-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiya,
On 16/10/13 12:54, Francesco R. wrote:
> Il 16/10/2013 11:15, Mike Auty ha scritto: Add a bash script that
> can download all the files and mention it in postinst. the script
> will download all the files in current directory and put them in
> t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/10/13 12:01, Duncan wrote:
> If it's a core requirement, no problem. But the further from core
> requirement it gets the more sensitive infra seems to be about
> non- trivial space requirements, and any way you look at it, 30
> gigs of rainbo
Dnia 2013-10-16, o godz. 15:11:09
hasufell napisał(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/16/2013 02:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > -- when in doubt -- ask the maintainer.
> >
>
> We should just require maintainers to document what their slots and
> subslots are for in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/10/13 09:11 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 02:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> 4. You *can not* trust portage's --dynamic-deps anymore.
>
>> This one is fairly important. In the past, we often assumed that
>> portage will 'update' deps from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/16/2013 02:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> -- when in doubt -- ask the maintainer.
>
We should just require maintainers to document what their slots and
subslots are for in the ebuild.
>
> 4. You *can not* trust portage's --dynamic-deps anymore.
Hello, all.
Considering the past experiences wrt slot, sub-slot and slot operator
dependencies, I'd like to write some kind of guidelines for using them.
I'd like to know your opinion on my 'draft' and possibly someone more
fluent in English to put them somewhere on the Wiki.
First of all, pleas
Il 16/10/2013 11:15, Mike Auty ha scritto:
> Hiya,
[snip]
> So downloading them manually is a pain (the larger tables aren't in a
> single zip, they're split amongst 12 files for each table), and the
> ebuild to do the downloading is already built. I'll include a
> postinst note indicating that th
Mike Auty posted on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:15:10 +0100 as excerpted:
> First off, thanks everybody for the suggestions. It seems like people
> aren't keen to mirror the large tables on our mirrors, but no one's
> mentioned a reason for not doing so. Is there an infra reason behind
> that or did eve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiya,
First off, thanks everybody for the suggestions. It seems like people
aren't keen to mirror the large tables on our mirrors, but no one's
mentioned a reason for not doing so. Is there an infra reason behind
that or did everyone just take my ca
