, like, fo
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:08:58 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> The problem is that, at least regarding gnome related bugs, there are
> a lot of keywords dropped for your arch that could be prevented
> use.masking an USE, like, for example, dev-util/anjuta-2.28*, that is
> causing us to preserve and old
On 14.6.2010 5.59, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:29:19 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> El dom, 13-06-2010 a las 14:43 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
>>> El dom, 13-06-2010 a las 14:16 +0300, Petteri Räty escribió:
On 06/11/2010 12:27 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> Fro
El lun, 14-06-2010 a las 04:59 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
> What is the problem? The files in place ask you to file a bug report
> instead of fiddling with the files yourselves. I put that in place
> because I got (fucking) tired of seeing the after effects of people
> fiddling with the arch p
