@ago: Why did you remove the 0.3 version of the ebuild?
The bug requested keywording, so, just add ~x86 to the latest version.
Was there an problem with version 0.3?
Non-maintainer commits should have good explanations, and the resons for
removing version 0.3 is not documented in your commit/ech
Le mardi 02 avril 2013 à 09:43 +0200, Michał Górny a écrit :
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:43:31 +0200
> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>
> > Am Dienstag, 2. April 2013, 00:27:59 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> > > > I would like to suggest unifying use-flag usage, and use "zeroconf"
> > > > anywh
---
gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 21 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
index 5ecbd2f..55d32d7 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
+++ b/gx86/e
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass | 41 ++-
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
index dbaed70..fdaed6b 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
+++ b/gx86
Hello,
Currently, the multilib-build eclass uses abi_* constants only for USE
flags and only ${ABI} is exported to the function. This is bad since it
basically requires a reverse mapping of ABI->abi_* values, often
inlined as ${ABI} checks.
The patches which I will send in reply to this thread ai
On 2 April 2013 21:49, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2013 9:47 PM, "Diego Elio Pettenò" wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2013 22:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> > The developer is active he just does not need a working e-mail address.
>> > Some bugs take time to be fixed. Please be patient. We are just
On Apr 2, 2013 9:47 PM, "Diego Elio Pettenò" wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2013 22:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > The developer is active he just does not need a working e-mail address.
Some bugs take time to be fixed. Please be patient. We are just volunteers
here.
>
> I would argue that we should not expe
On Apr 2, 2013 9:46 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:37:45 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 2013 9:24 PM, "Martin Dummer" wrote:
> > > Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
> > > "Dustin Polke"
> > >
> > > While the bug is easy to fix
On 02/04/2013 22:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The developer is active he just does not need a working e-mail address. Some
> bugs take time to be fixed. Please be patient. We are just volunteers here.
I would argue that we should not expect fake email addresses in Bugzilla
for people who are actu
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:37:45 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2013 9:24 PM, "Martin Dummer" wrote:
> > Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
> > "Dustin Polke"
> >
> > While the bug is easy to fix and close, no action happens.
> > So I tried to find out whats
On Apr 2, 2013 9:24 PM, "Martin Dummer" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a question:
>
> Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
> "Dustin Polke"
>
> While the bug is easy to fix and close, no action happens.
> So I tried to f
Am Dienstag, 2. April 2013, 21:46:08 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
> El mar, 02-04-2013 a las 00:42 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> [...]
>
> I will try to remember the issue, but not sure if probably a bug or a
> tracker bug would be better to prevent this from being forgotten
> again :/
Ah don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a question:
Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
"Dustin Polke"
While the bug is easy to fix and close, no action happens.
So I tried to find out whats the meaning of this strange email address.
After a visi
El mar, 02-04-2013 a las 00:42 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
[...]
I will try to remember the issue, but not sure if probably a bug or a
tracker bug would be better to prevent this from being forgotten
again :/
Raymond Jennings posted on Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:35:26 -0700 as excerpted:
> You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at
> how gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few
> role models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a
> devel
On Tuesday 02 April 2013 08:25:43 hasufell wrote:
> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
> the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
> gentoo, no matter what PM y
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:10:27 -0700
Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Hey devs, and hopefully fellow devs before long.
>
> Just joined this list as suggested on irc and I'm going to be lurking
> for awhile to see what you guys actually do every day.
>
> Carry on.
Hello Raymond!
Actions speak louder than
# Michael Sterrett (02 Apr 2013)
# masked for removal on 20130502
# replaced by games-emulation/sdlmess
games-emulation/xmess
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> > question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
> > Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of ope
On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
> Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
> a public debate on this? I guess no, because
> bike
You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at how
gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few role
models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a developer
myself.
I never expected to walk into this sort of tit for tat mud slinging
On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete
> BS ? I didn't.
>
> Alexis.
>
Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the
thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless
"oh lets keep it, oh le
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
Nobody besides that part of the thread is arguing about anything like
that. If you are upset about the endless deb
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> bikeshedding
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hey devs, and hopefully fellow devs before long.
Just joined this list as suggested on irc and I'm going to be lurking for
awhile to see what you guys actually do every day.
Carry on.
On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
>> > wrote:
>> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> >> upg
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
> > wrote:
> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
> >> upgrade paths?
> >>
> >
> > This whole discussion seems a b
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> imho,
..
> we should stick to the "latest stable is the stable" mantra
> (i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably
> should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?)
If it's the agreen-upon way then why not document it?
//Peter
On 02/04/13 15:25, hasufell wrote:
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, ju
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> upgrade paths?
>>
>
> This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that
> we have a version of bash we might
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
> upgrade paths?
>
This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that
we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some
miracle the bash main
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:32:26 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> >> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most
> >> package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be sta
On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
>> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
>> in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
> in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit
> out of gentoo, no matter what P
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:59:43 +0200
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:19:51 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:25:32 +0100
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > I've finally got around to writing the header wrapping functions for
> > > multilib. That's an initial y
01.04.2013 11:52, Michael Palimaka пишет:
> On 1/04/2013 04:29, Denis M. wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> (I was redirected from gentoo-doc@ to ask this here.)
>>
>> I think it's a good idea to expand the categories' descriptions (found
>> in the corresponding metadata.xml files) with more accurate descripti
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:19:51 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:25:32 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > I've finally got around to writing the header wrapping functions for
> > multilib. That's an initial yet working draft. I will send patches
> > in reply to this mail.
>
> Comm
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:34:30 + (UTC)
"Andreas Schuerch (nativemad)" wrote:
> nativemad13/03/18 12:34:30
>
> Modified: ChangeLog ardour-2.8.16.ebuild
> ardour-2.8.14-r1.ebuild
> Added:ardour-3.0.ebuild
> Log:
> new ebuild for ard
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:43:31 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 2. April 2013, 00:27:59 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> > > I would like to suggest unifying use-flag usage, and use "zeroconf"
> > > anywhere.
> >
> > Sounds good. Do you think the same should apply to non-mDNS
40 matches
Mail list logo
