# Michael Palimaka (18 Oct 2012)
# md5 module breaks on 64-bit through improper types (bug #320253),
# libwww-config fails to mention libssl (bug #327377),
# poor programming practices (bug #259287).
# Dead upstream, masked for removal in 30 days.
net-libs/libwww
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less
> > using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is
> > the advantage for a new ebuild to s
Ben Kohler wrote:
> In my ideal world ("if I were king"), today I would delist them
> from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their
> immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.
I'm strongly in favor of this, but of course I am no developer.
//Peter
Alec Warner wrote:
> All services except packages.gentoo.org and bouncer.gentoo.org should
> be functional again (we are waiting on an ACL changes for p.g.o.)
> According to icinga, the outage was approximately 20h (packages
> continues to be down.)
Probably nobody even noticed. I sure didn't.
Th
tl;dr, barbet crashed overnight. It came back up with what is likely
busted memory and weird issues (segfaults, ICE.)
All services except packages.gentoo.org and bouncer.gentoo.org should
be functional again (we are waiting on an ACL changes for p.g.o.)
According to icinga, the outage was approxim
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less
> using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is
> the advantage for a new ebuild to still rely on old src_compile phase
> instead of src_prepare/confi
El mar, 16-10-2012 a las 23:42 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:28:20 +0200
> Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600
> > Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > > I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing
> > > EAPI 1 would be a better ide
On 17.10.2012 03:30, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 10/17/12 06:54, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> One of the items that has come up in the Git conversion, and needs some
>> attention.
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> As such, we've decided to make the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictly enforce what
>> was originally
On 10/17/2012 12:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:54:04 +
> "Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
>> As such, we've decided to make the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictly enforce what
>> was originally intended.
>>
>> - You must specify a key or subkey exactly.
>> - The leading "0x" is optional.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> please stop top posting. you're making a mess of this whole thread.
>
> sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
> include a description so that people know the intention of each one. the
> only
> mar
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:15:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:01:32 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Implicit labels context is build+run.
> Your rules require a handler to say "have I seen any dep: blocks
> further up the tree than my current position? If yes, handle
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> "Steven J. Long" wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as "the
> > > spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to be
> >
On Monday 15 October 2012 04:35:09 Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 9:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Python clearly has an amazing community, so I hate to say anything
> > negative... but I sometimes wish they would "build" less and "buy" more.
>
> build systems are hard to get right. py
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:54:04 +
"Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> Previously, the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY variable has allowed ANY argument, and
> passed it to GPG, letting GPG use that. This was intended to explicitly
> be a unique identifier for a key (or subkey).
>
> However, it seems that there are sig
14 matches
Mail list logo
