On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:09:26 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 02:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 02 July 2012 13:37:53 Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 07/02/2012 10:54 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >>> hu? yes, as already pointed out, uname is not reliable when
> >>> cross-compiling.
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:49:08 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> I have thought of scrapping the virtuals entirely and handling it
> >> so that things depend on perl-core/* instead, and perl-core can
> >> just dynamically decide at install time whether or no
On 4 July 2012 05:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> But whether or not a and b can be installed together sounds an awful
> lot like a property of a and b, not of c.
Its just when C is really something abstract, ( a virtual ) provided
by both possibly a & b, and b doesn't know a even exists till afte
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny wrote:
> a) || ( a b ) should be || ( b a ), to actually state what perl does,
I don't really see how that would help much, if anything, I get the
impression that would
1) needlessly install "b" even when it could be satisfied by a instead
( ie: before both a &
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:24:43 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
> > Kent Fredric wrote:
> >> Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , "one
> >> of, but not more than one of".
> >
> > A user has a and
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I have thought of scrapping the virtuals entirely and handling it so
>> that things depend on perl-core/* instead, and perl-core can just
>> dynamically decide at install time whether or not it needs to no-op (
>> and sometimes perl-core/* will need to
# Ben de Groot (3 Jul 2012)
# Dead upstream. Doesn't compile with current kernels.
# Removal in 30 days.
app-laptop/lenovo-sl-laptop
--
Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:05:46PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Don't need or care about this anymore, feel free to pick up if you use it
>
> One open bug, http://bugs.gentoo.org/403883
Is this bug still valid if there's 0.3.0 in portage and 0.2.4 is gone?
Piotr Szymaniak.
--
W celi byla
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/07/12 05:05 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> --depclean?
>
> eix Module-Metadata [I] perl-core/Module-Metadata Available
> versions: ~1.0.3 ~1.0.4 ~1.0.5 1.0.6 ~1.0.9<--- not unmasked
> by --auto
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:02:28 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> That is exactly what Doug (cardoe) proposed, and he is working on the
> docs for that.
>
Ah yes, it's been a long-winded thread. :)
jer
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:05:46 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > --depclean?
>
> eix Module-Metadata
> [I] perl-core/Module-Metadata
> Available versions: ~1.0.3 ~1.0.4 ~1.0.5 1.0.6 ~1.0.9<---
> not unmasked by --autounmask
> Installed ver
> > I guess something like this might work in pkg_postinst of the portage
> >
> > ebuild:
> > find "$DISTDIR" -maxdepth 1 -type d -uid 0 | xargs chown -R
> >
> > portage:portage
> >
> > I would only trigger something like this once, when upgrading from a
> > version that doesn't have userpriv
>
> I guess something like this might work in pkg_postinst of the portage
> ebuild:
>
> find "$DISTDIR" -maxdepth 1 -type d -uid 0 | xargs chown -R
> portage:portage
>
> I would only trigger something like this once, when upgrading from a
> version that doesn't have userpriv enabled by default
Don't need or care about this anymore, feel free to pick up if you use it
One open bug, http://bugs.gentoo.org/403883
On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> --depclean?
eix Module-Metadata
[I] perl-core/Module-Metadata
Available versions: ~1.0.3 ~1.0.4 ~1.0.5 1.0.6 ~1.0.9<---
not unmasked by --autounmask
Installed versions: 1.0.6(15:59:00 06/26/12)
Homepage:http://search.c
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
> Kent Fredric wrote:
>> Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , "one of,
>> but not more than one of".
>
> A user has a and b installed. c depends upon ^^ ( a b ). The user tries
> to install c.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , "one of,
> but not more than one of".
>
> However, to my knowledge, we don't have such for ebuilds.
>
> Sure, there are ways of implementing this in ebuilds without this
> notatio
Il 02/07/2012 22:45, Zac Medico ha scritto:
On 07/02/2012 01:36 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 02/07/2012 22:01, Zac Medico ha scritto:
On 07/02/2012 12:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 28-05-2012 a las 14:34 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
Hi,
In case you aren't familiar with FEATURES=userpriv
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:45:26 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 01:36 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Il 02/07/2012 22:01, Zac Medico ha scritto:
> >> On 07/02/2012 12:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El lun, 28-05-2012 a las 14:34 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> Hi,
>
> In case
El lun, 02-07-2012 a las 13:45 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 07/02/2012 01:36 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Il 02/07/2012 22:01, Zac Medico ha scritto:
> >> On 07/02/2012 12:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El lun, 28-05-2012 a las 14:34 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> Hi,
>
> In c
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , "one of,
> but not more than one of".
A user has a and b installed. c depends upon ^^ ( a b ). The user tries
to install c. What happens?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descri
21 matches
Mail list logo
