On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:14:35 -0700
Matt Turner wrote:
> > MMX2/MMXEXT still confuses me.
>
> SSE1 and /Enhanced/ 3DNow! added some extra MMX instructions. Some
> (pshufw and pmulhuw particularly) turn out to be rather useful in
> software compositing. I use them in the pixman MMX code.
>
> See
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/21/2013 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
>> On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> Remember this is supposed to _hel
Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 00:52:15 +0200 as excerpted:
> In the Portage tree we could avoid users from having to mask files,
> because that could break their system anyway; eg. Go mask some typical
> files [1], you'll end up breaking package compilations in the long run
> as they need
On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:40:27 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > OS: Linux
> > Status: CONFIRMED
> > Severity: enhancement
>
> Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are
> enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (Wha
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:17:30 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
> > bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people
> > don't like it, I suggest you don'
Am Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2013, 01:43:15 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>
> Who said, that bugmail is ignored? Repeating myself, it may be
> accidently deleted by the dev or some software (hint: spam filters), it
> may actually even be ignored to re-use the bug later. Since i dont
> remember even seing a hint
Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
> On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
(there is a package name and maintainer name regex in
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
>>
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> [snip] FIRE! [snip] "hacks" of tools, thank you very much! =:^)
Glad you like it! Something that breaks isn't a solution though...
> It's a specifically designed part of the whole gentoo support of
> choice system yo
On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:46:18 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 5/21/13 1:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras
> > wrote:
> >> I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
> >> bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:04 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
>
> Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>
> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
> a good idea.
Pawel,
>
> Note that there are several things my script will ignore:
>
> 1. Packages with any bugs open.
> 2. Packages which have at least one ~arch dependency.
>
how about putting up a webpage documenting your script policies? Just to
shorten discussions like this one...
The page need not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
>>> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
>>> (there is a package name and maintainer name re
On 5/21/13 1:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
>> bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few*
>> people don't like it, I suggest you don't file bugs for pac
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
> bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people
> don't like it, I suggest you don't file bugs for packages owned by
> them.
+1
I am (was) unhappy wit
On 21 May 2013 19:32, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer resp
On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
> a good idea.
Thomas, this effort
On 05/21/2013 10:02 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:57:53 -0400
> Michael Mol wrote:
>> On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
>>> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:57:53 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
> > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
> >
> > Sure it is. It's a hack and re
On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
>
> Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using
> it without risk of brea
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using
it without risk of breakage.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PG
Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
>>> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
>>> (there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
>>> don't need to "hunt them down" - if you d
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn schrieb:
> Thomas Sachau schrieb:
>> Uhm, automagic stabilization without maintainer ok? This sounds like a
>> bad idea. Doing a batch CC-ing after maintainer gave his ok or
>> anything similar, which starts, when someone actually aproved the
>> stable going is all ok,
On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
>> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
>> (there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
>> don't need to "hunt them down" - if you do nothing another script will
>
On 05/20/2013 11:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell
> wrote:
[snip]
>> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit
>> files is pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot,
>> but that seems like a hack instead of
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
> Uhm, automagic stabilization without maintainer ok? This sounds like a
> bad idea. Doing a batch CC-ing after maintainer gave his ok or
> anything similar, which starts, when someone actually aproved the
> stable going is all ok, but doing this automaticly may get packages
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
> (there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
> don't need to "hunt them down" - if you do nothing another script will
> just CC arches after 30 days.
>
> Paweł
>
Uhm
William Hubbs wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
> > I haven't seen anyone say that in this entire discussion, but I might have
> > missed something. "If a user wants to run GNOME, he [can] switch to systemd"
> > is clearly not saying that, so we're left with an enigmatic "some" who
> > haven't
> > po
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
Well, I have to at least thank you for turning this from just a
typical Gentoo flame-war into a breeding ground for LWN Quote of the
Week candidates.
Rich
On Mon, May 20, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
> pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
> like a hack instead of something more robust. Why include systemd unit
> files (by default
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:03:54 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
> > pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
> > like a hack instead of something more r
On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
> pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
> like a hack instead of something more robust. Why include systemd unit
> files (by default, with no syste
33 matches
Mail list logo
